From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Jun 1 00:46:33 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:46:33 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed Message-ID: I like this especially when you consider how dubious the "Close Combat" rules are in RQ III. I don't have the rules in front of me but as I recall it could result in someone with a gladius stepping in to get a strike on someone with a polearm, only to have pole arm step back. As such no one would get anywhere unless a wall/cliff or such came into the picture. Of course I speak from memory here..... -----Original Message----- Bjorn Stole In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is really no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). In stead, I've incorporated a consept from a longswordmanual from 1410, "giokko lago" and "giokko stretto" (roughly translated into english as "Close play" and "Long play". Long play is basically what you see in fantasymovies as "fencing", whereas Close play is "the art of grappeling, using a weapon". So in your example, the character with the 2h spear would have a CP% and a LP%, and if he got an opening on the left arm with the kite-shield, he could use his Spear-CP-skill, charging the opponent, banging the side of the kite-shield to flip it around, then grappeling the left arm, then imobilise/break it. (In my houserules armor doesn't count vs. grappeling, as a neck breaks equally easy wether it have a pot helmet on top or not. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jun 1 00:49:33 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:33 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII Shaman Message-ID: So true, the rules kinda had great ideas but had gaps in all the important areas. If people play spirit magic in my campaign, its usually just as users who meet upo with a Shaman to "top up" -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Leon Kirshtein Sent: 30 May 2006 19:50 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] RQIII Shaman Oh boy, are you in for a world of hurting. A PC shaman in RQ III is either a gret laibility to the party or a very overbalancing. In either case the rules were not written very well, and most times it was assumed to be an NPC profession. Encounters - according to the rules, these are to happen every day. These should kill any new shaman fairly quickly if you play it as written. Otherwise your shaman will be very, VERY, strong very quickly, due to all the POW gain rolls he will be getting. Plus, since these combas are really quick, in game time, that is lasting less than a round the rest of the party will not be able to do anything to help the shaman. Lots of solo stuff = bad for campaign. Leon __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 01:50:57 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:50:57 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII Shaman In-Reply-To: <57080.65.220.101.126.1149010084.squirrel@crashbox.com> References: <57080.65.220.101.126.1149010084.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: In my experience as a GM, RQIII shamans were a huge pain. The chance of a daily spirit encounter being equal to the combined POW of the shaman + fetch is a killer when you're dealing with extended periods of "down time", unless you create some sort of homebrew mechanic for dealing with aggregated results quickly. And the truth is, that mechanism has all sorts of flaws. Shamans get a crazy number of POW gain rolls, compared to other professions - and since they can dump their excess POW into their fetch, they can maintain their personal POW at a level which gives them a relatively high chance of increasing POW, while at the same time NOT running the risks that other professions would face from having a comparatively low POW. Another flaw in the tables is the random spirit encounter tables - specifically, the chance of meeting a spirit of god-like power, or a god itself. I don't have the tables with me, but I'm pretty sure that those tables meant that the average shaman would meet several random gods a YEAR, some of them hostile. If one interprets the rules strictly, not many shamans should survive for long. In actual play, I'd say that a shaman PC takes considerably more than their fair share of playing time and attention from the GM. Personally, I punted a lot of the rules and made up my own. Spirit hunting while discorporate is something that I usually tried to run out-of-session, and worked out details to make the spirit world and encounters more interesting and strange. One tactic that I found highly effective (both for NPC shamans and PCs) was to use spirits to attack while simultaneously launching a physical attack as well. The victims had to focus their attention on only one of the two attack forms, leaving the others free to attack at will. Deadly. Could the fetch be attacked independently? Interesting question. I don't know if it ever came up in play. But I'd say that while a fetch COULD be attacked independently, since it is an integral part of the shaman's own spirit, it wouldn't be possible to keep the shaman from getting directly involved in the battle as well. Unless the opponent had some unusual, virtually god-like power, of course. ->Peter On 5/30/06, Andrew Mellinger wrote: > > Everyone, > > I've started running an RQIII campaign for people and have some > questions about shamans. I've only played RQ:AiG shaman before, never > RQ:III so this is a new process for me. > > -First off, has anyone played an RQIII shaman. (Fetch and all?) > > -Did you use the spirit random encounter table every day because you have > shaman? > > -How did you hunt for spirits when discorporate? > > -Could the fetch be attacked independent of the shaman during normal > combat? > > Thanks, > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060531/157c05f9/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jun 1 03:43:40 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:43:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060531174340.22925.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their attack or parry. Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon doesn't get a hack. Cheers, Ash --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > I like this especially when you consider how dubious > the "Close Combat" > rules are in RQ III. I don't have the rules in front > of me but as I > recall it could result in someone with a gladius > stepping in to get a > strike on someone with a polearm, only to have pole > arm step back. As > such no one would get anywhere unless a wall/cliff > or such came into the > picture. Of course I speak from memory here..... > > -----Original Message----- > Bjorn Stole > > In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for > weapons (as i use a > restistance roll to decide both active and passive > activity (there is > really no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, > as many actions in > real historical weapon-melee were both active and > passive at the same > time). > > In stead, I've incorporated a consept from a > longswordmanual from 1410, > "giokko lago" and "giokko stretto" (roughly > translated into english as > "Close play" and "Long play". Long play is basically > what you see in > fantasymovies as "fencing", whereas Close play is > "the art of > grappeling, using a weapon". So in your example, the > character with the > 2h spear would have a CP% and a LP%, and if he got > an opening on the > left arm with the kite-shield, he could use his > Spear-CP-skill, charging > the opponent, banging the side of the kite-shield to > flip it around, > then grappeling the left arm, then imobilise/break > it. (In my houserules > armor doesn't count vs. > grappeling, as a neck breaks equally easy wether it > have a pot helmet on > top or not. > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Jun 1 06:13:48 2006 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:48 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed Message-ID: <053120062013.9069.447DF8FC000830E10000236D2206999735CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> My recollection of the rule, was that, no matter the Melee SR, the longer weapon would strike before the short, unless the short weapon closed with the longer. Then the shorter struck before the longer no matter who had the lower Melee SR. An example of how I played the rule: So, a Trolkin with a short sword is in melee with a home steadier using a long spear. The trolkin?s MSR is 6, and the home steadier?s MSR is 7. Because the home steadier is using a longer weapon he gets to make his attack before the trolken, even though the trolken has a lower MSR. The trolken knows this and really wants to get first shot. On the Trolkins DexSR he tries to jump forward and get close. The home steadier has the option to give ground and keep first attack with the longer weapon, or hold the ground and attack after the trolken. Because he is defending the doorway with his wife and kids inside, he bravely holds the ground, allowing the trolken to get close and get first attack. Now because the trolken moved on his DexSR, a 3, I would rule that his attack goes off in SR 9 (move at SR 3 + MSR 6 = 9). The home steadier might have a flicker of hope that his MSR is 7 but the GM would explain that he has a long weapon and the trolken is now inside it. So he has to wait for the trolken?s attack at 9 he then gets to attack. Lucky for the home steadier that his wife is casting Demoralize in MSR 5. Jim -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Ashley Munday > Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side > closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side > closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has > the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their > attack or parry. > > Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up > doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon > doesn't get a hack. > > Cheers, > > Ash From gloomshark at hotmail.com Thu Jun 1 15:37:36 2006 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:37:36 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605301426w6c3724bflaa7687d6ebe00d7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a note, Mongoose has started to release previews on thier site. The below addr should be to the page with them. ~Gloom http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39 >From: Styopa >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ >Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:26:35 -0500 > >I meant, in terms of discussing it publicly, from the Mongoose point of >view. I don't see any actual tangible reason not to say "OK, to hit you >compare Abiility X with Ability Y, and each roll d20s...etc." - the nitty >gritty of the mechanics. > >Generally, when someone refuses to reveal the mechanics of a game - be it a >board wargame, an RPG, or even a computer game - I get immediately >suspicious that they don't trust their logic to the scrutiny of others. > >On 5/29/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: >> >> >Hm, why NOT go into the mechanics of it? >>That's up to individual gaminggroups to decide. >> >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Jun 1 16:36:07 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:36:07 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed Message-ID: Ah, that sounds more familiar. As you can guess, we don't much play the rule, just use a bit of logic and switch strike ranks etc. -----Original Message----- Ashley Munday Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their attack or parry. Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon doesn't get a hack. Cheers, Ash --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > I like this especially when you consider how dubious the "Close > Combat" > rules are in RQ III. I don't have the rules in front of me but as I > recall it could result in someone with a gladius stepping in to get a > strike on someone with a polearm, only to have pole arm step back. As > such no one would get anywhere unless a wall/cliff or such came into > the picture. Of course I speak from memory here..... > > -- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jun 1 21:55:29 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:55:29 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: OK, here follows a rezyme, so you get an understanding of how the principle work: *A fight may take place in 2 modes, either long-play "LP"(distanced melee sparring) or close-play "CP" (body-contact-fighting with or without melee weapons) When two opponents fight, both roll the appropriate melee-skill (either long-play or close play) The margin of success of the participants is pitted against eachother, and as a result, one of the participants have won the round. (Eks: Harrold have LP 50%, and he fights Ingmar (LP 70%). Both roll LP. Harrold gets 20 and Ingmar gets 15. Harrold succeeds his roll with a margin of 30, whild Ingmar succeeds his roll with 55. Ingmars degree of sucess is 40 higher than Harrolds, and Ingmar wins the round.) *The one winning the round now rolls damage, and adds eventual advantages given as a result of his margin of success. The bigger margin of sucess, the higher bonuses apply. I have made my own "margin of success-table" that roughly works the following way: 1-25 = no additional bonuses 26-35 = +1d6 damage, victim roll DEX x 3 or fall. Change hit location roll with +/-10(I have a d100 hit loc. table) 36-50 = +1d8 damage, victim roll DEX or fall. Change hit location roll with +/-20(I have a d100 hit loc. table) 51+ = +1d10 damage, victim fall. Change hit location roll with +/-40(I have a d100 hit loc. table) *Some problems arise, here are some of my solutions: -Several opponents: Subtract 20 or 20% of an out-numbered person pr opponent over 1 you face. -Shield: If a victim have a shield, he may roll a shield-save after the winner have rolled damage. If the SS succeeds, you may subtract the shield's AP from the inflicted damage. -Tie: if nobody get a margin of success, the round is a draw. -What if one wants to use CP and the other wants to use LP? This reflects where one wants to close in, and the other wants to keep distance. In this case, the LP-user have the edge, and gets bonus to his skill according to the weapon he use (roughly equal consept as the "weapon SR modifier" in RQ3). Initiative? The difference in total SR x 5 is a bonus % for the one with the lowest SR Aiming? I don't approve of aiming, that is IMHO covered by the "margin of success-table". >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed >Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:28:34 -0500 > >Bjorn, > >Would you happen to have your house rules posted to the Internet? I'd love >to see them in detail, if you don't mind sharing them. Of course, "no" is a >valid answer. *grin* > >David > > >On 5/30/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: >> >>In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a >>restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is >>really >>no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real >>historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). >> >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 23:11:12 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:11:12 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: References: <56e64e7a0605301426w6c3724bflaa7687d6ebe00d7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606010611q602cbbn77d5cd9081198528@mail.gmail.com> Thanks! Right now they're just art previews as far as I can tell, but they say they'll put up a new preview every week until release. On 6/1/06, Dana Myers wrote: > > Just a note, Mongoose has started to release previews on thier site. The > below addr should be to the page with them. > > ~Gloom > > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060601/d5487b04/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 2 01:01:01 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:01:01 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ Message-ID: <20060601150110.B6ACF7CFB4C@mini.thinbits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Myers" To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:37:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ > Just a note, Mongoose has started to release previews on thier site. The > below addr should be to the page with them. > > ~Gloom > > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39 Apparently all my remarks about the various powers associated to integrated runes were ignored :-( G. From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Jun 2 01:32:39 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:32:39 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060601150110.B6ACF7CFB4C@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060601150110.B6ACF7CFB4C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1149175959.e53b737c76273@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> I'm coming to the end of four years spent writing a thesis - I'm screwed. I've just checked out the Mongoose site and I'm already drooling. I have to say, the idea of playing in 2nd Age Glorantha is deeply, deeply appealing. Nikk From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 01:46:04 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:46:04 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <1149175959.e53b737c76273@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> References: <20060601150110.B6ACF7CFB4C@mini.thinbits.net> <1149175959.e53b737c76273@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606010846icaf4e5aw7ac4ce4d10a7e77e@mail.gmail.com> I'm right there with you, sir. I'm looking forward to seeing the material Mongoose is putting out. I especially like the open licensing. I hope this leads to a RQ renaissance. David On 6/1/06, Nikk Effingham wrote: > > I'm coming to the end of four years spent writing a thesis - I'm screwed. > I've > just checked out the Mongoose site and I'm already drooling. I have to > say, the > idea of playing in 2nd Age Glorantha is deeply, deeply appealing. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060601/14fad853/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 01:54:55 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:54:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606010854v3ca70a23n6ff7c0f2daac68ca@mail.gmail.com> Excellent details, Bjorn. Thank you. I admit to being intrigued by your rules and am looking forward to play-testing them within my group. Heh. I can imagine not too many players choose close-play when fighting broo. David On 6/1/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > OK, here follows a rezyme, so you get an understanding of how the > principle > work: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060601/1a4d9f0f/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jun 2 02:00:08 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:00:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606010846icaf4e5aw7ac4ce4d10a7e77e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060601160008.17222.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I like the idea of the background - I'm just not sure about whether I trust Mongoose to actually turn out a set of rules that are any good. They're DnD splatbooks were the antithesis of the sort of gaming I enjoy these days and they made a complete arse of Judge Dredd. EWF vs. God Learners sounds good though. Ash --- David Smart wrote: > I'm right there with you, sir. I'm looking forward > to seeing the material > Mongoose is putting out. I especially like the open > licensing. I hope this > leads to a RQ renaissance. > > David > > On 6/1/06, Nikk Effingham > wrote: > > > > I'm coming to the end of four years spent writing > a thesis - I'm screwed. > > I've > > just checked out the Mongoose site and I'm already > drooling. I have to > > say, the > > idea of playing in 2nd Age Glorantha is deeply, > deeply appealing. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 02:02:31 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Im screwed Message-ID: <20060601160231.42958.qmail@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Who cares about the rules. GL vs EWF!! drool, drool, drool Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I like the idea of the background - I'm just not sure > about whether I trust Mongoose to actually turn out a > set of rules that are any good. They're DnD splatbooks > were the antithesis of the sort of gaming I enjoy > these days and they made a complete arse of Judge > Dredd. > > EWF vs. God Learners sounds good though. > > Ash > > --- David Smart wrote: > > > I'm right there with you, sir. I'm looking forward > > to seeing the material > > Mongoose is putting out. I especially like the open > > licensing. I hope this > > leads to a RQ renaissance. > > > > David > > > > On 6/1/06, Nikk Effingham > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm coming to the end of four years spent writing > > a thesis - I'm screwed. > > > I've > > > just checked out the Mongoose site and I'm already > > drooling. I have to > > > say, the > > > idea of playing in 2nd Age Glorantha is deeply, > > deeply appealing. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 03:15:44 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP, This List?, Grapple rules In-Reply-To: <20060530111814.8269.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060529103114.3F4607B0AE5@mini.thinbits.net> <20060530111814.8269.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/30/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > That's a shame. It could mean that your site might fall behind as more > and more new things come out, which wouldn't be a good thing. > > It might be worth supporting it, if only to bring out house rules that > make it a better system. Not that I am pre-judging it, or anything. > You mean my site hasn't fallen behind ALREADY?! :D Seriously, as far as I'm concerned if a system isn't compatible enough to allow easy conversion to and from pre-existing versions of RQ, it's not RQ - no matter what name is printed on the cover. That's why my site doesn't particularly support RuneQuest:Slayers, for example. Rules and variants aren't the main focus of the site anyway; I've always been more interested in scenarios and plot elements. If anyone else wants to send me material for MRQ, I'd certainly publish it. But as for my own purchasing plans, I won't spend a penny on MRQ. It's just my good luck (I suppose) that everything I've seen and heard about MRQ has been less than impressive. I don't want to be accused of shilling for DBRP again, but it's another stroke of luck for me as a gamer that it's coming out as a viable alternative to MRQ - a superior one, in my personal opinion. So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? ->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/20060601/4d9f262a/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 04:55:44 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:55:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP, This List?, Grapple rules In-Reply-To: References: <20060529103114.3F4607B0AE5@mini.thinbits.net> <20060530111814.8269.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <447F3830.6000702@gmail.com> Actually other than in the original playtest games with Steve, & the recently past play-testing with Steve again for Mongoose (before they dumped us) I never played Glorantha but created a broad spectrum of other settings. takk, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > On 5/30/06, *Simon Phipp* > wrote: > > That's a shame. It could mean that your site might fall behind as > more and more new things come out, which wouldn't be a good thing. > > It might be worth supporting it, if only to bring out house rules > that make it a better system. Not that I am pre-judging it, or > anything. > > > You mean my site hasn't fallen behind ALREADY?! :D > > Seriously, as far as I'm concerned if a system isn't compatible enough > to allow easy conversion to and from pre-existing versions of RQ, it's > not RQ - no matter what name is printed on the cover. That's why my > site doesn't particularly support RuneQuest:Slayers, for example. > Rules and variants aren't the main focus of the site anyway; I've > always been more interested in scenarios and plot elements. > > If anyone else wants to send me material for MRQ, I'd certainly > publish it. But as for my own purchasing plans, I won't spend a penny > on MRQ. It's just my good luck (I suppose) that everything I've seen > and heard about MRQ has been less than impressive. > > I don't want to be accused of shilling for DBRP again, but it's > another stroke of luck for me as a gamer that it's coming out as a > viable alternative to MRQ - a superior one, in my personal opinion. > > So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? > > ->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/20060601/913552ec/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Fri Jun 2 08:11:53 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:11:53 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060601160008.17222.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C853DF85A827B7-1840-C16@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> No Red Moon or Lunars though...right? If I can recall my old Gloranthan Lore, Pavis is still in its glory and the Rubble is not yet Rubble. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Ashley Munday To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:00:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed I like the idea of the background - I'm just not sure about whether I trust Mongoose to actually turn out a set of rules that are any good. They're DnD splatbooks were the antithesis of the sort of gaming I enjoy these days and they made a complete arse of Judge Dredd. EWF vs. God Learners sounds good though. Ash -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060601/05d40086/attachment.html From andrep at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 2 15:26:54 2006 From: andrep at sbcglobal.net (andrep) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:26:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <20060601185606.22C7C7D213F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: Peter said, >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but have never been inspired to set foot there. Andre' Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 From devinc at aol.com Fri Jun 2 15:44:14 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:44:14 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C8541EB772BC65-1840-1ECE@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> I'd love to see Greyhawk done up in RQ rules. -----Original Message----- From: andrep To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:26:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? Peter said, >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but have never been inspired to set foot there. Andre' Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 _______________________________________________ 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/20060602/4fcf0227/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 2 15:51:02 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ Message-ID: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> Devin, Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? Talking of which, where is he recently... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/8f3ea8c1/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 20:07:10 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:07:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060601185606.2E9727D2140@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060602100710.98857.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Nikk Effingham: > I'm coming to the end of four years spent writing a thesis - I'm screwed. I've > just checked out the Mongoose site and I'm already drooling. I have to say, the > idea of playing in 2nd Age Glorantha is deeply, deeply appealing. I had my finals in 1985, when RQ3 came out. I was screwed then, too, so I sympathise. David Smart: > I'm right there with you, sir. I'm looking forward to seeing the material > Mongoose is putting out. I especially like the open licensing. I hope this > leads to a RQ renaissance. Well, the previews _look_ really nice. They've changed the runes again (Metal, Communication) but that's what you'd expect. At least they haven't gone overboard with the Elmal Rune or the Oh-No-Not-Another-Godling Rune. Ashley Munday: > I like the idea of the background Honestly, who couldn't like the idea of the 2nd Age background? Except rabid Gloranthaphobes, of course. (*) > - I'm just not sure > about whether I trust Mongoose to actually turn out a > set of rules that are any good. They're DnD splatbooks > were the antithesis of the sort of gaming I enjoy > these days and they made a complete arse of Judge > Dredd. The question we should be asking is "Are they more capable than Avalon Hill?". Chaosium brought out some good stuff many, many years ago. Avalon Hill brought out a few good books, a few reprints and a few lousy books. If Mongoose can match or exceed Avalaon Hill's production then RQ stands a chance. With the Open Licence, we may even see a lot of non-Mongoose supplements, which would be good. > EWF vs. God Learners sounds good though. It all ends horribly, though. Peter Maranci: > You mean my site hasn't fallen behind ALREADY?! :D Well, it's compatible with the most recent published version of RQ, so that makes it current. > Seriously, as far as I'm concerned if a system isn't compatible enough to > allow easy conversion to and from pre-existing versions of RQ, it's not RQ - Yes, I'd agree. Let's hope that MRQ is vaguely compatible. > Rules and variants > aren't the main focus of the site anyway; I've always been more interested > in scenarios and plot elements. Which you could still support .... > I don't want to be accused of shilling for DBRP again, but it's another > stroke of luck for me as a gamer that it's coming out as a viable > alternative to MRQ - a superior one, in my personal opinion. Well, yes, but it looks quite incompatible with RQ3, glancing at the playtest files. You could make it compatible by ignoring all the CoC junk, using RQ3 spells and forgetting about Powers for RQ games, but that makes it not really compatible. Of course, I am pre-judging that as well, so ignore me until the real thing comes out. (*) > So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? Sick of Glorantha? Well, bless my soul, I'm shocked. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/1f8e0f4f/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jun 2 20:44:51 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:44:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060602100710.98857.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >> I don't want to be accused of shilling for DBRP again, but it's another >> stroke of luck for me as a gamer that it's coming out as a viable >> alternative to MRQ - a superior one, in my personal opinion. >Well, yes, but it looks quite incompatible with RQ3, glancing at the playtest files. You could make it compatible by ignoring all the CoC junk, using >RQ3 spells and forgetting about Powers for RQ games, but that makes it not really compatible. Err, you might want to read those files a little more carefully. The COC elements in the new BRP (mainly EDU and SAN) are optional. Skills, Combat, Damage and the underpinnings of Powers as Magic basically work as they do in RQII/III/Stormbringer 5: RQ specific systems like Hit Locations and Strike Ranks are optional, but Specials and Criticals and Skill categories are pretty much as RQIII; category modifiers are another option. Professions are more like SB 5, but that's not that far from the RQIII Quick experience system. The key thing for me is that in BRP terms mean what they always meant - a Strike Rank in BRP (if one uses them) means almost exactly what it means in RQII/III. This is NOT the case with MRQ. The Powers chapter we're waiting on the latest version, but the original was entirely compatible with RQIII in that it was clearly possible to build the RQIII Spirit Magic and Divine Magic "spells" using the Powers system (Sorcery looked possible but a little trickier), and thus it is equally possible to plug the existing RQIII versions directly in to BRP (Jason has mentioned the possibility of a BRP Magic book with the RQIII magic systems, and others, as a sort of "campaign options" book). I can see no problems in picking up BRP and using it to run a scenario from say QuestWorld or Shadows on the Borderlands, pretty much on the spur of the moment - the last version of MRQ I saw I certainly couldn't do that with, albeit those in the closed playtest have said the compatibility has improved since. >> So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? >Sick of Glorantha? Well, bless my soul, I'm shocked. I'm hardly "sick of Glorantha", but then I was never a fanatic and in the last ten years or so I have acquired a mild distaste for where it's gone... 2nd Age is at least a fresh era, but if it gets mired in the sort of uninteresting cod-anthropology and tedious fiddly detail that mires HW/HQ, it'll fall flat on its face commercially, and we've yet to see how well Mongoose and Issaries will balance their differing needs. I am more interested in Lankhmar, albeit given Mongooses handling of Babylon 5, the only other license they have that I care about, I'm not optimistic about that either. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 21:23:59 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:23:59 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <053120062013.9069.447DF8FC000830E10000236D2206999735CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: Actually the rule of sr on weapons is quite sound. When a person with a spear spar with a person with a sword, he can stay out of the dangerzone of the sword and still deliver kills. So there is really only one option for the swordman (apart from running away) and that is to try to close. There are several closing-techniques, but all of them are risky, as the one with the spear have the possebillity to call the bluff and to kill, or to retreat and kill before the closing-attempt have succeeded. If the one with the shorter weapn manage to "get inside" the killzone of the spear, the advantages works the oposite way -just as the RQ3 rules states. "If a perosn with a small weapon manage to close, he automatically act before the one with the longer weapon" (-free from memory). >From: bick10 at comcast.net >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed >Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:48 +0000 > >My recollection of the rule, was that, no matter the Melee SR, the longer >weapon would strike before the short, unless the short weapon closed with >the longer. Then the shorter struck before the longer no matter who had >the lower Melee SR. > >An example of how I played the rule: >So, a Trolkin with a short sword is in melee with a home steadier using a >long spear. The trolkin?s MSR is 6, and the home steadier?s MSR is 7. >Because the home steadier is using a longer weapon he gets to make his >attack before the trolken, even though the trolken has a lower MSR. The >trolken knows this and really wants to get first shot. On the Trolkins >DexSR he tries to jump forward and get close. The home steadier has the >option to give ground and keep first attack with the longer weapon, or hold >the ground and attack after the trolken. Because he is defending the >doorway with his wife and kids inside, he bravely holds the ground, >allowing the trolken to get close and get first attack. > >Now because the trolken moved on his DexSR, a 3, I would rule that his >attack goes off in SR 9 (move at SR 3 + MSR 6 = 9). The home steadier >might have a flicker of hope that his MSR is 7 but the GM would explain >that he has a long weapon and the trolken is now inside it. So he has to >wait for the trolken?s attack at 9 he then gets to attack. > >Lucky for the home steadier that his wife is casting Demoralize in MSR 5. > > >Jim > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- >From: Ashley Munday > > Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side > > closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side > > closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has > > the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their > > attack or parry. > > > > Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up > > doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon > > doesn't get a hack. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Fri Jun 2 14:29:11 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Porfirio) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:29:11 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Stop waste your money now cheap pills same result Message-ID: <8503036.20060602062911@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/32beea83/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Fri Jun 2 17:46:31 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Stephan) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:46:31 -0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Season sales! Cheap tabs! Message-ID: <58063396.20060602064631@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/403abb11/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Jun 2 23:06:42 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <448037E2.20701@inetnebr.com> I believe something is being missed here. The ability to attack "first" is only "really" useful well initially remember melee rounds are arbitrary slices of time, In a round (they are "round") the beginning of one is realistically identical to the end of the other. The one with "higher odds / more attempts" is still likely to be the first real "hitter." .. So.. Unless somebody at their range has an advantage on to hit or damage or number of attacks they can accomplish the hits first in a round is a ho-hum non advantage This advantage is even more ho hum since If you take somebody with surprise you are probably starting battle at your range not theirs the longer weapon user looses this initial advantage because getting it in position takes longer... Harder hitting is realistic too leverage is better at your range... a large weapon you are making mini strokes with because your opponent is too close just won't do much damage and slices made outside of range are just not too useful or threatening. Strike Ranks and Damage in combination could be used... RULE IDEA You could give a increase in SR it takes to perform the shorter weapon attacks to represent that they have to get past the opponents weapon... then when they succede in an attack that means they closed.... then give a penalty to the larger weapons damage. Both damage reduction and SR cost could be based on the differences in the weapons reach. Penalties for to hit and to block would go with the off range weapon. NOTE: Staves and spears (which can be used to block like a stave) can be used well at shorter ranges by changing grip which would cost SR initially and for a spear changes the nature of damage they deal. Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Actually the rule of sr on weapons is quite sound. When a person with > a spear spar with a person with a sword, he can stay out of the > dangerzone of the sword and still deliver kills. So there is really > only one option for the swordman (apart from running away) and that is > to try to close. There are several closing-techniques, but all of them > are risky, as the one with the spear have the possebillity to call the > bluff and to kill, or to retreat and kill before the closing-attempt > have succeeded. If the one with the shorter weapn manage to "get > inside" the killzone of the spear, the advantages works the oposite > way -just as the RQ3 rules states. "If a perosn with a small weapon > manage to close, he automatically act before the one with the longer > weapon" (-free from memory). the attacking first rule doesnt give much real advantage.. you still end up taking turns with the same odds and same damage as before etc. to give real advantage at range you might substantially increase the SR > > >> From: bick10 at comcast.net >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed >> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:48 +0000 >> >> My recollection of the rule, was that, no matter the Melee SR, the >> longer weapon would strike before the short, unless the short weapon >> closed with the longer. Then the shorter struck before the longer no >> matter who had the lower Melee SR. >> >> An example of how I played the rule: >> So, a Trolkin with a short sword is in melee with a home steadier >> using a long spear. The trolkin?s MSR is 6, and the home steadier?s >> MSR is 7. Because the home steadier is using a longer weapon he >> gets to make his attack before the trolken, even though the trolken >> has a lower MSR. The trolken knows this and really wants to get >> first shot. On the Trolkins DexSR he tries to jump forward and get >> close. The home steadier has the option to give ground and keep >> first attack with the longer weapon, or hold the ground and attack >> after the trolken. Because he is defending the doorway with his wife >> and kids inside, he bravely holds the ground, allowing the trolken to >> get close and get first attack. >> >> Now because the trolken moved on his DexSR, a 3, I would rule that >> his attack goes off in SR 9 (move at SR 3 + MSR 6 = 9). The home >> steadier might have a flicker of hope that his MSR is 7 but the GM >> would explain that he has a long weapon and the trolken is now inside >> it. So he has to wait for the trolken?s attack at 9 he then gets to >> attack. >> >> Lucky for the home steadier that his wife is casting Demoralize in >> MSR 5. >> >> >> Jim >> >> -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: Ashley Munday >> > Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side >> > closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side >> > closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has >> > the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their >> > attack or parry. >> > >> > Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up >> > doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon >> > doesn't get a hack. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Ash >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 aluban at yahoo.fr Sat Jun 3 01:06:54 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060602150654.94357.qmail@web27712.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Not exactly sick of Glorantha, but I almost never played in it. I discovered Glorantha when I was 13 (in 1988) through french-translated material, and it was rather incomplete. Playing in Dragon Pass and getting the right mood when all you've got is Avalon Hill's Genertela box is impossible. So, I only tried a very short campaign in Glorantha and quickly decided to create my own world suited for RQ3's system. andrep a ?crit : Peter said, >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but have never been inspired to set foot there. Andre' Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 _______________________________________________ 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/20060602/d19a675c/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 01:09:14 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] sick of Glorantha? Message-ID: <20060602150914.4878.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Most of my games are a mixture of Gloranthan and none Gloranthan material. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Not exactly sick of Glorantha, but I almost never played in it. > > I discovered Glorantha when I was 13 (in 1988) through french-translated material, and it was rather incomplete. Playing in Dragon Pass and getting the right mood when all you've got is Avalon Hill's Genertela box is impossible. > > So, I only tried a very short campaign in Glorantha and quickly decided to create my own world suited for RQ3's system. > > andrep a ?crit : > > Peter said, > > >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? > > Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but > have never been inspired to set foot there. > > Andre' > Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > --------------------------------- > Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.T?l?chargez la version beta. > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sat Jun 3 01:16:09 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:16:09 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] sick of Glorantha? References: <20060602150914.4878.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000d01c68657$7cef92b0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > Most of my games are a mixture of Gloranthan and none > Gloranthan material. For me, Glorantha is the reason to play RQ, though I have always used non-Gloranthan modules in my games. Much of why I'm only interested in playing the combination of RQ and Glorantha is that, while I like the rules, I definitley don't like them for everything, and there are some definite things I dislike. Frank From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Sat Jun 3 01:19:27 2006 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:19:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? Message-ID: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B026AD0FE@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> I know what you feel, I get my first hand on RQ with the 1st french Ed from oriflam in which the Glorantha background whas almost inexistant. It came slowly in suplements but until the genertela and gods of glorantha supplements it was very difficult for us french to apprehend all the richness of that world. Pascal ________________________________ Not exactly sick of Glorantha, but I almost never played in it. I discovered Glorantha when I was 13 (in 1988) through french-translated material, and it was rather incomplete. Playing in Dragon Pass and getting the right mood when all you've got is Avalon Hill's Genertela box is impossible. So, I only tried a very short campaign in Glorantha and quickly decided to create my own world suited for RQ3's system. andrep a ?crit : Peter said, >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but have never been inspired to set foot there. Andre' Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 _______________________________________________ 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/20060602/5858f1c3/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 01:23:22 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? Message-ID: <20060602152322.268.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am even currently running a D&D game set in Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a bit. The players are just not as interested in check grabing ;) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I know what you feel, I get my first hand on RQ with the 1st french Ed > from oriflam in which the Glorantha background whas almost inexistant. > > > > It came slowly in suplements but until the genertela and gods of > glorantha supplements it was very difficult for us french to apprehend > all the richness of that world. > > > > Pascal > > ________________________________ > > > > Not exactly sick of Glorantha, but I almost never played in it. > > > > I discovered Glorantha when I was 13 (in 1988) through french-translated > material, and it was rather incomplete. Playing in Dragon Pass and > getting the right mood when all you've got is Avalon Hill's Genertela > box is impossible. > > > > So, I only tried a very short campaign in Glorantha and quickly decided > to create my own world suited for RQ3's system. > > > andrep a ?crit : > > > Peter said, > > >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? > > Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, > but > have never been inspired to set foot there. > > Andre' > Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > ssenger.yahoo.com> la version beta. > > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jun 3 01:28:56 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:28:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <000d01c68657$7cef92b0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> References: <20060602150914.4878.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000d01c68657$7cef92b0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606020828ta4e92f4xd6f7b8deca033352@mail.gmail.com> And I'm like Andre. I have all the Gloranthan supplement, read them often, but have always used my own campaign background that is definitely non-Gloranthan in nature. I'm just not a big Gloranthan fan though I run a couple of characters through the supplements solo. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/fefa9c9b/attachment.html From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Jun 3 01:59:23 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:59:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <448037E2.20701@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <002101c6865d$84a5d9a0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> To throw in my two cents; I actually rely on the Maneuver skill which allows the player to strategically adjust their position in combat; this could be moving safely out of combat (i.e. avoiding attacks of opportunity as you retreat), stepping out from a disadvantage (i.e. from having one opponent in front and one behind to getting both in your field of vision), or adjusting ones combat range. If a spearman enters combat it is assumed he will attempt to maintain optimal range. If a swordsman wants to close he must make a successful Maneuver to move in and the spearman can attempt to counter with his own roll. For simplicity over realism I generally use the same modifiers for any strategic advantage (i.e. being mounted against foot solider, holding the high ground, and having optimal range); +10% to character with the advantage and -10% to the character with the disadvantage. In the case of a spearman, I also allow shorter range weapons such as daggers or grapple to maneuver beyond the advantage range and close to a point where the weapon becomes ineffective,... a common martial arts tactic. Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Lance Dyas Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:07 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed I believe something is being missed here. The ability to attack "first" is only "really" useful well initially remember melee rounds are arbitrary slices of time, In a round (they are "round") the beginning of one is realistically identical to the end of the other. The one with "higher odds / more attempts" is still likely to be the first real "hitter." .. So.. Unless somebody at their range has an advantage on to hit or damage or number of attacks they can accomplish the hits first in a round is a ho-hum non advantage This advantage is even more ho hum since If you take somebody with surprise you are probably starting battle at your range not theirs the longer weapon user looses this initial advantage because getting it in position takes longer... Harder hitting is realistic too leverage is better at your range... a large weapon you are making mini strokes with because your opponent is too close just won't do much damage and slices made outside of range are just not too useful or threatening. Strike Ranks and Damage in combination could be used... RULE IDEA You could give a increase in SR it takes to perform the shorter weapon attacks to represent that they have to get past the opponents weapon... then when they succede in an attack that means they closed.... then give a penalty to the larger weapons damage. Both damage reduction and SR cost could be based on the differences in the weapons reach. Penalties for to hit and to block would go with the off range weapon. NOTE: Staves and spears (which can be used to block like a stave) can be used well at shorter ranges by changing grip which would cost SR initially and for a spear changes the nature of damage they deal. Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Actually the rule of sr on weapons is quite sound. When a person with > a spear spar with a person with a sword, he can stay out of the > dangerzone of the sword and still deliver kills. So there is really > only one option for the swordman (apart from running away) and that is > to try to close. There are several closing-techniques, but all of them > are risky, as the one with the spear have the possebillity to call the > bluff and to kill, or to retreat and kill before the closing-attempt > have succeeded. If the one with the shorter weapn manage to "get > inside" the killzone of the spear, the advantages works the oposite > way -just as the RQ3 rules states. "If a perosn with a small weapon > manage to close, he automatically act before the one with the longer > weapon" (-free from memory). the attacking first rule doesnt give much real advantage.. you still end up taking turns with the same odds and same damage as before etc. to give real advantage at range you might substantially increase the SR > > >> From: bick10 at comcast.net >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed >> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:48 +0000 >> >> My recollection of the rule, was that, no matter the Melee SR, the >> longer weapon would strike before the short, unless the short weapon >> closed with the longer. Then the shorter struck before the longer no >> matter who had the lower Melee SR. >> >> An example of how I played the rule: >> So, a Trolkin with a short sword is in melee with a home steadier >> using a long spear. The trolkin's MSR is 6, and the home steadier's >> MSR is 7. Because the home steadier is using a longer weapon he >> gets to make his attack before the trolken, even though the trolken >> has a lower MSR. The trolken knows this and really wants to get >> first shot. On the Trolkins DexSR he tries to jump forward and get >> close. The home steadier has the option to give ground and keep >> first attack with the longer weapon, or hold the ground and attack >> after the trolken. Because he is defending the doorway with his wife >> and kids inside, he bravely holds the ground, allowing the trolken to >> get close and get first attack. >> >> Now because the trolken moved on his DexSR, a 3, I would rule that >> his attack goes off in SR 9 (move at SR 3 + MSR 6 = 9). The home >> steadier might have a flicker of hope that his MSR is 7 but the GM >> would explain that he has a long weapon and the trolken is now inside >> it. So he has to wait for the trolken's attack at 9 he then gets to >> attack. >> >> Lucky for the home steadier that his wife is casting Demoralize in >> MSR 5. >> >> >> Jim >> >> -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: Ashley Munday >> > Sounds a bit like the closing rule - if neither side >> > closes then combat is just attack/parry. If one side >> > closes and the other doesn't back up then whoever has >> > the longer weapon (fewer SR) looses one either their >> > attack or parry. >> > >> > Just 'cause the person with the longer weapon backs up >> > doesn't mean the person with the shorter weapon >> > doesn't get a hack. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Ash >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 3 08:48:52 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:48:52 -1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4480C054.5080206@concentric.net> andrep wrote: > Peter said, > >> So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? > > Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but > have never been inspired to set foot there. Ditto, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one. I enjoy reading about Glorantha in relatively small doses (the Biturian Varosh sidebars in the old Cults of Prax is about right), long lists of Pavic kings and timelines of events in the Lunar Empire generally leave me cold. And I have little interest in playing in Glorantha. If I want a really immersive and convincing alternate world, I'd pick Tekumel over Glorantha any day. Buuuuut...I like BRP/RQ better than any rules set yet published for Tekumel; which is why I'm here. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sat Jun 3 03:13:36 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:13:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? References: <4480C054.5080206@concentric.net> Message-ID: <003201c68667$e351a510$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Stephen Posey wrote: > andrep wrote: >> Peter said, >> >>> So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? >> >> Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan >> supplements, but have never been inspired to set foot there. > > Ditto, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one. > > I enjoy reading about Glorantha in relatively small doses (the > Biturian Varosh sidebars in the old Cults of Prax is about right), > long lists of Pavic kings and timelines of events in the Lunar Empire > generally leave me cold. > > And I have little interest in playing in Glorantha. If I want a > really immersive and convincing alternate world, I'd pick Tekumel over > Glorantha any day. Hmm, I've been coming to the conclusion that Glorantha is a better gaming world than Tekumel. Of course part of that is I have little interest in running the sort of political intrique which is what Tekumel really seems to be about. One serious problem I have with Tekumel is how static it is. I also find that Glorantha provides far more opportunities for adventure. Another problem with Tekumel is the alienness of it. You just can't fall back on your knowledge of Earth, whereas Glorantha, while it has some really alien things, is pretty European in nature. I tend to agree with you though that long lists of ancient kings and such aren't all that useful to play. But that's only characteristic of the newer material. The 1st/2nd./3rd edition stuff is all well focused on stuff of interest to adventurers. Frank From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 03:14:33 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:14:33 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <20060602152322.268.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060602152322.268.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 6/2/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > I am even currently running a D&D game set in > Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real > problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a > bit. The players are just not as interested in check > grabing ;) "Check grabbing"? That's interesting. I've been playing D&D 3.5 for the last couple of years - there's literally no one available to play RQ with - and more and more, I've come to appreciate the skill-improvement mechanism of RQ. It simply SUCKS to have to play for months on end before getting a chance to improve or change your character! The pace of change is so dreadfully slow that it's painful. Not to mention the pure awkwardness of levels in D&D; some levels are extremely beneficial, while others are virtually useless. And don't even get me started about Feat and characteristic improvement! What's the sense of having an improvement that you have to wait for a YEAR of playing time to achieve? Okay, the GM for the game I was in was probably a bit stingier than most with experience, but honestly, the RQ experience system beats D&D all to hell. But I realize that I'm preaching to the choir. It does seem that the RQ system is often unfairly maligned for "problems" that are due to bad GMing and bad players, though. The "weapons caddy" charge is often brought up. But the fact is that every version of the RQ rules that I've ever read makes it quite clear that experience checks should not be abused, and that the GM has the authority to rein in players who DO abuse them. So criticising the system on that basis is hardly justified. No offense intended, Leon - I just needed to rant. ->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/20060602/319c4d5a/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sat Jun 3 03:38:42 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:38:42 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? References: <20060602152322.268.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004a01c6866b$648cf5a0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Peter Maranci wrote: >> On 6/2/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: >>> >>> I am even currently running a D&D game set in >>> Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real >>> problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a >>> bit. The players are just not as interested in check >>> grabing ;) >> >> >> "Check grabbing"? That's interesting. I've been playing D&D 3.5 for >> the last couple of years - there's literally no one available to >> play RQ with - and more and more, I've come to appreciate the >> skill-improvement mechanism of RQ. >> >> It simply SUCKS to have to play for months on end before getting a >> chance to improve or change your character! The pace of change is so >> dreadfully slow that it's painful. Not to mention the pure >> awkwardness of levels in D&D; some levels are extremely beneficial, >> while others are virtually useless. And don't even get me started >> about Feat and characteristic improvement! What's the sense of >> having an improvement that you have to wait for a YEAR of playing >> time to achieve? Hmm, how are you playing 3.5? My experience with 3.5, following the XP rules, was level ups every 2 sessions because of the challenges I was giving the party (and the length of play sessions). The game is built around approximately 4 4 hour sessions to gain a level. That said, I agree, one of the nice things about RQ is the incremental skill increase, but in a way that prevents the single trick pony problem that can plague Hero and GURPS, and on the flip side, also moderating the problem of the jack of all trades, master of none, useless for anything problem. I also have always appreciated RQ for creating a sustainable treasure economy that doesn't overload the characters with magic items (though in long running campaigns, PCs have had decent collections of crystals and matrices). >> It does seem that the RQ system is often unfairly maligned for >> "problems" that are due to bad GMing and bad players, though. The >> "weapons caddy" charge is often brought up. But the fact is that >> every version of the RQ rules that I've ever read makes it quite >> clear that experience checks should not be abused, and that the GM >> has the authority to rein in players who DO abuse them. So >> criticising the system on that basis is hardly justified. One of my end solutions to this "problem," which I've also never actually really seen, is to limit the number of experience rolls each PC can make. Sure, you've got checks in all your weapons, and 10 other skills, but you only get 8 improvement rolls. The other solution is to make it cost to switch weapons. On the flip side, I do have a serious problem with rules that require the players NOT respond to the XP system with mechanically non-optimal behavior. If certain "by the rules" play is not desireable, the rules are broken, or at least the players (including the GM) have not properly established a shared standard of play [or social contract - to borrow a term from the Forge http://www.indie-rpgs.com - all terms in brackets come from language used there]. I've recently been reading some of my old Wild Hunt zines, and saw some of the early responses to this issue. I think it doesn't come up with players who are playing RQ for the experience of an interesting world [simulationism]. If players are playing for game prowess [gamism], then RQ has some flaws. In college, I ended up bailing on RQ because the players there were hard core gamists. They had a really nice system that supported that style of play quite well (and it actually owes a lot to RQ). Frank From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 03:50:38 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed Message-ID: <20060602175038.70887.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I too use the Maneuver skill for this purpose. Usually will just make opposing skill rolls to determine the result. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > To throw in my two cents; > > I actually rely on the Maneuver skill which allows the player to > strategically adjust their position in combat; this could be moving > safely out of combat (i.e. avoiding attacks of opportunity as you > retreat), stepping out from a disadvantage (i.e. from having one > opponent in front and one behind to getting both in your field of > vision), or adjusting ones combat range. If a spearman enters combat it > is assumed he will attempt to maintain optimal range. If a swordsman > wants to close he must make a successful Maneuver to move in and the > spearman can attempt to counter with his own roll. > > For simplicity over realism I generally use the same modifiers for any > strategic advantage (i.e. being mounted against foot solider, holding > the high ground, and having optimal range); +10% to character with the > advantage and -10% to the character with the disadvantage. In the case > of a spearman, I also allow shorter range weapons such as daggers or > grapple to maneuver beyond the advantage range and close to a point > where the weapon becomes ineffective,... a common martial arts tactic. > > Cheers, > Bert > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Lance Dyas > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:07 AM > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed > > I believe something is being missed here. The ability to attack "first" > is only "really" useful well initially remember melee rounds are > arbitrary slices of time, In a round (they are "round") the beginning > of one is realistically identical to the end of the other. The one with > "higher odds / more attempts" is still likely to be the first real > "hitter." .. So.. Unless somebody at their range has an advantage on to > hit or damage or number of attacks they can accomplish the hits first in > > a round is a ho-hum non advantage This advantage is even more ho hum > since If you take somebody with surprise you are probably starting > battle at your range not theirs the longer weapon user looses this > initial advantage because getting it in position takes longer... > > Harder hitting is realistic too leverage is better at your range... a > large weapon you are making mini strokes with because your opponent is > too close just won't do much damage and slices made outside of range are > > just not too useful or threatening. > > Strike Ranks and Damage in combination could be used... > > RULE IDEA > You could give a increase in SR it takes to perform the shorter weapon > attacks to represent that they have to get past the opponents weapon... > then when they succede in an attack that means they closed.... then give > > a penalty to the larger weapons damage. > Both damage reduction and SR cost could be based on the differences in > the weapons reach. > Penalties for to hit and to block would go with the off range weapon. > > NOTE: Staves and spears (which can be used to block like a stave) can be > > used well at shorter ranges by changing grip which would cost SR > initially and for a spear changes the nature of damage they deal. > > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > Actually the rule of sr on weapons is quite sound. When a person with > > a spear spar with a person with a sword, he can stay out of the > > dangerzone of the sword and still deliver kills. So there is really > > only one option for the swordman (apart from running away) and that is > > > to try to close. There are several closing-techniques, but all of them > > > are risky, as the one with the spear have the possebillity to call the > > > bluff and to kill, or to retreat and kill before the closing-attempt > > have succeeded. If the one with the shorter weapn manage to "get > > inside" the killzone of the spear, the advantages works the oposite === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From devinc at aol.com Sat Jun 3 04:03:18 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:03:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ In-Reply-To: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> References: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> Message-ID: <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> Have not seen it. What's the URL? -----Original Message----- From: Clive Wickens To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ Devin, Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? Talking of which, where is he recently... _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/e672be63/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 3 04:18:37 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:18:37 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site for Devin Message-ID: <000601c68670$f7d0c030$645a8456@sickboy> Et voila ! http://talmeta.net/ The Greyhawk stuff is under campaign worlds if memory serves. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/d4f01ec3/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 04:18:49 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:18:49 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <003201c68667$e351a510$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> References: <4480C054.5080206@concentric.net> <003201c68667$e351a510$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606021118w554777dfoe66eb7a251cb23e2@mail.gmail.com> Thus why I've always found RQ most enjoyable in a European setting. Glorantha makes a nice "wierd destination" for someone who gets shifted to another dimension or something odd (particularly since the players generally don't know ANYTHING about it, and this lets me drop them into the society with characters in total ignorance of anything AND lets me avoid the tedious exposition that any by-the-canon Gloranthan gamemaster has to suffer if playing with people who don't *know* Gloranthan lore intimately, ie. just about everyone.) But play there for a serious campaign? Not so much. 1) use a ROUGH map of Europe, but move stuff around a little so that the players might know that 'Constantinople is over thataway' but not refer to modern maps in any significantly useful way. :) 2) don't be too PC...in my world, at the edges of the map, the "people" ARE monsters like trolls, etc. Yes, some ethnic-sensitives might object, but if you make the Vikings actually TROLLS, then you not only get to use troll materials (maximum game fun factor) but players tend to start to get into the psychological mindset that probably would have been more like medieval peoples ("Those Vikings...they're MONSTERS!") 3) never had a problem finding ample justification historically for just about anything you want to 'drop' into the world, adventurewise. Druids? Celts? Ancient Evil Zoroastrian cults? Even the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians - all are great adventure fodder for the rudest dungeon crawls. Ultimately, I think it worked best because the setting was merely a backdrop, not a distraction. And there was an easily-shared context between players and GM - very little explaining of what stuff was. Had very entertaining campaigns from Byzantium (Cult of the Peacock Angel - look up Melek Taus) to Cornwall (an ancient spreading evil forces characters into an alliance of convenience with a particularly nasty Vampire Lord who is holding off the evil to protect his 'herd'...). RQ+Europe = absolutely great times. On 6/2/06, Frank Filz wrote: > > Stephen Posey wrote: > > .... Another problem > with Tekumel is the alienness of it. You just can't fall back on your > knowledge of Earth, whereas Glorantha, while it has some really alien > things, is pretty European in nature.. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/67fa834b/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 04:22:41 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? Message-ID: <20060602182241.85823.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Hmm, how are you playing 3.5? Basically, I give experience as I see fit and disregard the suggested method. This way the game advances at a pace I want to. >but you only get 8 improvement rolls. Never needed to do anything like that. I follow the basic rule of does it matter? If in my mind, the players action did not matter, then he gets no check. For example firing off Disrupts at wild life as you float down the river will not get you a POW gain roll. The other way to control this, is the frequency of experience checks. If the party just when through multiple combats, I really do not mind them having multiple weapon skill checks. Its still only one check per skill. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Peter Maranci wrote: > >> On 6/2/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > >>> > >>> I am even currently running a D&D game set in > >>> Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real > >>> problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a > >>> bit. The players are just not as interested in check > >>> grabing ;) > >> > >> > >> "Check grabbing"? That's interesting. I've been playing D&D 3.5 for > >> the last couple of years - there's literally no one available to > >> play RQ with - and more and more, I've come to appreciate the > >> skill-improvement mechanism of RQ. > >> > >> It simply SUCKS to have to play for months on end before getting a > >> chance to improve or change your character! The pace of change is so > >> dreadfully slow that it's painful. Not to mention the pure > >> awkwardness of levels in D&D; some levels are extremely beneficial, > >> while others are virtually useless. And don't even get me started > >> about Feat and characteristic improvement! What's the sense of > >> having an improvement that you have to wait for a YEAR of playing > >> time to achieve? > > Hmm, how are you playing 3.5? My experience with 3.5, following the XP > rules, was level ups every 2 sessions because of the challenges I was giving > the party (and the length of play sessions). The game is built around > approximately 4 4 hour sessions to gain a level. > > That said, I agree, one of the nice things about RQ is the incremental skill > increase, but in a way that prevents the single trick pony problem that can > plague Hero and GURPS, and on the flip side, also moderating the problem of > the jack of all trades, master of none, useless for anything problem. > > I also have always appreciated RQ for creating a sustainable treasure > economy that doesn't overload the characters with magic items (though in > long running campaigns, PCs have had decent collections of crystals and > matrices). > > >> It does seem that the RQ system is often unfairly maligned for > >> "problems" that are due to bad GMing and bad players, though. The > >> "weapons caddy" charge is often brought up. But the fact is that > >> every version of the RQ rules that I've ever read makes it quite > >> clear that experience checks should not be abused, and that the GM > >> has the authority to rein in players who DO abuse them. So > >> criticising the system on that basis is hardly justified. > > One of my end solutions to this "problem," which I've also never actually > really seen, is to limit the number of experience rolls each PC can make. > Sure, you've got checks in all your weapons, and 10 other skills, but you > only get 8 improvement rolls. The other solution is to make it cost to > switch weapons. > > On the flip side, I do have a serious problem with rules that require the > players NOT respond to the XP system with mechanically non-optimal behavior. > If certain "by the rules" play is not desireable, the rules are broken, or > at least the players (including the GM) have not properly established a > shared standard of play [or social contract - to borrow a term from the > Forge http://www.indie-rpgs.com - all terms in brackets come from language > used there]. > > I've recently been reading some of my old Wild Hunt zines, and saw some of > the early responses to this issue. I think it doesn't come up with players > who are playing RQ for the experience of an interesting world > [simulationism]. If players are playing for game prowess [gamism], then RQ > has some flaws. > > In college, I ended up bailing on RQ because the players there were hard > core gamists. They had a really nice system that supported that style of > play quite well (and it actually owes a lot to RQ). > > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 04:24:39 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:24:39 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ In-Reply-To: <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> References: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606021124sb505581p4b29f1f4423c5e6e@mail.gmail.com> http://www.talmeta.net/runequest/ On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > Have not seen it. What's the URL? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clive Wickens > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 > Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ > > Devin, > > Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? > > Talking of which, where is he recently... > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/ed16e2b2/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Sat Jun 3 04:30:28 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: References: <20060602152322.268.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C85489C19DA25E-1840-4484@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> I'd say, as a longtime D&D player, your DM was hyper-stingy with XP. 3.5 is designed to have someone level every 13.6 encounters of the same CR as the PCs. Given that about half the encounters are over the CR, that usually means about 8-10 encounters. Given 4 encounters per session, one should be levelling every 2-3 sessions. If it is taking you a year to level in 3.5, then your DM is running no combats (and not giving XP for roleplaying) or he is cutting the XP by a factor of 10! Frankly, I think PCs advance too quickly in D&D, and in my game I have cut the XP in half to slow it down. Even so, my PCs advance 3-4 levels per real life year. While I like the RQ advancement (smooth and logical), I hate the check grabbing that invariably occurs. There are ways to house rule some of it away, but invariably it always exists. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:14:33 -0400 Subject: Re: RE: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? On 6/2/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: I am even currently running a D&D game set in Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a bit. The players are just not as interested in check grabing ;) "Check grabbing"? That's interesting. I've been playing D&D 3.5 for the last couple of years - there's literally no one available to play RQ with - and more and more, I've come to appreciate the skill-improvement mechanism of RQ. It simply SUCKS to have to play for months on end before getting a chance to improve or change your character! The pace of change is so dreadfully slow that it's painful. Not to mention the pure awkwardness of levels in D&D; some levels are extremely beneficial, while others are virtually useless. And don't even get me started about Feat and characteristic improvement! What's the sense of having an improvement that you have to wait for a YEAR of playing time to achieve? Okay, the GM for the game I was in was probably a bit stingier than most with experience, but honestly, the RQ experience system beats D&D all to hell. But I realize that I'm preaching to the choir. It does seem that the RQ system is often unfairly maligned for "problems" that are due to bad GMing and bad players, though. The "weapons caddy" charge is often brought up. But the fact is that every version of the RQ rules that I've ever read makes it quite clear that experience checks should not be abused, and that the GM has the authority to rein in players who DO abuse them. So criticising the system on that basis is hardly justified. No offense intended, Leon - I just needed to rant. ->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/20060602/effff7e3/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Sat Jun 3 04:33:57 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:33:57 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site for Devin In-Reply-To: <000601c68670$f7d0c030$645a8456@sickboy> References: <000601c68670$f7d0c030$645a8456@sickboy> Message-ID: <8C8548A3E3579D4-1840-44C4@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> That URL seems to be broken. I also tried www.talmeta.net and it was also broken. -----Original Message----- From: Clive Wickens To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:18:37 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site for Devin Et voila ! http://talmeta.net/ The Greyhawk stuff is under campaign worlds if memory serves. _______________________________________________ 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/20060602/9a4b9da6/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Sat Jun 3 04:35:46 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:35:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606021124sb505581p4b29f1f4423c5e6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> <56e64e7a0606021124sb505581p4b29f1f4423c5e6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C8548A7F8D07CC-1840-44EE@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> That link is also broken. -----Original Message----- From: Styopa To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:24:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ http://www.talmeta.net/runequest/ On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com < devinc at aol.com> wrote: Have not seen it. What's the URL? -----Original Message----- From: Clive Wickens < clive.wickens at btopenworld.com> To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ Devin, Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? Talking of which, where is he recently... _______________________________________________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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/37fdf9d3/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sat Jun 3 04:37:35 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:37:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? References: <20060602182241.85823.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008701c68673$9f366120$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Leon Kirshtein wrote: >> Hmm, how are you playing 3.5? > > Basically, I give experience as I see fit and > disregard the suggested method. This way the game > advances at a pace I want to. But is it a pace your players are happy with? >> but you only get 8 improvement rolls. > > Never needed to do anything like that. I follow the > basic rule of does it matter? If in my mind, the > players action did not matter, then he gets no check. > For example firing off Disrupts at wild life as you > float down the river will not get you a POW gain roll. > The other way to control this, is the frequency of > experience checks. If the party just when through > multiple combats, I really do not mind them having > multiple weapon skill checks. Its still only one check > per skill. Yea, those are both valid points also. Still, it does basically depend on the GM and players coming to agreement about what's reasonable. So far, all I've done is mention that I will set a limit on improvement rolls if it seems necessary. Also, there's a good solution to the "it doesn't matter" rolls: use this nifty rule statement from Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vinyard: "Say yes or roll the dice." In otherwords, if it doesn't matter, don't roll dice, just say: "Yup, you blasted the squirrel to a spray of goo with your disruption." Frank From rog_benham at hotmail.com Sat Jun 3 04:56:38 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:56:38 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ditto to that- what a strange world. Post apocalyptic America to my mind, never liked it at all. >From: "andrep" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: >Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? >Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:26:54 -0700 > > >Peter said, > > >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? > >Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but >have never been inspired to set foot there. > >Andre' >Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 3 06:02:34 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 21:02:34 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site Message-ID: <003801c6867f$7d354710$7a668456@sickboy> Odd..... link seems to be ok for me. Just Google for Tal Meta and try to get in via the search result. There's some good stuff on his site. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/588df308/attachment.html From darthvogel at hotmail.com Sat Jun 3 08:18:56 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:18:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have only take a brief glance at the Glorantha material and didn't see anything that interested me and my glance then ended. That is just me though. I've never used a setting or module for any game, I just write my own. When i was young I wrote books and GM'ing RPGs became an extention of that for me. I just used the game as an excuse to write something and always approached every campaign with a story that had its on setting not based on anything anyone else ever wrote. Fred >From: "Roger Benham" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? >Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:56:38 +0100 > >Ditto to that- what a strange world. Post apocalyptic America to my mind, >never liked it at all. > > >>From: "andrep" >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>To: >>Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha? >>Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 22:26:54 -0700 >> >> >>Peter said, >> >> >So...am I the only person on the list who's still sick of Glorantha? >> >>Nope...have RQ/BRP'd many years, read most the Gloranthan supplements, but >>have never been inspired to set foot there. >> >>Andre' >>Lurker since vol 3 issue 6 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! >http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 11:51:40 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 20:51:40 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ In-Reply-To: <8C8548A7F8D07CC-1840-44EE@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> References: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> <56e64e7a0606021124sb505581p4b29f1f4423c5e6e@mail.gmail.com> <8C8548A7F8D07CC-1840-44EE@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606021851o64e6d4a6hc33f720376f1eac@mail.gmail.com> Weak server or something. I had it up, then it was down, then it was up. On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > That link is also broken. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Styopa > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:24:39 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ > > http://www.talmeta.net/runequest/ > > On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com < devinc at aol.com> wrote: > > > > Have not seen it. What's the URL? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Clive Wickens < clive.wickens at btopenworld.com> > > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 > > Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ > > > > Devin, > > > > Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? > > > > Talking of which, where is he recently... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060602/3a424c72/attachment.html From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Jun 3 06:25:42 2006 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:25:42 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site for Devin In-Reply-To: <8C8548A3E3579D4-1840-44C4@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> References: <000601c68670$f7d0c030$645a8456@sickboy> <8C8548A3E3579D4-1840-44C4@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <44809EC6.3090204@talmeta.net> devinc at aol.com wrote: > That URL seems to be broken. I also tried www.talmeta.net > and it was also broken. Just plain talmeta.net works for me! :) As to where I've been, still in Greyhawk, but currently playing 3.5 there. Maybe when the new rules are out, I'll get my players interested in switching back... > The Greyhawk stuff is under campaign worlds if memory serves. RPG/Campaign Worlds/TalQuest, IIRC. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM, WIM - talmeta A Proud Howard Family Affiliate since 1987! Homepage - Don't you wish you had more energy... or less ambition? From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sun Jun 4 07:21:53 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:21:53 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tal Meta's site for Devin In-Reply-To: <44809EC6.3090204@talmeta.net> Message-ID: > devinc at aol.com wrote: > > That URL seems to be broken. I also tried www.talmeta.net > > and it was also broken. > > Just plain talmeta.net works for me! :) Hmm, all your images are coming up blank, and when I try and display just a single image, it comes up with a permission denied error. Frank From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 06:15:59 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Greyhawk RQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606021851o64e6d4a6hc33f720376f1eac@mail.gmail.com> References: <000601c68608$8864de10$49bb8956@sickboy> <8C85485F6829B49-1840-4237@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> <56e64e7a0606021124sb505581p4b29f1f4423c5e6e@mail.gmail.com> <8C8548A7F8D07CC-1840-44EE@FWM-R13.sysops.aol.com> <56e64e7a0606021851o64e6d4a6hc33f720376f1eac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606041315k37069451q373fa733840f1350@mail.gmail.com> The link worked fine for me at 3:15pm Central time on Sunday, June 04. Try accessing the server again. On 6/2/06, Styopa wrote: > Weak server or something. I had it up, then it was down, then it was up. > > On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > > > That link is also broken. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Styopa > > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:24:39 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ > > > > http://www.talmeta.net/runequest/ > > > > On 6/2/06, devinc at aol.com < devinc at aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Have not seen it. What's the URL? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Clive Wickens < clive.wickens at btopenworld.com> > > > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > > Sent: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0100 > > > Subject: [Rq-rules] Greyhawk RQ > > > > > > Devin, > > > > > > Have you seen Tal Meta's Greyhawk conversion over at his site ? > > > > > > Talking of which, where is he recently... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Mon Jun 5 20:31:41 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:31:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <20060602183100.B2D0C7DC5FD@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060605103141.25069.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Styopa: > Had very entertaining campaigns from Byzantium (Cult of the Peacock Angel - > look up Melek Taus) to Cornwall (an ancient spreading evil forces characters > into an alliance of convenience with a particularly nasty Vampire Lord who > is holding off the evil to protect his 'herd'...). Have you got any of it written up or in some kind of word processing documents? It sounds like just the stuff for AlternateEarthRQ. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060605/e83d9061/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 20:35:24 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:35:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Tal Meta's site for Devin In-Reply-To: <20060603015156.1DE7E7DF4B7@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060605103524.79042.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Devin: > That URL seems to be broken. I also tried www.talmeta.net and it was also broken. http://www.talmeta.net/runequest/rq0.htm This one seems OK (Monday 11:30). See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060605/fd02951e/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 22:36:31 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: still sick of Glorantha? In-Reply-To: <20060605103141.25069.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060602183100.B2D0C7DC5FD@mini.thinbits.net> <20060605103141.25069.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606050536t3396e499iec6471c0be86f9b9@mail.gmail.com> Like most DMs, I know I have that stuff saved "somewhere"...this was long before word processors, so it's probably buried in a stack of legal pads. I've sub'd to the list, now I'll see if I can find anything. Thanks for the reference! On 6/5/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Styopa: > > Had very entertaining campaigns from Byzantium (Cult of the Peacock > Angel - > > look up Melek Taus) to Cornwall (an ancient spreading evil forces > characters > > into an alliance of convenience with a particularly nasty Vampire Lord > who > > is holding off the evil to protect his 'herd'...). > Have you got any of it written up or in some kind of word processing > documents? It sounds like just the stuff for AlternateEarthRQ > . > > 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/20060605/68a0d100/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 6 04:02:45 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (CLIVE WICKENS) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:02:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] test Message-ID: <000601c688ca$41339a30$6f6a8456@sickboy> test -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060605/f3ae1a3d/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 6 04:07:51 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:07:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] test2 Message-ID: <000601c688ca$f7bfeec0$4ede8e56@sickboy> test2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060605/9449ddb4/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 6 05:35:27 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:35:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060601160008.17222.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1c92296e0606010846icaf4e5aw7ac4ce4d10a7e77e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world where RQ3 never happened. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 05:46:54 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:46:54 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <1c92296e0606010846icaf4e5aw7ac4ce4d10a7e77e@mail.gmail.com> <20060601160008.17222.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606051246t7be6fc17uf225ccd5ff699f96@mail.gmail.com> Tease. :) On 6/5/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the cat > amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060605/4e761c05/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 6 18:04:19 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:04:19 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: >Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the cat >amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in >others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world >where RQ3 never happened. Question Tom: is the _content_ in the Previews from this final draft, or (as one may infer from some comments at RPGNet) from an earlier iteration? Cheers, Nick Middleton From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Jun 7 16:51:57 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 07:51:57 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] increasing characteristics Message-ID: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> I was looking at the RQ3 rules for increasing characteristics and was struck by how arbitary the rules were on STR, CON and SIZ. The rules state that they cannot be increased beyond the highest of the three categories, so if SIZ is 12 neither STR or CON can be increased beyond this point either. Which seems rather silly. Imagine a RQ character, lets call him Joe Average rolls 11 on every single characteristic, in real life this means for STR that he is neither a weakling, but hardly Mr Atlas. For SIZ he is neither a shortarse or Mr lanky. For CON he's neither exceptionally healthy or unhealthy. However in real life he could increase his STR, by working out at the gym, by taking exercise etc. He could increase his CON by exercise, healthy eating etc. Looked at like that the fact that in RQ he can't increase these charcteristics seems daft. Now I don't have a problem with placing a limit on how much he can increase his STR and CON or on making progressively harder to do so. Finally in RQ SIZ is a function of weight/mass since weight can vary drastically in the course of peoples lives then surely SIZ should alter as well. Thoughts ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060607/ef82f7ad/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 22:22:30 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:22:30 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> References: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> Message-ID: Funny, I brought up this very same issue here some time ago - a couple of years ago at least, but it could have been more. I'd give you a link, but the archives don't seem to be searchable. But wait! Google comes to the rescue. Interesting, this issue was covered in 2002 and 2004: http://www.crashbox.com/pipermail/rq-rules/2002-December/001339.html http://www.crashbox.com/pipermail/rq-rules/2004-April/003768.html Needless to say, I agree with all of your points; and I suspect that most people here would, too. The STR/CON/SIZ increase rule is one of the few outright mistakes in the RQIII system, I think (Dodge is another one). I wonder if it has been repeated in MRQ or DBRP? ->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/ On 6/7/06, Clive Wickens wrote: > > I was looking at the RQ3 rules for increasing > characteristics and was struck by how arbitary > the rules were on STR, CON and SIZ. The rules > state that they cannot be increased beyond the > highest of the three categories, so if SIZ is 12 > neither STR or CON can be increased beyond > this point either. Which seems rather silly. > > Imagine a RQ character, lets call him Joe Average > rolls 11 on every single characteristic, in real life > this means for STR that he is neither a weakling, but > hardly Mr Atlas. For SIZ he is neither a shortarse > or Mr lanky. For CON he's neither exceptionally > healthy or unhealthy. However in real life he could > increase his STR, by working out at the gym, by > taking exercise etc. He could increase his CON > by exercise, healthy eating etc. Looked at like > that the fact that in RQ he can't increase these > charcteristics seems daft. > > Now I don't have a problem with placing a limit > on how much he can increase his STR and CON > or on making progressively harder to do so. > > Finally in RQ SIZ is a function of weight/mass > since weight can vary drastically in the course of > peoples lives then surely SIZ should alter as well. > > Thoughts ? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060607/4037eefa/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 00:03:32 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:03:32 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: References: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606070703q6f57f1c9wbe81696d175a3006@mail.gmail.com> Personally, I've let people train Strength freely (but mentally I've always reserved the right to limit this to some sort of maximum, based on their original STR...I simply can't see someone who started a 6 EVER reaching Human max of 21 no matter how much they tried - it's just never come up). Generally however (and this is significant) I've required that 'trained' STR has to be maintened with a regular exercise regimen or it slips back toward the natural level. SIZ, yeah, that can be slightly variable. I don't have a problem if a character spends 3 months of downtime, spending a lot for his 'daily upkeep' to live comfortably, throwing a +1 SIZ at him but it's ONLY for the value of armor fit, and NEGATIVE skill consequences, so they generally try to get back to their original SIZ as soon as possible. Or a long-time non-adventuring NPC could pick up even a +2 or +3, again, only for armor fit and negative modifiers. (Sorry, "giant fat guy" in combat might have some advantage, but in the martial sports I've competed, they suffer from such a host of negative consequences to being overweight that aren't specifically simulated in-game, I think simply denying the benefits of bigger SIZ is a fairly gentle rationalization). CON in my campaign was fixed, except for magical alteration. -Steve On 6/7/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Needless to say, I agree with all of your points; and I suspect that most > people here would, too. The STR/CON/SIZ increase rule is one of the few > outright mistakes in the RQIII system, I think (Dodge is another one). I > wonder if it has been repeated in MRQ or DBRP? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060607/bb407ad7/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jun 8 00:14:26 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:14:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606070703q6f57f1c9wbe81696d175a3006@mail.gmail.com> References: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> <56e64e7a0606070703q6f57f1c9wbe81696d175a3006@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149689666.9fc2e6abaf969@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> I'd be tempted that, as training is only done in downtime, you could have a system that was a wee bit more number crunchy. When it comes to training, you can only get so much stronger, so much bigger (without dying) and so on and so forth. I'd say that each statistic starts at the rolled level, but can be increased to a certain maximum determined, for example, by rolling 1d4+2 for STR, DEX, CON and SIZ. So if you start with STR 12 you can train to 14-17. You could do the same for the other statistics. Because I'm anal, I'd put this aside for SIZ - there exist people who weigh silly amounts so it's certianly possible to get to that level. Instead, I'd have the rolled maximum be how big your SIZ could _safely_ get to be (by eating more meat and becoming a beefcake), and then if you go over that SIZ you'd have reductions in skills and a chance of death every year (or season or week depending on how far you went). Because it's all downtime, the added paperwork wouldn't be a bother. You'd need to stick an extra line in one the character sheet for 'Maximum Characteristics' but that shouldn't pose too much problem. I'd also allow for training INT, using exactly these rules (some people are dumb but can get better, some people are just plain dumb). Maybe use just a 1d4-1 for INT (you can only get so much brighter, and some people really are born as dumb or as bright as they'll ever be). Two further thoughts: (i) There might be a problem with species maximum, if I had STR 18 and rolled 1d4+2, got 6, then my maximum strength would be 24. You might want to stick in a 'cap', but I'd just let them have STR 24 - I've seen the World's Strongest Man on TV and they're just silly-strong, so I don't see any reason why fantasy land can't be the same. (ii) If you're more into number crunching than I am, you could secretly determine the maximums and not tell the players so they have to find out their limits by getting there. More realistic, but a hassle and an annoyance to a PC who spends a million hours (or whatever it is to increase a characteristic) only to find out they'd peaked. They'd strangle you. And rightly so! Pretty easy, pretty effective I'd say. From pmj at comhem.se Thu Jun 8 08:37:17 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:37:17 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: References: <000601c689fe$e12dc710$2d648456@sickboy> Message-ID: <4487551D.8030302@comhem.se> And here is what I wrote on the subject in 2002: http://www.crashbox.com/pipermail/rq-rules/2002-December/001479.html It seems I wrote 21 in a table where it should be 24 but the mistake is easy to spot... Cheers, /Peter J Peter Maranci wrote: > Funny, I brought up this very same issue here some time ago - a couple > of years ago at least, but it could have been more. I'd give you a > link, but the archives don't seem to be searchable. > > But wait! Google comes to the rescue. Interesting, this issue was > covered in 2002 and 2004: > > http://www.crashbox.com/pipermail/rq-rules/2002-December/001339.html > > http://www.crashbox.com/pipermail/rq-rules/2004-April/003768.html > > Needless to say, I agree with all of your points; and I suspect that > most people here would, too. The STR/CON/SIZ increase rule is one of > the few outright mistakes in the RQIII system, I think (Dodge is > another one). I wonder if it has been repeated in MRQ or DBRP? > > ->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/ > > On 6/7/06, *Clive Wickens* > wrote: > > I was looking at the RQ3 rules for increasing > characteristics and was struck by how arbitary > the rules were on STR, CON and SIZ. The rules > state that they cannot be increased beyond the > highest of the three categories, so if SIZ is 12 > neither STR or CON can be increased beyond > this point either. Which seems rather silly. > > Imagine a RQ character, lets call him Joe Average > rolls 11 on every single characteristic, in real life > this means for STR that he is neither a weakling, but > hardly Mr Atlas. For SIZ he is neither a shortarse > or Mr lanky. For CON he's neither exceptionally > healthy or unhealthy. However in real life he could > increase his STR, by working out at the gym, by > taking exercise etc. He could increase his CON > by exercise, healthy eating etc. Looked at like > that the fact that in RQ he can't increase these > charcteristics seems daft. > > Now I don't have a problem with placing a limit > on how much he can increase his STR and CON > or on making progressively harder to do so. > > Finally in RQ SIZ is a function of weight/mass > since weight can vary drastically in the course of > peoples lives then surely SIZ should alter as well. > > Thoughts ? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 aluban at yahoo.fr Thu Jun 8 21:48:10 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:48:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060608114810.30976.qmail@web27706.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> You mean Mongoose sent you a sixth version of the playtest rules by mail ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year after the end of the yahoo group (which I'd call the fifth version of playtest rules), but nothing else. Seems like your comments were more interesting than mine :/ "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world where RQ3 never happened. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/3a47e0d2/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 8 23:00:07 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 06:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... Message-ID: <20060608130007.69813.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> .. as in the place that's just north of God Forgot Island and west of the Marcher Barons. What information is there in official or fannish publications is there on this town? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 9 00:15:15 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:15:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060608114810.30976.qmail@web27706.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4484958F.27129.2C17C7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44883F03.16195.688032@tom.zunder.org.uk> No, I asked for them since I am committed to running a MRQ game at Continuum and Furnace this summer. That's why I got he final draft. It's not that different, I was saddened. On 8 Jun 2006 at 13:48, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > You mean Mongoose sent youa sixth version of the playtest rulesby mail > ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year after the end of the > yahoo group (which I'd call thefifth version of playtest rules), but > nothing else. Seems like your comments were more interesting than mine > :/ > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit: > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the > cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection > possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr > Yahoo! Mail Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Jun 9 00:40:45 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <44883F03.16195.688032@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060608144045.88965.qmail@web27709.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, I understand now. I'm not really surprised to learn that the final draft is not very different. I already spotted what seems to me like a minor modifications in the pdf previews. I didn't remember that there was a beginning value for the runic skills and that you started with 0% in it. "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : No, I asked for them since I am committed to running a MRQ game at Continuum and Furnace this summer. That's why I got he final draft. It's not that different, I was saddened. On 8 Jun 2006 at 13:48, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > You mean Mongoose sent youa sixth version of the playtest rulesby mail > ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year after the end of the > yahoo group (which I'd call thefifth version of playtest rules), but > nothing else. Seems like your comments were more interesting than mine > :/ > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit: > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we say it'll set the > cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very appealing, in > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a parallel world > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection > possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr > Yahoo! Mail Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/d689593b/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Jun 9 00:44:31 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:44:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... In-Reply-To: <20060608130007.69813.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060608144431.26462.qmail@web27714.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Speaking of "semi-fannish" publications, there was a description of this town in the french-language magazine "Tatou" published by RQ3's translator, Oriflam. Lev Lafayette a ?crit : .. as in the place that's just north of God Forgot Island and west of the Marcher Barons. What information is there in official or fannish publications is there on this town? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/cf307f74/attachment.html From julian.lord at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 03:32:50 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 19:32:50 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... Message-ID: <1e842f7f0606081032p71b765e4rd7965844e4d17ca4@mail.gmail.com> Alban de ROSTOLAN : > Speaking of "semi-fannish" publications, there was a description of this > town in the french-language magazine "Tatou" published by RQ3's translator, > Oriflam. > > Lev Lafayette a ?crit : > > .. as in the place that's just north of God Forgot > Island and west of the Marcher Barons. > > What information is there in official or fannish > publications is there on this town? A surprisingly large amount, given that it was based on the Sanctuary setting, described in a series of Shared World short stories called "Thieves' World" (books 1-4 well worth getting hold of, the later ones sort of meander away from the original point of the series, and are also very hard to come by) ; in the Thieves' World and Thieves' World Companion generic RPG supplements from Chaosium ; as adapted somewhat in "Cities" and "RuneQuest Cities" from Chaosium (essentially the same work with some subtle content variations) - (and BTW as a piece of trivia, Thieve's World Companion and Cities were the last two RQ material ever released by Chaosium) ; andfinally, the excellent Gloranthafication of all this material in the aforementioned issue of Tatou. Some tiny fragments of additional material have also been published in later source material by Issaries. Hope that helps Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/bcd28058/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 9 08:40:25 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:40:25 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another anti vampire spell Message-ID: <000601c68b4c$8a7b4e70$0bdd8e56@sickboy> A short while ago I jokingly posted the suggestion that human blood would poison Gloranthan trolls because of the iron content. I have since realised that this is a bit of a Gloranthan cliche but it got me thinking.....What kind of creatures WOULD suffer from poisoned blood if they were to drink it ? Since I'd posted the divine spell Pin Vampire the answer seemed obvious, so...... THE BAD BLOOD RITUAL Ritual Ceremony, variable POW This ritual must be performed just before sundown and is effective until sunrise of the following day. For the duration of the spell the recipients blood is rendered toxic to vampires. Any vampire attempting ( via bite attack ) to drain fatigue points from the rituals recipient will be attacked by a venom equal to 1D6 POT per point of POW invested in the ritual. For each turn FP drain is attempted the POT may be matched against the vampire, though the effects are not cumulative. This ritual does not prevent the fatigue loss suffered by the victim ( representing blood loss ) however the vampire does not gain any fatigue points from the process due to the bloods toxicity. ============================== Only draft form, all comments welcome Only -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/f234a69a/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 9 08:40:46 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0606081032p71b765e4rd7965844e4d17ca4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060608224046.78750.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Julian Lord wrote: > Alban de ROSTOLAN : > > > > Speaking of "semi-fannish" publications, there was > a description of this > > town in the french-language magazine "Tatou" > published by RQ3's translator, > > Oriflam. > > > > Lev Lafayette a ?crit > : > > > > .. as in the place that's just north of God Forgot > > Island and west of the Marcher Barons. > > > > What information is there in official or fannish > > publications is there on this town? > > > > A surprisingly large amount, given that it was based > on the Sanctuary > setting, described in a series of Shared World short > stories called "Thieves' > World" (books 1-4 well worth getting hold of, the > later ones sort of > meander away from the original point of the series, > and are also very hard to come by) ; in the Thieves' > World and > Thieves' World Companion generic RPG supplements > from Chaosium ; as adapted > somewhat in "Cities" and "RuneQuest Cities" from > Chaosium (essentially the > same work with some subtle content variations) - > (and BTW as a piece of > trivia, Thieve's World Companion and Cities were the > last two RQ material > ever released by Chaosium) ; andfinally, the > excellent Gloranthafication of > all this material in the aforementioned issue of > Tatou. > > Some tiny fragments of additional material > have also been published in later source material by > Issaries. > Thanks for that from both of you. Fortunately I have a copy of Thieve's World (great publication). I have an issue of Tatou (great magazine) but not the particular issue in question. I can work with this. All the best, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From darthvogel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 9 09:06:00 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:06:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another anti vampire spell In-Reply-To: <000601c68b4c$8a7b4e70$0bdd8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: Do i understand properly that the caster of the spell will invest permanent POW for an enchantment that will last only 24 hours? I have come across a number of very temporary enchantments that of course require the sacrifice of permanent POW. I don't understand why I want to make the investment in any of these. I have similar problems with certain "active" spells that I find have extremely limited utility when I have to maintain concentration on them. I don't necisarrily have a beef with the fact that they are active, just that I would want to use it. Anyway, back to the temporary enchantment. I can see using this enchantment if I knew i was going into a vampire infested area. What I don't see is why I would learn it in the first place, never being convinced in advance that I would desire to dive into a vampire infested place. Next, when I cast enchantments they cost me fatigue; which means i usually like to rest for a while before diving into combat with a lot of nasties; however, i can't becasue my spell is tick tick ticking away; burning up my POW. So, my intent here is NOT to attack the spell; but rather to understand why I am being short sighted. It seems to me that since spells like this exist, there is a utility I am just not seeing. Thanks, Fred >From: "Clive Wickens" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: [Rq-rules] Another anti vampire spell >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:40:25 +0100 > >A short while ago I jokingly posted the suggestion >that human blood would poison Gloranthan >trolls because of the iron content. I have since >realised that this is a bit of a Gloranthan cliche >but it got me thinking.....What kind of creatures >WOULD suffer from poisoned blood if they >were to drink it ? > >Since I'd posted the divine spell Pin Vampire >the answer seemed obvious, so...... > >THE BAD BLOOD RITUAL > >Ritual Ceremony, variable POW > >This ritual must be performed just before sundown >and is effective until sunrise of the following day. >For the duration of the spell the recipients blood >is rendered toxic to vampires. Any vampire >attempting ( via bite attack ) to drain fatigue >points from the rituals recipient will be attacked >by a venom equal to 1D6 POT per point of POW >invested in the ritual. For each turn FP drain is >attempted the POT may be matched against >the vampire, though the effects are not cumulative. > >This ritual does not prevent the fatigue loss suffered >by the victim ( representing blood loss ) however >the vampire does not gain any fatigue points from >the process due to the bloods toxicity. >============================== > >Only draft form, all comments welcome > >Only >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 11:44:44 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:44:44 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another anti vampire spell In-Reply-To: References: <000601c68b4c$8a7b4e70$0bdd8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606081844s3c7e0718xe20c1a2ab1e8c10e@mail.gmail.com> On 6/8/06, Fred Vogel wrote: > > Anyway, back to the temporary enchantment. I can see using this > enchantment > if I knew i was going into a vampire infested area. What I don't see is > why > I would learn it in the first place, never being convinced in advance that > I > would desire to dive into a vampire infested place. Oh really? I may have to work on that (I'm Fred's GM..grin). The cost of POW for a temporary enchantment needs, IMO, to result in a pretty significant spell effect. 1D6 POT seems to me to be overly weak, especially since vamps tend to have boosted stats. Keep in mind that for this spell to be effective a character must already be in close quarters with a vamp and taking damage. Losing FP/blood is still damage in my mind. I'd rather put the POW into Armoring Enchantments on my head. They're useful in a host of situations, not just for breaking vamp fangs. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060608/672cd3cc/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 9 17:41:25 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060608144045.88965.qmail@web27709.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060609074125.84201.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> OTOH if you've found that you're not listed as a playtester I would recommend that you contact Matthew Sprange. Although I was also part of the "hard core" "inner circle" (his words) of playtesters who survived the great deletion, I was overlooked in their draft of the game. I was a little annoyed with this, as I thought a point by point discussion of every rule in each version of the rules that came out (and didn't those early editions blow goats?) and being part of the said "core" group justified a little more recognition. Heck, we don't do this playtesting *just* for love. Anyway, a couple of terse emails (yes, I was that annoyed) later and Matthew promised to fix it up the following Monday (that was, last Monday). All the best, Lev --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > Ok, I understand now. > I'm not really surprised to learn that the final > draft is not very different. > I already spotted what seems to me like a minor > modifications in the pdf previews. I didn't remember > that there was a beginning value for the runic > skills and that you started with 0% in it. > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > No, I asked for them since I am committed to > running a MRQ > game at Continuum and Furnace this summer. That's > why I got > he final draft. It's not that different, I was > saddened. > > On 8 Jun 2006 at 13:48, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > > > You mean Mongoose sent youa sixth version of the > playtest rulesby mail > > ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year > after the end of the > > yahoo group (which I'd call thefifth version of > playtest rules), but > > nothing else. Seems like your comments were more > interesting than mine > > :/ > > > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit: > > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we > say it'll set the > > cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very > appealing, in > > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a > parallel world > > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > > > > > Tom Zunder > > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > > ICQ: 1521799 > > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > > Y!: tzunder > > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > meilleure protection > > possible contre les messages non sollicit?s > http://mail.yahoo.fr > > Yahoo! Mail > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > meilleure protection possible contre les messages > non sollicit?s > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Jun 9 18:37:19 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:37:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060609074125.84201.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060609083719.8561.qmail@web27703.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Actually, I didn't see my name in the credits page of their preview document either. My first reaction was to say it's not very important, but now I might consider to send an e-mail to Mr Sprange. I do think every member of this "inner circle" deserve to be in those credits. Lev Lafayette a ?crit : OTOH if you've found that you're not listed as a playtester I would recommend that you contact Matthew Sprange. Although I was also part of the "hard core" "inner circle" (his words) of playtesters who survived the great deletion, I was overlooked in their draft of the game. I was a little annoyed with this, as I thought a point by point discussion of every rule in each version of the rules that came out (and didn't those early editions blow goats?) and being part of the said "core" group justified a little more recognition. Heck, we don't do this playtesting *just* for love. Anyway, a couple of terse emails (yes, I was that annoyed) later and Matthew promised to fix it up the following Monday (that was, last Monday). All the best, Lev --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > Ok, I understand now. > I'm not really surprised to learn that the final > draft is not very different. > I already spotted what seems to me like a minor > modifications in the pdf previews. I didn't remember > that there was a beginning value for the runic > skills and that you started with 0% in it. > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > No, I asked for them since I am committed to > running a MRQ > game at Continuum and Furnace this summer. That's > why I got > he final draft. It's not that different, I was > saddened. > > On 8 Jun 2006 at 13:48, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > > > You mean Mongoose sent youa sixth version of the > playtest rulesby mail > > ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year > after the end of the > > yahoo group (which I'd call thefifth version of > playtest rules), but > > nothing else. Seems like your comments were more > interesting than mine > > :/ > > > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit: > > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we > say it'll set the > > cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very > appealing, in > > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a > parallel world > > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > > > > > Tom Zunder > > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > > ICQ: 1521799 > > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > > Y!: tzunder > > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > meilleure protection > > possible contre les messages non sollicit?s > http://mail.yahoo.fr > > Yahoo! Mail > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > meilleure protection possible contre les messages > non sollicit?s > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/e6ba8219/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 19:35:43 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:35:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Another anti vampire spell In-Reply-To: <20060609074150.C627681AF82@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060609093543.96013.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > Subject: [Rq-rules] Another anti vampire spell You should really leave the poor little things alone, what have they ever done to you? :-) > A short while ago I jokingly posted the suggestion > that human blood would poison Gloranthan > trolls because of the iron content. I have since > realised that this is a bit of a Gloranthan cliche > but it got me thinking.....What kind of creatures > WOULD suffer from poisoned blood if they > were to drink it ? Well, I've read various stories in fiction where someone has taken a drug and allowed themselves to be bitten, either by vampires or other blood drinkers, in order to drug the attackers, so it is a reasonable idea. It's the same idea as leaving poisoned bait around for animals/birds to eat. > THE BAD BLOOD RITUAL > > Ritual Ceremony, variable POW As this is a Ceremony Ritual, not an Enchantment Ritual, I assume it doesn't cost POW, but costs Magic Points. > This ritual must be performed just before sundown > and is effective until sunrise of the following day. It would be better that it could be cast at any time and lasts until the following sunrise, that way it protects against those unsporting vampires who wander about in the daytime. > For the duration of the spell the recipients blood > is rendered toxic to vampires. Any vampire > attempting ( via bite attack ) to drain fatigue > points from the rituals recipient will be attacked > by a venom equal to 1D6 POT per point of POW > invested in the ritual. For each turn FP drain is > attempted the POT may be matched against > the vampire, though the effects are not cumulative. Hmmm, 1D6 POT per POW, that should be 1D6 POT per Magic Point, as above. I would say that this should affect the Vampire's General HPs and _also_ drain its Fatigue. So, casting Bad Blood 10, costing 10 MPs, would give 10D6 POT, matched against CON doing GHP and FP damage. 10D6 does seem an awful lot if it isn't an enchantment, but 10POW seems an awfully big enchantment for something that might be used and might not. > This ritual does not prevent the fatigue loss suffered > by the victim ( representing blood loss ) however > the vampire does not gain any fatigue points from > the process due to the bloods toxicity. That seems OK. What might be a better idea, perhaps, would be for the toxicity to be dependent on the amount of blood taken by the vampire. So, a vampire drinking 6 FPs worth of blood would be exposed to a POT 6 poison. You could even make it that the stronger the spell the stronger the poison potency multiplier, so a level 2 spell does FPx2 and so on. That way, you could make it an enchantment and a 1 or 2 POW enchantment might be useful. If you made it a stackable Divine Spell (1 point, stackable, temporal, duration until the next sunrise) with each point adding to the POT of the poison, then that would work better. So, Bad Blood 3 would give each FP drained POT 3 and a vampire draining 5 FPs would get a POT 15 poison effect. Of course, don't forget that Vampires are immune to poison, so it would be a bit of a shock for them to be affected by this magical poison. Very devout Humakti, perhaps, might be able to get this as a special ability in return for a geas. Multiple receipts of the gift would mean higher POT poison. Fred Vogel: > Anyway, back to the temporary enchantment. I can see using this enchantment > if I knew i was going into a vampire infested area. What I don't see is why > I would learn it in the first place, never being convinced in advance that I > would desire to dive into a vampire infested place. Humakti, other Vampire Killers, Treasure Hunters, Rescue Parties and Foolish Adventurers may all want to go and play with Vampires. > Next, when I cast > enchantments they cost me fatigue; which means i usually like to rest for a > while before diving into combat with a lot of nasties; however, i can't > becasue my spell is tick tick ticking away; burning up my POW. Do they? I can't remember if that's from RQ3 or is it perhaps a House Rule? I would think you'd cast the spell then run into a vampire nest shouting "suck me, suck me". Or perhaps not. David Smart: >> if I knew i was going into a vampire infested area. What I don't see is >> why >> I would learn it in the first place, never being convinced in advance that >> I >> would desire to dive into a vampire infested place. > > Oh really? I may have to work on that (I'm Fred's GM..grin). And you let him read RQ-Rules? :-) > The cost of POW for a temporary enchantment needs, IMO, to result in a > pretty significant spell effect. 1D6 POT seems to me to be overly weak, > especially since vamps tend to have boosted stats. I would not make it an enchantment at all. > Keep in mind that for this spell to be effective a character must already be > in close quarters with a vamp and taking damage. Losing FP/blood is still > damage in my mind. I'd rather put the POW into Armoring Enchantments on my > head. They're useful in a host of situations, not just for breaking vamp > fangs. Just a quick note on Vampire Tactics in general. Vampires very rarely use fangs to bite people in combat, in my opinion, or use their Touch to drain MPs, these are best left for later when you have captured prisoners. Vampires are far better appearing in clouds of mist behind a party, attacking with whatever their favourite weapon is, preferably missile weapons, using their Harmonise/Stupefy-type ability to catch people's glance and stop them doing anything, then capturing people for draining dry at their leisure. If I relied on vampires hitting with a bite and having a few rounds spare to drain enough blood to kill someone, then I'd never kill any PCs, and we can't have that, now, can we? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/01145c66/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Jun 9 19:49:35 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:49:35 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Another anti vampire spell In-Reply-To: <20060609093543.96013.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060609093543.96013.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1149846575.5b460242cf12b@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> > What might be a better idea, perhaps, would be for the toxicity to be > dependent on the amount of blood taken by the vampire. So, a vampire drinking > 6 FPs worth of blood would be exposed to a POT 6 poison. You could even make > it that the stronger the spell the stronger the poison potency multiplier, so > a level 2 spell does FPx2 and so on. That way, you could make it an > enchantment and a 1 or 2 POW enchantment might be useful. > > If you made it a stackable Divine Spell (1 point, stackable, temporal, > duration until the next sunrise) with each point adding to the POT of the > poison, then that would work better. So, Bad Blood 3 would give each FP > drained POT 3 and a vampire draining 5 FPs would get a POT 15 poison effect. That sounds right. With POW it's too expensive - if I'm investing POW in it I'd want to know damn sure that the vampire's going down! Again, three points of POW gets you a Sever Spirit (which doesn't work on vamps, but then Bad Blood doesn't work on anything except vamps!), Bad Blood with 3 POW doesn't come close to this, only lasts a day, and then you have the added problem of (a) hoping you get attacked that night and (b) getting bitten by the vamp! Once he survives that poison he'll be hella pissed and kill you - and if you reckon you can take the vamp in combat, you probably don't need the spell. But with magic points, it's too easy. People would just cast it willy nilly. Settling into an inn for an evening? That'll be a Bad Blood before bed... With this suggestion I reckon it's perfectly balanced. But the big question is, how long does the poison take to kick in? Too fast and the vamp will stop biting before taking enough poison to do him serious damage - and then he'll probably rend you limb from limb. Too slow, and the vamp may well suck you dry and you'll be dead before he is (but is that the point of the spell? To create a Trojan Horse out of some poor guy?). I'd be tempted, sorely tempted, to allow the onset time to be between one melee round and one hour, determined by the caster at the time of the casting. Let the player weigh up the pros and cons of the onset period - it'll be funnier that way : ) Nikk From Ludowick at aol.com Fri Jun 9 22:17:05 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:17:05 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics Message-ID: <2c6.8b71f5e.31bac0c1@aol.com> Nick Effingham wrote: > I'd say that each statistic starts at the rolled level, but can be > increased to a certain maximum determined, for example, by > rolling 1d4+2 for STR, DEX, CON and SIZ. So if you start with > STR 12 you can train to 14-17. You could do the same for the > other statistics. I'd be tempted to use maximum increase = 1/6 original characteristic. So, STR 12 could be increased to STR 14, and STR 18 can reach STR 21, which happens to be the species maximum. I'd even say that species maxima for any characteristic or species = highest roll possible times 7/6. Michael Hoxie (who still searches for the best maximum stat rules) From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 22:29:03 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:29:03 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... In-Reply-To: <20060608224046.78750.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1e842f7f0606081032p71b765e4rd7965844e4d17ca4@mail.gmail.com> <20060608224046.78750.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606090529h6fbf6421mc1d1ffc323d4170b@mail.gmail.com> I actually shifted a little to a different story series, I felt 'Liavek' was a closer analogy to the way this city would play out in RQ. Only a couple of books, and an obvious pastiche of Thieves' World, but with some subtle differences that I enjoyed. Come to think of it, I might have to dig those books out again, I haven't looked at them in probably 15+ years. Eek. On 6/8/06, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > --- Julian Lord wrote: > > > A surprisingly large amount, given that it was based > > on the Sanctuary > > setting, described in a series of Shared World short > > stories called "Thieves' > > World" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/fdfd411a/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 22:36:23 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:36:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060609083719.8561.qmail@web27703.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060609074125.84201.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060609083719.8561.qmail@web27703.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606090536q2976b27n6cb1584c2c53ae36@mail.gmail.com> FWIW I noticed that their Jrustelan map almost perfectly copied MY 'godlearner era' map of pre-sinking Jrustela (truth in advertising: I'd made this map from some notes someone (Dunham? I genuinely don't recall...) sent me for his Jrustelan campaign. It was part of the series of 'mythic' background maps I did for Greg according to his scrubby notes on the mythological geography of the area. I don't particularly care about getting credit, just noticed it immediately. -Steve On 6/9/06, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > Actually, I didn't see my name in the credits page of their preview > document either. > My first reaction was to say it's not very important, but now I might > consider to send an e-mail to Mr Sprange. I do think every member of this > "inner circle" deserve to be in those credits. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/14e07ace/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jun 9 22:40:28 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:40:28 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <2c6.8b71f5e.31bac0c1@aol.com> Message-ID: >>I'd say that each statistic starts at the rolled level, but can be >>increased to a certain maximum determined, for example, by >>rolling 1d4+2 for STR, DEX, CON and SIZ. So if you start with >>STR 12 you can train to 14-17. Err, 15 - 18, or did you mean 1d4+1 Nikk? >>You could do the same for the >>other statistics. That's eminently workable. >I'd be tempted to use maximum increase = 1/6 original characteristic. >So, STR 12 could be increased to STR 14, and STR 18 can reach >STR 21, which happens to be the species maximum. I'd even say >that species maxima for any characteristic or species = highest >roll possible times 7/6. > >Michael Hoxie (who still searches for the best maximum stat rules) :O I think you've found them, actually - that's very elegant and seems plausible, whilst retaining a feature I like, that there is a limit intrinsic to the rolled stats beyond which you will need magic or other non-mundane intervention. Cheers, Nick Middleton From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 9 23:20:48 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060609083719.8561.qmail@web27703.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060609132048.18159.qmail@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On topic these were my final comments on the last draft. http://mimesisrpg.com/pipermail/runequest4_mimesisrpg.com/2006-March/000026.html Which incidentally was a shorter contribution to the previous editions. It was "less broken" as such. --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > Actually, I didn't see my name in the credits page > of their preview document either. > My first reaction was to say it's not very > important, but now I might consider to send an > e-mail to Mr Sprange. I do think every member of > this "inner circle" deserve to be in those credits. > > > Lev Lafayette a ?crit : > > OTOH if you've found that you're not listed as a > playtester I would recommend that you contact > Matthew > Sprange. > > Although I was also part of the "hard core" "inner > circle" (his words) of playtesters who survived the > great deletion, I was overlooked in their draft of > the > game. > > I was a little annoyed with this, as I thought a > point > by point discussion of every rule in each version of > the rules that came out (and didn't those early > editions blow goats?) and being part of the said > "core" group justified a little more recognition. > Heck, we don't do this playtesting *just* for love. > > Anyway, a couple of terse emails (yes, I was that > annoyed) later and Matthew promised to fix it up the > following Monday (that was, last Monday). > > All the best, > > > Lev > > --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > Ok, I understand now. > > I'm not really surprised to learn that the final > > draft is not very different. > > I already spotted what seems to me like a minor > > modifications in the pdf previews. I didn't > remember > > that there was a beginning value for the runic > > skills and that you started with 0% in it. > > > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > > No, I asked for them since I am committed to > > running a MRQ > > game at Continuum and Furnace this summer. That's > > why I got > > he final draft. It's not that different, I was > > saddened. > > > > On 8 Jun 2006 at 13:48, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > > > > > > You mean Mongoose sent youa sixth version of the > > playtest rulesby mail > > > ? I received a "final draft" earlier this year > > after the end of the > > > yahoo group (which I'd call thefifth version of > > playtest rules), but > > > nothing else. Seems like your comments were more > > interesting than mine > > > :/ > > > > > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit: > > > Well I've just seen the final draft and shall we > > say it'll set the > > > cat amongst the pigeons. It is in some ways very > > appealing, in > > > others less so. As I've said before, RQ2.5 on a > > parallel world > > > where RQ3 never happened. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Zunder > > > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > > > ICQ: 1521799 > > > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > > > Y!: tzunder > > > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > > meilleure protection > > > possible contre les messages non sollicit?s > > http://mail.yahoo.fr > > > Yahoo! Mail > > > > > > Tom Zunder > > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > > ICQ: 1521799 > > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > > Y!: tzunder > > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > > meilleure protection possible contre les messages > > non sollicit?s > > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la > meilleure protection possible contre les messages > non sollicit?s > http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 10 08:49:26 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:49:26 -1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <2c6.8b71f5e.31bac0c1@aol.com> References: <2c6.8b71f5e.31bac0c1@aol.com> Message-ID: <4489FAF6.9060605@concentric.net> Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Nick Effingham wrote: > >> I'd say that each statistic starts at the rolled level, but can be >> increased to a certain maximum determined, for example, by >> rolling 1d4+2 for STR, DEX, CON and SIZ. So if you start with >> STR 12 you can train to 14-17. You could do the same for the >> other statistics. > > I'd be tempted to use maximum increase = 1/6 original characteristic. > So, STR 12 could be increased to STR 14, and STR 18 can reach > STR 21, which happens to be the species maximum. I'd even say > that species maxima for any characteristic or species = highest > roll possible times 7/6. Just for the sake of completeness, can we clarify how "species maximum" is being defined? The old standby is Maximum Roll+Minimum Roll on the characteristic, which for 3d6 = 18 + 3 = 21 of course. But does that mean for 2d6+6 characteristics the species maximum is 18 + 8 = 26? How about 3d6+3 (which is the standard roll for CoC's EDU stat) is that 21 + 6 = 27? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 10 03:23:38 2006 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall C. Shapero) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:23:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics Message-ID: <26718399.1149873818283.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I thought that the "standard" was maximum rolled, plus one per die, plus one (max) for any adder. Thus 2D6+6 would have a species max of 18 (max rolled) + 2 for the 2D6 + 1 (for the +6) giving a species max of 21. 3D6 + 3 would be 21 (max rolled) + 3 (for 3D6) + 1 (for the +3) or 25 for species max using this system. -- N. C. Shapero -----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Posey >Sent: Jun 9, 2006 3:49 PM >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics > >Ludowick at aol.com wrote: >> Nick Effingham wrote: >> >>> I'd say that each statistic starts at the rolled level, but can be >>> increased to a certain maximum determined, for example, by >>> rolling 1d4+2 for STR, DEX, CON and SIZ. So if you start with >>> STR 12 you can train to 14-17. You could do the same for the >>> other statistics. >> >> I'd be tempted to use maximum increase = 1/6 original characteristic. >> So, STR 12 could be increased to STR 14, and STR 18 can reach >> STR 21, which happens to be the species maximum. I'd even say >> that species maxima for any characteristic or species = highest >> roll possible times 7/6. > >Just for the sake of completeness, can we clarify how "species maximum" >is being defined? > >The old standby is Maximum Roll+Minimum Roll on the characteristic, >which for 3d6 = 18 + 3 = 21 of course. > >But does that mean for 2d6+6 characteristics the species maximum is 18 + > 8 = 26? How about 3d6+3 (which is the standard roll for CoC's EDU >stat) is that 21 + 6 = 27? > >Stephen Posey >slposey at concentric.net >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From julian.lord at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 05:06:19 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:06:19 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed Message-ID: <1e842f7f0606091206l3166e356q14bcc4c9f7be3385@mail.gmail.com> Styopa : FWIW I noticed that their Jrustelan map almost perfectly copied MY > 'godlearner era' map of pre-sinking Jrustela (truth in advertising: I'd > made > this map from some notes someone (Dunham? I genuinely don't recall...) > sent > me for his Jrustelan campaign. > It was part of the series of 'mythic' background maps I did for Greg > according to his scrubby notes on the mythological geography of the area. > > I don't particularly care about getting credit, just noticed it > immediately. How long ago would that have been, just out of interest ? First map of Jrustela I ever saw would have been the reasonably detailed map from the unpublished Pamaltela and Islands box of the early RQ3 period. Unsunken bits were shown in some detail, and the rest could be pretty easily deduced as it had the sunken bits "shown" but greyed out... and the text included details of some of the sunken bits, as inhabited by sea creatures... Looked a LOT like this new map of Jrustela ;-) Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/49b232f0/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 05:49:11 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:49:11 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0606091206l3166e356q14bcc4c9f7be3385@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e842f7f0606091206l3166e356q14bcc4c9f7be3385@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606091249x7305b9dau5651104f95bf867f@mail.gmail.com> Really? I'd love to see that. I was looking for just the thing for the longest time. Never found it...now to learn that it was extant unpublished. Sigh. Could be that was the source of some of the notes from (whomever) I got them from. Next thing you're going to tell me was that there was a functional Gloranthan Weather generator program, and the one I got to maybe 80% finished was redundant too. :\ Circles within circles, de-augmented by my lack of memory. My files are adobe photshops dated 1/27/99 so that would really be post-RQ3 period. I don't recall if what I got were simply text notes (that's what I recall, but I could be mixing memories with the torrent of map-related stuff sent to me at the same time by Greg), or a rough outline sketch (in which case then I/whomever was PROBABLY copying source material from that). (shrug) but I would love to see that unpublished stuff, if I could. On 6/9/06, Julian Lord wrote: > > Styopa : > > > FWIW I noticed that their Jrustelan map almost perfectly copied MY > > 'godlearner era' map of pre-sinking Jrustela (truth in advertising: I'd > > made > > this map from some notes someone (Dunham? I genuinely don't recall...) > > sent > > me for his Jrustelan campaign. > > It was part of the series of 'mythic' background maps I did for Greg > > according to his scrubby notes on the mythological geography of the > > area. > > > > I don't particularly care about getting credit, just noticed it > > immediately. > > > How long ago would that have been, just out of interest ? > > First map of Jrustela I ever saw would have been the reasonably detailed > map from the unpublished Pamaltela and Islands box of the early RQ3 period. > > > Unsunken bits were shown in some detail, and the rest could be pretty easily deduced as it had the sunken bits "shown" but > greyed out... and the text included details of some of the sunken bits, as > inhabited by sea creatures... > > Looked a LOT like this new map of Jrustela ;-) > > Julian Lord > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060609/d0ecf38d/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 06:02:00 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <26718399.1149873818283.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <26718399.1149873818283.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606091302v53463b8bx99d923af3072eb23@mail.gmail.com> And just to be clear, I'm a little fuzzy on what 'species max' really MEANS in terms of utility. Is it the point beyond which NO improvement is possible, ever? Or is it the maximum point that mundane (training) improvements can reach, in which case 'species' max is a not-terribly-useful value, since (if everyone has their personal maximum attainable) the 'species' max just is the maxima of possible PERSONAL values....? Just trying to get at what value there is in having a species maximum, if you have individualized maximums.(?) IMO only, the latter makes more sense, as I don't see the value in telling a player "oh, sorry, that Apple of Knowledge was SUPPOSED to make you smarter, but since you're at the species maximum you can't go higher." Where's the fun in that? If we accept individual limits (I like the idea) then species max probably is no longer relevant. On 6/9/06, Niall C. Shapero wrote: > > I thought that the "standard" was maximum rolled, plus one per die, plus > one (max) for any adder. Thus 2D6+6 would have a species max of 18 (max > rolled) + 2 for the 2D6 + 1 (for the +6) giving a species max of 21. > > 3D6 + 3 would be 21 (max rolled) + 3 (for 3D6) + 1 (for the +3) or 25 for > species max using this system. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/2e931e41/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jun 10 07:05:02 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Refuge... Message-ID: <20060609210519.7B93782170B@mini.thinbits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: Lev Lafayette > Fortunately I have a copy of Thieve's World (great > publication). I have an issue of Tatou (great > magazine) but not the particular issue in question. It was in issue No.4 Gianni From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 10 07:41:33 2006 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall C. Shapero) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:41:33 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics Message-ID: <14647228.1149889293982.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060609/4bf794d2/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 09:09:08 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:09:08 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <14647228.1149889293982.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <14647228.1149889293982.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606091609jb424ad2ia2fead77615b0cc7@mail.gmail.com> And Land of the Ninja RQIII supplement increases the POW of Nihonese characters (including the POW range) by one because "..Nihon, land of the eight thousand myriads of deities, is rife with magic." I have methods in my campaign for players to raise any stat, including INT (hear that, Fred?), above the species max but it takes some doing and can turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Keeps things exciting, even for me. David On 6/9/06, Niall C. Shapero wrote: > > What does it mean in terms of utility? Well ... if improvement of a > characteristic is stochastic rather than determinisitic (determined by > chance), then the chance might be something like )SPECIES MAX - CURRENT > STAT) x 5 as a percentage roll. So if the species max was 21, and your stat > was 18, then the probability of improvement would be (21-18)x5 = 15%. So, > roll 01-15 for the improvement. (It's been too long -- I can't remember > whether this was the RQ rule or just one of my house rules). > > I'd always allow for a god to increase a character's stat above the > "species max" myself -- far be it from me, a mere mortal, to put limits on > what a god can do, after all ... :-) > > -- N. C. Shapero > -----Original Message----- > From: Styopa > Sent: Jun 9, 2006 1:02 PM > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics > > And just to be clear, I'm a little fuzzy on what 'species max' really MEANS > in terms of utility. > > Is it the point beyond which NO improvement is possible, ever? > > Or is it the maximum point that mundane (training) improvements can reach, > in which case 'species' max is a not-terribly-useful value, since (if > everyone has their personal maximum attainable) the 'species' max just is > the maxima of possible PERSONAL values....? > > Just trying to get at what value there is in having a species maximum, if > you have individualized maximums.(?) > > IMO only, the latter makes more sense, as I don't see the value in telling a > player "oh, sorry, that Apple of Knowledge was SUPPOSED to make you smarter, > but since you're at the species maximum you can't go higher." Where's the > fun in that? > > If we accept individual limits (I like the idea) then species max probably > is no longer relevant. > > > On 6/9/06, Niall C. Shapero < nshapero at ix.netcom.com> wrote: > I thought that the "standard" was maximum rolled, plus one per die, plus one > (max) for any adder. Thus 2D6+6 would have a species max of 18 (max rolled) > + 2 for the 2D6 + 1 (for the +6) giving a species max of 21. > > 3D6 + 3 would be 21 (max rolled) + 3 (for 3D6) + 1 (for the +3) or 25 for > species max using this system. > > > > From julian.lord at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 09:33:51 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:33:51 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <20060609230928.42B12822364@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060609230928.42B12822364@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1e842f7f0606091633k4f0e7847rd507fc435065c492@mail.gmail.com> A lot of MRQ is very similar to some stuff I worked out for my final attempt at a BRP-based HQ rules set LOL Couple of comments --- species maximum for stats rules are inappropriate for a fantasy RPG setting, and need to be scrapped. I'm sad to see that Mongoose appear not to have taken things to their logical conclusion Stat-wise, and defined all stats (for human PCs) as 2D6+6 (although I still think that human female SIZ and STR should be lower, maybe 2D6+4 and 2D6+3 respectively) - the 3D6 range for humans skews things at the lower end of the scale (ie not just the newtlings and ducks, but the humans as compared to the trolls and giants ... ) Individual Characteristic+Characteristic bonuses for specific skills is a step forward IMO, but the basic system there is a bit broken, because it's inherently unfair ; and IMO a system of Talent allocation, whereby a starting PC would get a certain number of Talent points to distribute freely to skill bonuses as desired, with no meaningful maximum, would be preferable to all this pseudo-simulationist number-crunching IMO aaah I could go on ranting for hours and hours, but anyway --- I'll almost certainly be buying these puppies .. LOL Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060610/a1c449cc/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sat Jun 10 09:45:11 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:45:11 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15 References: <20060609230928.42B12822364@mini.thinbits.net> <1e842f7f0606091633k4f0e7847rd507fc435065c492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c68c1e$c1f14580$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Julian Lord wrote: >> Individual Characteristic+Characteristic bonuses for specific skills >> is a step forward IMO, but the basic system there is a bit broken, >> because it's inherently unfair ; and IMO a system of Talent >> allocation, whereby a starting PC would get a certain number of >> Talent points to distribute freely to skill bonuses as desired, with >> no meaningful maximum, would be preferable to all this >> pseudo-simulationist number-crunching IMO Hmm, that's sort of almost what I did for my current game. I knew I didn't want randomly rolled characters, but I also realized that with the RQ way of determining skill bonuses, that there would be little reason for any PC to have less than an 18 INT. So I ended up divorcing the skill bonuses from attributes, other than through a rought "if you're going to have a +25 defense or stealth, you better be small and dextrous". Instead of a point buy for the bonuses, I give each character an array: 1x +5, 2x +10, 2x +15, 2x +20, 1x +25 to be distributed amongst attack, parry, defense, manipulation, stealth, perception, knowledge, and communication. And PCs get 103 attribute points (kinda high, but the first PCs were actually created without any system, then I backtracked to come up with a system, and trimmed a couple stat points off the absurd PCs - oh, and they had to completely redo their skill bonuses because they had them way too high). Of course the 103 stat points should let a PC make a nice dark troll and things like that should it ever make sense to have such a PC. Frank From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 00:34:16 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0606091633k4f0e7847rd507fc435065c492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060610143416.88548.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Julian Lord wrote: > I'm sad to see that Mongoose appear not to have > taken things to their > logical conclusion Stat-wise, and defined all stats > (for human PCs) as 2D6+6 > (although I still think that human female SIZ and > STR should be lower, maybe > 2D6+4 and 2D6+3 respectively) - the 3D6 range for > humans skews things at the > lower end of the scale (ie not just the newtlings > and ducks, but the humans > as compared to the trolls and giants ... ) > Or go the Mythworld route: if high in STR and SIZ compared to CON and DEX, it is male; if opposite, it is female; if a mix, go with the feel or make it whatever is in the shorter supply. Different species have different roll numbers, particularly for SIZ. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Ludowick at aol.com Sun Jun 11 00:52:51 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:52:51 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: Characteristic Maxima Message-ID: <4c2.f9bac4.31bc36c3@aol.com> Nick Middleton wrote: > :O I think you've found them, actually - that's very elegant and seems > plausible, whilst retaining a feature I like, that there is a limit > intrinsic to the rolled stats beyond which you will need magic or other > non-mundane intervention Thanks. Glad to help. Styopa wrote: > And just to be clear, I'm a little fuzzy on what 'species max' really MEANS > in terms of utility. > > Is it the point beyond which NO improvement is possible, ever? > > Or is it the maximum point that mundane (training) improvements can reach, > in which case 'species' max is a not-terribly-useful value, since (if > everyone has their personal maximum attainable) the 'species' max just is > the maxima of possible PERSONAL values....? > > Just trying to get at what value there is in having a species maximum, if > you have individualized maximums.(?) I go for the second option. Only rare magics or paranormal forces can raise a stat beyond the species maximum. As for a difference between personal maximum and species maximum, the latter does lose its value with this rule. I see it mainly as a benchmark so players can rate their characters against the maximum of human (or whatever) potential. So, if a heroquest boosts your PC to STR 24, you can say he's stronger than any mortal (until he meets another heroquester...). Now I'm wondering if we should let more common magic boost a stat beyond personal maximum, and let only the rare stuff boost past the species max? Michael Hoxie (who thinks he got the idea for personal maximum from TNE) From tcantine at incentre.net Sun Jun 11 01:50:00 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:50:00 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: Characteristic Maxima In-Reply-To: <4c2.f9bac4.31bc36c3@aol.com> References: <4c2.f9bac4.31bc36c3@aol.com> Message-ID: I seem to recall that it was possible to attain a POW of 22, 1 above species maximum, but perhaps that was an artifact of the way POW gain rolls worked. If you had a POW of 20 and made your roll, you could choose to roll 1d3-1 for the gain instead of the automatic +1, so if you improved by 2, you could exceed the species maximum. On 10-Jun-06, at 8:52 AM, Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Nick Middleton wrote: > >> :O I think you've found them, actually - that's very elegant and >> seems >> plausible, whilst retaining a feature I like, that there is a limit >> intrinsic to the rolled stats beyond which you will need magic or >> other >> non-mundane intervention > > Thanks. Glad to help. > > > Styopa wrote: > >> And just to be clear, I'm a little fuzzy on what 'species max' really >> MEANS >> in terms of utility. >> >> Is it the point beyond which NO improvement is possible, ever? >> >> Or is it the maximum point that mundane (training) improvements can >> reach, >> in which case 'species' max is a not-terribly-useful value, since (if >> everyone has their personal maximum attainable) the 'species' max >> just is >> the maxima of possible PERSONAL values....? >> >> Just trying to get at what value there is in having a species >> maximum, if >> you have individualized maximums.(?) > > I go for the second option. Only rare magics or paranormal forces can > raise > a stat beyond the species maximum. As for a difference between > personal > maximum and species maximum, the latter does lose its value with this > rule. > I see it mainly as a benchmark so players can rate their characters > against > the > maximum of human (or whatever) potential. So, if a heroquest boosts > your PC > to STR 24, you can say he's stronger than any mortal (until he meets > another > heroquester...). > > Now I'm wondering if we should let more common magic boost a stat > beyond > personal maximum, and let only the rare stuff boost past the species > max? > > Michael Hoxie (who thinks he got the idea for personal maximum from > TNE) > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 12 07:34:12 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:34:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] I'm screwed In-Reply-To: <20060609074125.84201.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060608144045.88965.qmail@web27709.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <448C9A64.12990.215340@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 9 Jun 2006 at 0:41, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > OTOH if you've found that you're not listed as a > playtester I would recommend that you contact Matthew > Sprange. > > Although I was also part of the "hard core" "inner > circle" (his words) of playtesters who survived the > great deletion, I was overlooked in their draft of the > game. Ditto. Full pre and post playtest questionnaires from all my players, 3 page commentary on rules. Not a mention. I have made my feelings felt. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 12 18:21:49 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:21:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0606091633k4f0e7847rd507fc435065c492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060612082149.64341.qmail@web27713.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I agree with your analysis on characteristics. In fact, I think every playable creature should have characteristics based on a 2d6+X roll. To be honest, I think the biggest problem with the first iterations of RuneQuest Mongoose was the lack of experience with BRPS of the development team. I also wonder in which extent will RuneQuest be "open" and how much it will be possible to tweak the rules in "RQ-based" publications... Julian Lord a ?crit : A lot of MRQ is very similar to some stuff I worked out for my final attempt at a BRP-based HQ rules set LOL Couple of comments --- species maximum for stats rules are inappropriate for a fantasy RPG setting, and need to be scrapped. I'm sad to see that Mongoose appear not to have taken things to their logical conclusion Stat-wise, and defined all stats (for human PCs) as 2D6+6 (although I still think that human female SIZ and STR should be lower, maybe 2D6+4 and 2D6+3 respectively) - the 3D6 range for humans skews things at the lower end of the scale (ie not just the newtlings and ducks, but the humans as compared to the trolls and giants ... ) Individual Characteristic+Characteristic bonuses for specific skills is a step forward IMO, but the basic system there is a bit broken, because it's inherently unfair ; and IMO a system of Talent allocation, whereby a starting PC would get a certain number of Talent points to distribute freely to skill bonuses as desired, with no meaningful maximum, would be preferable to all this pseudo-simulationist number-crunching IMO aaah I could go on ranting for hours and hours, but anyway --- I'll almost certainly be buying these puppies .. LOL Julian Lord _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060612/11d22a4f/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 20:53:51 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:53:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <20060609230928.42B12822364@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060612105352.50504.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Styopa: > And just to be clear, I'm a little fuzzy on what 'species max' really MEANS > in terms of utility. It's a game mechanic to ensure that normal humans have the charcteristics of normal humans, for instance. It's to stop people training STR to super-human limits. It also gives other species realistic characteristic ranges, so Ducks can't normally get STR 20. > Is it the point beyond which NO improvement is possible, ever? Mundane improvement stops at Species Maximum. However, magical means may allow this limit to be breached. > Or is it the maximum point that mundane (training) improvements can reach, > in which case 'species' max is a not-terribly-useful value, since (if > everyone has their personal maximum attainable) the 'species' max just is > the maxima of possible PERSONAL values....? Well, it is still useful because a human cannot increase STR past 21, but a Dark Troll could increase STR to 28 and a Centaur could increase DEX to 27 as opposed to a human's 21. > Just trying to get at what value there is in having a species maximum, if > you have individualized maximums.(?) To try and ensure that most humans have humanlike stats and most ducks have ducklike stats. > IMO only, the latter makes more sense, as I don't see the value in telling a > player "oh, sorry, that Apple of Knowledge was SUPPOSED to make you smarter, > but since you're at the species maximum you can't go higher." Where's the > fun in that? None at all, so the GM could stick his neck out and say that the Apple of Knowledge can increase INT past species maximum. > If we accept individual limits (I like the idea) then species max probably > is no longer relevant. Well, it is and should be, for the reasons given above. I also tend to play that spirit magic and sorcery spells only increase characteristics to Species Maximum, but Divine spells can increase spells past Species Maximum. So, Strength can only increase a human's STR to 21, but Seastrength can double STR past 21. The reason for this is that I ran a high-powered campaign involving trolls, Morokanth, centaurs etc who had trained their STR to near species max, due to their high SIZ. When they cast Strength 6, for example, they could increase STR to beyond species max and it made them super-strong, which was a bit unbalancing. For what it's worth, we allows stats to go above species max in certain circumstances. Sometimes, a PC received a gift from the gods, especially on a HeroQuest. Other times, he spent HeroPoints, which were normally the rewards of HeroQuests, to increase species max. Some magical items increased species max. Some magcial items ignored species max. You may ask "What's the point of having species maximum if you then override or ignore it?" Well, it meant that particular heroic individuals were seen as beyond the norm as they had super-human characteristics, which added to their mystique. >On 6/9/06, Niall C. Shapero wrote: >> >> I thought that the "standard" was maximum rolled, plus one per die, plus >> one (max) for any adder. Thus 2D6+6 would have a species max of 18 (max >> rolled) + 2 for the 2D6 + 1 (for the +6) giving a species max of 21. >> >> 3D6 + 3 would be 21 (max rolled) + 3 (for 3D6) + 1 (for the +3) or 25 for >> species max using this system. That was the RQ2 standard. RQ3 standard, which I prefer, is Maximum Rollable + Minimum Rollable, which works the same for straight nD6 rolls, but works out a little higher for nD6+N rolls. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060612/73f71d2c/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:02:53 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:02:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Species Max In-Reply-To: <20060612082224.56E3C836D18@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060612110253.76216.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Alban de ROSTOLAN: > I agree with your analysis on characteristics. In fact, I think every playable creature should have characteristics > based on a 2d6+X roll. Hmmm, so Ducks should have SIZ of 2D6+6 and Trolls should also have SIZ 2D6+6? I think not. I can see the point of saying that a player should not be penalised because he rolled poorly, but any normal and fair GM would allow someone to reroll one crap characteristic. If the reroll was worse than the original then tough, the PC was meant to be rubbish. If they moan then make them reroll everything again until they get a reasonable one. I prefer rolling an extra die and ignoring the worst one. That way, the stats are a bit better than you would expect, but not all super stats. > To be honest, I think the biggest problem with the first iterations of RuneQuest Mongoose was the lack of > experience with BRPS of the development team. Which speaks volumes, especially considering that RQ is a BRP system, or rather BRP was originally RQ-lite. > I also wonder in which extent will RuneQuest be "open" and how much it will be possible to tweak the rules in > "RQ-based" publications... Well, we'll have to wait and see. Most RQ publications messed about with the rules a bit, adding bits here and there or replacing some rules. All GMs do it anyway. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060612/07906fea/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:28:07 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:28:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Does anyone know Toby Partridge's email? In-Reply-To: <20060612082224.56E3C836D18@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060612112807.78521.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> This is extremely off-topic, but I saw this website today and it has some interesting things to say about the Griffin Mountain map. I wanted to contact Toby Partridge, the site owner, but he doesn't have a contact email address on the website. Apparently, he is a member of the Pinner Roleplaying group. http://www.partridges.org.uk/ If anyone could send me his email address or email him and send my email address, I would appreciate it. See Ya Simon Now, back to discussing why ducks can be SIZ 18 ..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060612/8584e0f9/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 12 22:54:16 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:54:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Species Max In-Reply-To: <20060612110253.76216.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060612125416.62846.qmail@web27709.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Simon Phipp a ?crit : Alban de ROSTOLAN: > I agree with your analysis on characteristics. In fact, I think every playable creature should have characteristics > based on a 2d6+X roll. Hmmm, so Ducks should have SIZ of 2D6+6 and Trolls should also have SIZ 2D6+6? I think not. No, I meant 2d6+X, where X depends on the race's average characteristic score. So, if you want humans to have approximately the same average stats than in RQ3 (13 for SIZ & INT, 11 -10.5 rounded up- for other stats), they will have the following stats : STR 2d6+4 SIZ 2d6+6 CON 2d6+4 INT 2d6+6 POW 2d6+4 DEX 2d6+4 APP 2d6+4 Of course, I agree this doesn't suit very well creatures whose SIZ is not at the same "scale" than humans. Applying this rule to creatures with an average SIZ of 4 would be silly as it would result in 1 such being out of 36 having negative SIZ... Alban __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060612/db4eaa95/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Tue Jun 13 01:42:52 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:42:52 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics References: <20060612105352.50504.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004101c68e36$e0c9af50$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Simon Phipp wrote: >>>> 3D6 + 3 would be 21 (max rolled) + 3 (for 3D6) + 1 (for the +3) or >>>> 25 for species max using this system. >> >> That was the RQ2 standard. RQ3 standard, which I prefer, is Maximum >> Rollable + Minimum Rollable, which works the same for straight nD6 >> rolls, but works out a little higher for nD6+N rolls. One problem I would have with Racial Max = Max rollable + Min rollable are things like Agimori, who in Borderlands get CON = 1d4+14, that would give them a racial max CON of 33 - of course RQ 3 changed the maximum con roll possible from 18, but still, races with high adders to the dice come out wonky - of course by the RQ 2 rules, the Agimori max CON is 20, but I tend to allow large modifiers to count as 2 dice instead of just one, so pretty everyone has a racial max CON of 21. One thing I have been considering doing is allowing SIZ+3 (or possibly SIZ + delta used to compute racial max) to be used in determining max STR and CON. Frank From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 04:34:04 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:34:04 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <004101c68e36$e0c9af50$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> References: <20060612105352.50504.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> <004101c68e36$e0c9af50$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: Going off on a bit of a tangent, here, how might characteristic maximums factor into a point-based character design system? This might sound crazy, but I can't help but think that it would be interesting if you could include purchasing characteristic maximums into such a system. In other words, you might purchase a starting STR of 13, but also purchase a maximum potential STR of, say, 23 - perhaps the character has an extra Y chromosome, or something. Of course, the cost of maximums would still need to be scaled to the species, I suppose. I can't help but think of the 20% bonus that RQ2 priests got for POW gain rolls, too. If I remember correctly, they made their POW gain rolls as if their species maximum was 25 rather than 21, although their POW itself could only go up to 21. Is that right? ->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/20060612/97c346be/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Tue Jun 13 06:57:32 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:57:32 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics Message-ID: <374.5664e60.31bf2f3c@aol.com> Peter Maranci wrote: > Going off on a bit of a tangent, here, how might characteristic maximums > factor into a point-based character design system? This might sound crazy, > but I can't help but think that it would be interesting if you could include > purchasing characteristic maximums into such a system. > In other words, you might purchase a starting STR of 13, but also purchase a > maximum potential STR of, say, 23 - perhaps the character has an extra Y I would make an advantage/disadvantage for Higher/Lower Maximum Potential, but I've no idea how to price it. Maybe 1/3 value per point above or below maximum, since a PC might well not survive long enough to benefit. This seems open to abuse: a SIZ 9 sneak thief who takes the Lower Maximum Potential for SIZ down to SIZ 9 is getting points for a characteristic he will probably never want to increase. Michael Hoxie From darthvogel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 16:09:14 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "Peter Maranci" "In other words, you might purchase a starting STR of 13, but also purchase a maximum potential STR of, say, 23 - perhaps the character has an extra Y chromosome, or something. Of course, the cost of maximums would still need to be scaled to the species, I suppose." I've kinda casually followed this thread. I saw some comments about the value of the species max. This is a modeling mechanic. I think it is a good one. If you as a GM choose not to use it and that works for your story/game/universe/style, great guns, go for it. Too Peter's comment, your statment made me first think, "What are you running some kind of X-men campaign" and then I remembered what I like about this system so much, it is versitle enough that with a few tweaks you could run an X-Men scenario in a modern setting. This is what I like so much about the gaming system. It creates balances without being stuck in the setting. I'm currently writing a Space Master campaign, why? Because I like tons of rules! No actually there are bits about that system that I like a lot in how it models things; but I think it goes way overboard. If you get to the heart of that system, it is extremly simple, its all the crap layered on that makes it so complicated. I will use the simple parts out of that but my SM campaign will run at least 60% on a RQ type framework. Fred From darthvogel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 16:09:41 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "Peter Maranci" "In other words, you might purchase a starting STR of 13, but also purchase a maximum potential STR of, say, 23 - perhaps the character has an extra Y chromosome, or something. Of course, the cost of maximums would still need to be scaled to the species, I suppose." I've kinda casually followed this thread. I saw some comments about the value of the species max. This is a modeling mechanic. I think it is a good one. If you as a GM choose not to use it and that works for your story/game/universe/style, great guns, go for it. Too Peter's comment, your statment made me first think, "What are you running some kind of X-men campaign" and then I remembered what I like about this system so much, it is versitle enough that with a few tweaks you could run an X-Men scenario in a modern setting. This is what I like so much about the gaming system. It creates balances without being stuck in the setting. I'm currently writing a Space Master campaign, why? Because I like tons of rules! No actually there are bits about that system that I like a lot in how it models things; but I think it goes way overboard. If you get to the heart of that system, it is extremly simple, its all the crap layered on that makes it so complicated. I will use the simple parts out of that but my SM campaign will run at least 60% on a RQ type framework. Fred From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 22:40:00 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics In-Reply-To: <374.5664e60.31bf2f3c@aol.com> Message-ID: An idea we use when we play Warhammer, is that we don't have any rules. We discuss things, and if everybody agrees that the stat is realistic, then the GM allows it. If you can come up with a plausible reason why a citicen of any given specis should have turbo characteristics in all departments, then they'll have to come up with a pretty hefty explenation. Our experience is that such characers are pretty boring to play in the long run, and soon, the players starts to make characters with quirks and downsides. >From: Ludowick at aol.com >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics >Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:57:32 EDT > >Peter Maranci wrote: > > > Going off on a bit of a tangent, here, how might characteristic >maximums > > factor into a point-based character design system? This might sound >crazy, > > but I can't help but think that it would be interesting if you could >include > > purchasing characteristic maximums into such a system. > > > In other words, you might purchase a starting STR of 13, but also >purchase >a > > maximum potential STR of, say, 23 - perhaps the character has an extra >Y > >I would make an advantage/disadvantage for Higher/Lower Maximum Potential, >but I've no idea how to price it. Maybe 1/3 value per point above or >below >maximum, since a PC might well not survive long enough to benefit. This >seems >open to abuse: a SIZ 9 sneak thief who takes the Lower Maximum Potential >for SIZ down to SIZ 9 is getting points for a characteristic he will >probably never >want to increase. > >Michael Hoxie > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 16 07:12:45 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:12:45 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Hi To all those who received version 1.5 of the PlayTest rules and who had a peek at the four teaser pdf's on Mongoose's site..... Do you feel there have been many changes between 1.5 and what is possibly the version that is going to be published in July? Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The 'decapitating swing' is still there :-( Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the point in having a 'legendary ability' that duplicates something that can be achieved through a standard skill? Cheers Gianni From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 07:19:51 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:19:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4491DD07.7776.205BCB5@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 15 Jun 2006 at 23:12, Gianni wrote: > > Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The 'decapitating swing' > is still there :-( Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the > point in having a 'legendary ability' that duplicates something that > can be achieved through a standard skill? I won't use any of the legendary abilities at all, ever. > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Jun 16 07:50:56 2006 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:50:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <4491DD07.7776.205BCB5@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <056901c690c5$d960bab0$3410fea9@home> No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's a legendary ability? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Zunder (Home)" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules On 15 Jun 2006 at 23:12, Gianni wrote: > > Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The 'decapitating swing' > is still there :-( Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the > point in having a 'legendary ability' that duplicates something that > can be achieved through a standard skill? I won't use any of the legendary abilities at all, ever. > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 16 08:13:31 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:13:31 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: <20060615221332.4319185C004@mini.thinbits.net> > No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's a > legendary ability? It's a kind of 'super-hero' ability that you can buy using hero points (hero points are a commodity that you may use to save your butt, to gain ranks in Cults, or to buy legendary abilities). Gianni From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 16 08:39:21 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060615223921.87623.qmail@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > Hi > > To all those who received version 1.5 of the > PlayTest rules and who had a > peek at the four teaser pdf's on Mongoose's > site..... Do you feel there have > been many changes between 1.5 and what is possibly > the version that is going > to be published in July? > > Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The > 'decapitating swing' is > still there :-( > Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the > point in having a 'legendary > ability' that duplicates something that can be > achieved through a standard > skill? > I suspect that the biggest changes will be to magic which still needed some serious fixing even after Ken Hite's amazing effort to clear out the dross from the previous editions. What amazes me is that *no-one* supported the inclusion of Legendary Abilities in *any* of the playtest groups - and indeed several people (yourself, Tom, myself and others I can't remember at this stage) explicitly stated that their inclusion was simply ridiculous at best. It is embarrassing that a game with such a history as RuneQuest is now lumped with something as silly as "Legendary Abilities". It's up there with the Lost City of Elderard and the Daughters of Darkness. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 11:25:07 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:25:07 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44920873.9060904@gmail.com> The purpose is merely to tie it into the D20 D&D systems so they can sell both as a D20 company rather than have a "real" Runequest. I sadly fore-see the rolling of Glorantha into another D&D flavor. Gianni wrote: >Hi > >To all those who received version 1.5 of the PlayTest rules and who had a >peek at the four teaser pdf's on Mongoose's site..... Do you feel there have >been many changes between 1.5 and what is possibly the version that is going >to be published in July? > >Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The 'decapitating swing' is >still there :-( >Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the point in having a 'legendary >ability' that duplicates something that can be achieved through a standard >skill? > >Cheers > >Gianni_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 16 15:09:33 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest first edition Message-ID: <20060616050933.9952.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just a matter of interest to anyone who has this... What did it have on the cover? A 1978 version of Luise Perrin's picture of the Dragonnewt and the female Fertility warrior? Was it colour or monochrome? Thanks muchly, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Jun 16 15:41:14 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:41:14 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest first edition References: <20060616050933.9952.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c69107$7b1fd480$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> The covers to the first edition and 2nd edition were virtually identical. However, they were two different illustrations, one done in sepia tones (1st edition) and the other in color (2nd edition). To further confuse matters, for the boxed set a sepia version of the color cover was done for the interior rules manual, though I am pretty sure it was that, not a re-use of the 1st edition cover. If it has a sepia cover but is perfect bound, it's second edition. Why didn't you just ask me directly, Lev? Steve Perrin, husband of the artist for going on 39 years. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lafayette" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:09 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest first edition > > Just a matter of interest to anyone who has this... > What did it have on the cover? A 1978 version of Luise > Perrin's picture of the Dragonnewt and the female > Fertility warrior? Was it colour or monochrome? > > Thanks muchly, > > > Lev > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 16 16:32:08 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest first edition In-Reply-To: <003a01c69107$7b1fd480$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <20060616063208.18617.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Steve. I asked the list simply because someone is selling something that looks like 1st edition here in Oz (it isn't), except the auction closes in 90 minutes. I wouldn't want to make assumptions about your availability to answer such obscure questions on such short notice.... but a list of people! Ahh, there must be one person at least.. Just so happened to be you! All the best, Lev --- Steve Perrin wrote: > The covers to the first edition and 2nd edition were > virtually identical. > However, they were two different illustrations, one > done in sepia tones (1st > edition) and the other in color (2nd edition). To > further confuse matters, > for the boxed set a sepia version of the color cover > was done for the > interior rules manual, though I am pretty sure it > was that, not a re-use of > the 1st edition cover. If it has a sepia cover but > is perfect bound, it's > second edition. > > Why didn't you just ask me directly, Lev? > > Steve Perrin, husband of the artist for going on 39 > years. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lev Lafayette" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:09 PM > Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest first edition > > > > > > Just a matter of interest to anyone who has > this... > > What did it have on the cover? A 1978 version of > Luise > > Perrin's picture of the Dragonnewt and the female > > Fertility warrior? Was it colour or monochrome? > > > > Thanks muchly, > > > > > > Lev > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 18:22:52 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:22:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060616012531.38AC085D8AE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Fred Vogel: > Too Peter's comment, your statment made me first think, "What are you > running some kind of X-men campaign" and then I remembered what I like about > this system so much, it is versitle enough that with a few tweaks you could > run an X-Men scenario in a modern setting. This is what I like so much > about the gaming system. It creates balances without being stuck in the > setting. That's right. If you want a game where there are super-human (or super-troll or super-whatever) characteristics then fine, ignore Species Maxima. If you want to ensure that PCs don't just have silly stats then use them. In House Rules, people can ignore or use them as they see fit. Personally, I would keep them in the rules, as they do serve a useful purpose. It's too late now, of course. Bjorn Stolen: > An idea we use when we play Warhammer, is that we don't have any rules. We > discuss things, and if everybody agrees that the stat is realistic, then the > GM allows it. If you can come up with a plausible reason why a citicen of > any given specis should have turbo characteristics in all departments, then > they'll have to come up with a pretty hefty explenation. Our experience is > that such characers are pretty boring to play in the long run, and soon, the > players starts to make characters with quirks and downsides. In fact, having good characteristics is only really important when starting out, and even then they are not crucial. OK, having DEX 3 will severely impact on a PC, but if all characteristics are 10 or above then it doesn't really matter if you have a DEX of 11 or 18, it just makes you a little bit more skilful and a little bit faster to get in. Having lowish SIZ or CON reduces HPs, but not by an awful lot, maybe 1 per location. If you are in a long-term campaign and have a liberal GM, then many characteristics can be trained up. So DEX will eventually approach, if not reach, 21, STR/CON will be trained to the max of STR/CON/SIZ, or starting statx1.5 or whatever the GM uses in the campaign, POW will, of course, go up and down like a yo-yo, SIZ and INT should stay about the same, unless they have magical means to change them. So, you end up with nearly maxed out characters, but what difference does it make? Unless you have STR and SIZ 17, you will still have a 1D4 damage bonus. Your HPs will go up a bit by incrreasing CON, but not by enough to really notice. OK, if you play silly rules such as Priests' and Shaman's skills are limited by DEX, then having a high DEX is useful, also high DEX means you attack a bit faster but not really by much. So, having good characteristics is not really important. You can get around having a low CON by using Hit Point Strengthening Enchantments. You can learn the Strength/Vigour/Coordination/Glamour spells to negate having low STR/CON/DEX/APP. Having a few extra percentiles because of good characteristics becomes meaningless when skills are near mastery or above. At this stage, it is the character that is important, not the physical attributes. Gianni: > To all those who received version 1.5 of the PlayTest rules and who had a > peek at the four teaser pdf's on Mongoose's site..... Do you feel there have > been many changes between 1.5 and what is possibly the version that is going > to be published in July? To tell the truth, I am going to hold off commenting until I see the finished article. It's only a month away and I can easily wait that long. When RQ3 came out, I liked the look of it and many of the new rules, especially the feel of how it worked. However, I didn't like the fact that it wasn't Gloranthan. With the new cults that came out and the new backgrounds, it soon became a very good system. Hopefully, RQM will do the same. By the way, since we have RQ2 and RQ3, doesn't RQM sound better than MRQ? > Sadly, I don't feel there haven't been many. The 'decapitating swing' is > still there :-( > Well, I, as a GM, will _not_ use it. What's the point in having a 'legendary > ability' that duplicates something that can be achieved through a standard > skill? Well, it's Legendary, innit? I can see the point of them and will wait to see how they have been implemented. J and/or Ellen: > No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's a > legendary ability? Ha, ha, ha :-) Lev Lafayette: > I suspect that the biggest changes will be to magic > which still needed some serious fixing even after Ken > Hite's amazing effort to clear out the dross from the > previous editions. Maybe. Let's wait and see ...... > It is embarrassing that a game with such a history as > RuneQuest is now lumped with something as silly as > "Legendary Abilities". It's up there with the Lost > City of Elderard and the Daughters of Darkness. I can see the point of them. I have always had such abilities in my game, but gained through Magical means or HeroQuest and never codified specifically as "Legendary Abilities" or whatever. So, a sword that ignores armour if it hits the head is pretty much a decapitating swing. Sven Lugar: > The purpose is merely to tie it into the D20 D&D systems so they can > sell both as a D20 company rather than have a "real" Runequest. I sadly > fore-see the rolling of Glorantha into another D&D flavor. Isn't that a bit cynical, Mr Grumpy-Pants? I can't see it, myself. Or, perhaps, I don't want to see it. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060616/10c843f5/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 19:16:46 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:16:46 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > ...snip... > Sven Lugar: > > The purpose is merely to tie it into the D20 D&D systems so they can > > sell both as a D20 company rather than have a "real" Runequest. I sadly > > fore-see the rolling of Glorantha into another D&D flavor. > Isn't that a bit cynical, Mr Grumpy-Pants? I can't see it, myself. Or, > perhaps, I don't want to see it. > > See Ya > > Simon Perhaps, or perhaps it is merely based on experience with corporate ideology. Why else graft on a totally artificial construct like "Legendary Abilities" when they would arise naturally thru the process of skill increases. It smacks of D&D/D20 systems. They are then afforded the luxury of phasing a creative & succesful world into their usual ilk games & letting RQ get lost in the shuffle. I've seen people hyping a Glorantha-D&D before. I've come to disbelieve M. Sprange's word that he "always admired RuneQuest" when he trashes publicly the writer of it, thus it extends to his protestations that he wants to preserve RuneQuest & Glorantha in a "pure state". As to being Mr Grumpy-Pants, perhaps you're right, but my cynicism kept me alive thru 2-1/2 tours 30+ years ago in the service, & in decades of corporate servitude (including running departments & divisions) I, alas, haven't been dissapointed by expecting the worst & greediest from corporate wienies yet. best to you Simon, Sven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060616/9065dac6/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 21:11:12 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:11:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060615223921.87623.qmail@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44929FE0.27967.1008D5E@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 15 Jun 2006 at 15:39, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > What amazes me is that *no-one* supported the > inclusion of Legendary Abilities in *any* of the > playtest groups - and indeed several people (yourself, > Tom, myself and others I can't remember at this stage) > explicitly stated that their inclusion was simply > ridiculous at best. > Just wait for my rpg.net review... Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 21:11:12 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:11:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <056901c690c5$d960bab0$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <44929FE0.4107.1008AED@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 15 Jun 2006 at 16:50, J and/or Ellen wrote: > No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's > a legendary ability? > Essentially a D&D feat bought with hero points. The whole chapter can be easily (and preferably) ignored. As with the ludicrous hoops one has to jump through to get Rune Magic. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 21:11:13 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:11:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <44920873.9060904@gmail.com> References: <20060615211310.AC4B385B7F9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44929FE1.688.1008FCF@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 15 Jun 2006 at 18:25, Sven Lugar wrote: > The purpose is merely to tie it into the D20 D&D systems so they can > sell both as a D20 company rather than have a "real" Runequest. I > sadly fore-see the rolling of Glorantha into another D&D flavor. I think it's more a hangover from Mongooses previous systems. It is very similar to the stuff they did in Conan. It is not inter-related to D&D/d20, more a continuation of the Mongoose 'gestalt' (look it up).. Hopefully we can ignore it, and I won't use it when I convert Gwenthia to MRQ (if I bother now). Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 21:14:16 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:14:16 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 16 Jun 2006 at 2:16, Sven Lugar wrote: > usual ilk games & letting RQ get lost in the shuffle. I've seen people > hyping a Glorantha-D&D before. I've come to disbelieve M. Sprange's > word that he "always admired RuneQuest" when he trashes publicly the > writer of it, thus it extends to his protestations that he wants to > preserve RuneQuest & Glorantha in a "pure state". Nah, I think Sprange wants to break free of d20, that's why he keeps moving towards OGL and simpler versions of the ruleset. RQ represents for him an opportunity to break free with a simple core ruleset that is Mongoose's and which they can publish more setting rich and less system rich games. (He said all this to me at Dragonmeet 2 years ago, before RQ was on the cards, so it flows well.) BUT they are d20 heads, and it shows sometimes. I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. Hang on, what does that leave? Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Jun 16 21:18:20 2006 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 06:18:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <44929FE0.4107.1008AED@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <005001c69136$9e3f5510$3410fea9@home> Sounds like a corruption of Stormbringer's elan, which can be used as get-out-of-jail-free cards. Pretty handy for desperately saving the behind of a favorite character, not something that can be used casually. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Zunder (Home)" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules On 15 Jun 2006 at 16:50, J and/or Ellen wrote: > No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's > a legendary ability? > Essentially a D&D feat bought with hero points. The whole chapter can be easily (and preferably) ignored. As with the ludicrous hoops one has to jump through to get Rune Magic. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 16 21:28:14 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:28:14 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > So, having good characteristics is not really important. You can get >around having a low CON by using Hit Point Strengthening Enchantments. You >can learn the Strength/Vigour/Coordination/Glamour spells to negate having >low STR/CON/DEX/APP. Having a few extra percentiles because of good >characteristics becomes meaningless when skills are near mastery or above. > > At this stage, it is the character that is important, not the physical >attributes. That's my experience as well, and therefore we don't bother having strict rules about them, as my players like to focus more on the characters background, feelings, motivations, contacts, etc. than his /her physical/psycological attributes From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 16 21:32:14 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:32:14 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <44929FE0.27967.1008D5E@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: If ledgendary abilities are a bit like "mastery" in the issarries Hero Quest's version of Glorantha, or like the "ki"-skills in the Nihon-supplement to RQ(3), then I like it. I like the supernormal myth/Beowulf/super "croatching tiger hidden dragon"/ "Achilles"-feel to my campagin, and in that context a ledgendary ability is perfect. I use it in my vn. of RQ3, where i take the ki-skills from the nihon supplemnt and improvise new ki-skills to other standard-skills. (Whenever my characters venture into the hero-plane, i swap to the hero-quest-rules, as I see them as more abstract and IMHO perfectly suited to a plane where epic deeds and fantastic acts set the standard. >From: "Tom Zunder (Home)" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:11:12 +0100 > >On 15 Jun 2006 at 15:39, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > > What amazes me is that *no-one* supported the > > inclusion of Legendary Abilities in *any* of the > > playtest groups - and indeed several people (yourself, > > Tom, myself and others I can't remember at this stage) > > explicitly stated that their inclusion was simply > > ridiculous at best. > > > >Just wait for my rpg.net review... > > >Tom Zunder >http://www.zunder.org.uk >http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ >http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ >ICQ: 1521799 >MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk >Y!: tzunder >Google Talk: tom.zunder >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 23:52:36 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:52:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606160652s2173362h1c09fab957d85ac4@mail.gmail.com> On 6/16/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > On 16 Jun 2006 at 2:16, Sven Lugar wrote: > > I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the > combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. > > Hang on, what does that leave? Exactly. I'm staying with my hacked combo of RQIII and Call of Cthulthu (all flavors, including Cthulhu Rising) with a mild sprinkling of the new DBRPS rules currently in playtest for flavoring. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060616/2d3bb787/attachment.html From rjmeints at aol.com Sat Jun 17 00:16:03 2006 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:16:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequest First edition In-Reply-To: <20060616091714.AD308860833@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060616091714.AD308860833@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <8C85F668919E6CB-168C-95B5@FWM-D32.sysops.aol.com> If you want to tell a first edition from the later editions the easiest way is to look at the back cover. I have a picture of the back cover on my website: http://www.glorantha.info/runequest/chaosium/rqrules/rqrules.html The back cover has a stone arch on it, which is very different to the mainly text based cover used for later editions. Hope that helps, Rick Meints ________________________________________________________________________ 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/20060616/abf6f3f9/attachment.html From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 17 07:04:45 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:04:45 -1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606160652s2173362h1c09fab957d85ac4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1c92296e0606160652s2173362h1c09fab957d85ac4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44931CED.5070202@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > On 6/16/06, *Tom Zunder (Home)* > wrote: > > On 16 Jun 2006 at 2:16, Sven Lugar wrote: > > I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the > combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. > > Hang on, what does that leave? > > > Exactly. I'm staying with my hacked combo of RQIII and Call of Cthulthu > (all flavors, including Cthulhu Rising) with a mild sprinkling of the > new DBRPS rules currently in playtest for flavoring. Sounds facinating, got any write-ups? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net This message and its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the address listed in the From: field and destroy all copies of the original message and its attachments. From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jun 16 21:34:28 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:34:28 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hero Points In-Reply-To: <005001c69136$9e3f5510$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <4492A554.12874.115DA6E@tom.zunder.org.uk> Hero Points in MRQ are wholly unoriginal. You get some all the time for being an adventurer, you can use them to tweak dice rolls (I think) and you also need them to qualify as different ranks in a cult. You can also trade them in for meta-feats. It's a totally unnecessary, totally not-RQ meta system that is so pointless and superfluous that I suggest ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Streamlining the system was good, adding a totally pointless demi-xp system for a parallel advancement system is not streamlining. What is even more laughable is that most of the stuff you can buy with the points are either things you could do anyway (chop someone's head off, well if you got that many hero points to blow then you probably could do it in system anyway) or are not worth getting bothered about. The more I talk about this the more I feel like playing some Savage Worlds. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jun 17 02:48:50 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:48:50 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: <20060616164852.780B6864343@mini.thinbits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" > If ledgendary abilities are a bit like "mastery" in the issarries Hero > Quest's version of Glorantha, or like the "ki"-skills in the > Nihon-supplement to RQ(3), then I like it. I like the supernormal > myth/Beowulf/super "croatching tiger hidden dragon"/ "Achilles"-feel to my > campagin, and in that context a ledgendary ability is perfect. My original complaint was NOT about Legendary Abilities. I run Imperial China-flavoured games, in which Legendary Abilities are necessary. What I object to is Legendary Abilities which DUPLICATE the effects of already-existing skills. Cheers Gianni From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jun 17 04:16:13 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:16:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: References: <44929FE0.27967.1008D5E@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <4493037D.30136.285A95E@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 16 Jun 2006 at 11:32, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > If ledgendary abilities are a bit like "mastery" in the issarries Hero > Quest's version of Glorantha, or like the "ki"-skills in the > Nihon-supplement to RQ(3), then I like it. I like the supernormal > myth/Beowulf/super "croatching tiger hidden dragon"/ "Achilles"-feel > to my campagin, and in that context a ledgendary ability is perfect. No, they're not because they're unrelated to skill development. The ki mastery from Nihon would have been the correct and perfect model to use. But I don't think Mongoose got that. I think they had a very steep learning curve to understand RQ/BRP at all. > use it in my vn. of RQ3, where i take the ki-skills from the nihon > supplemnt and improvise new ki-skills to other standard-skills. > (Whenever my characters venture into the hero-plane, i swap to the > hero-quest-rules, as I see them as more abstract and IMHO perfectly > suited to a plane where epic deeds and fantastic acts set the > standard. If I ever write anything for MRQ I shall suggest a new magic system and a new mastery system to replace the ones they published. If the Open Licence is like the OGL or d20 licence that that should be quite viable. I guess they'll go for one more like d20 and less like OGL, they know how well you can use OGL for your own ends. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jun 17 04:17:09 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:17:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060616164852.780B6864343@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <449303B5.10718.2868595@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 16 Jun 2006 at 18:48, Gianni wrote: > My original complaint was NOT about Legendary Abilities. I run > Imperial China-flavoured games, in which Legendary Abilities are > necessary. What I object to is Legendary Abilities which DUPLICATE the > effects of already-existing skills. My complaint isn't with the concept which is great, but the stupid xp like hero point system, rather than a skill based one. After when you get to 90%+ don't you feel you deserve something funky? Plus, as Gianni says, many of them duplicate the core game system pointlessly. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jun 17 09:22:18 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <44931CED.5070202@concentric.net> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1c92296e0606160652s2173362h1c09fab957d85ac4@mail.gmail.com> <44931CED.5070202@concentric.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606161622u29008c8bw3cce44c318589116@mail.gmail.com> Heh. Give me 2-3 months; I'm still hacking while trying to run a custom RQIII campaign for some friends. Amazing how much work it can take (or how much I enjoy the "work"). David On 6/16/06, Stephen Posey wrote: > > > Sounds facinating, got any write-ups? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060616/37892ef0/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Sun Jun 18 18:05:02 2006 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:05:02 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequest First edition Message-ID: <524.2eddaa.31c6632e@aol.com> In a message dated 6/16/2006 7:17:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rjmeints at aol.com writes: "If you want to tell a first edition from the later editions the easiest way is to look at the back cover. I have a picture of the back cover on my website: _http://www.glorantha.info/runequest/chaosium/rqrules/rqrules.html_ (http://www.glorantha.info/runequest/chaosium/rqrules/rqrules.html) The back cover has a stone arch on it, which is very different to the mainly text based cover used for later editions." The picture with the front cover is broken. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060618/c23c1cec/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 19 17:29:36 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:29:36 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <4492A098.32536.1035D27@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: >On 16 Jun 2006 at 2:16, Sven Lugar wrote: > >> usual ilk games & letting RQ get lost in the shuffle. I've seen people >> hyping a Glorantha-D&D before. I've come to disbelieve M. Sprange's >> word that he "always admired RuneQuest" when he trashes publicly the >> writer of it, thus it extends to his protestations that he wants to >> preserve RuneQuest & Glorantha in a "pure state". > >Nah, I think Sprange wants to break free of d20, that's why he >keeps moving towards OGL and simpler versions of the ruleset. well, yes. But that's true of several publishers - that's one of the reasons we have True20, C&C, various other OGL games and the likes of PEG refocusing on their own systems rather than dabbling with d20 - everyone is bracing themselves early for the likely negative impact of D&D 4 (having been caught short by the early appearance of 3.5) and trying to reposition themselves so they are no longer dependent on d20. >RQ represents for him an opportunity to break free with a simple >core ruleset that is Mongoose's and which they can publish >more setting rich and less system rich games. (He said all this >to me at Dragonmeet 2 years ago, before RQ was on the cards, >so it flows well.) > >BUT they are d20 heads, and it shows sometimes. Being cynical, the problem is that "opportunity" is ALL RuneQuest means to Mongoose - I think it's quite clear from Matt Sprange's behaviour and attitude that he doesn't actually care one whit about the game of RuneQuest nor it's history and setting - it is simply a convenient brand name he could pick up cheap to leverage the next step in his business plan. I really do hope Issaries were well advised and cautious when they signed the licensing deal with Mongoose (and that Greg Stafford has been following the saga of the Mongoose Babylon 5 novels carefully)... >I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the >combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. > >Hang on, what does that leave? There was nothing I could see that was a clear cut improvement over RQIII in 1.4 (the last "full" version I saw), albeit there were some nice variants and interesting ideas. Given the way Matt Sprange treated Steve Perrin, I won't be buying a full price copy myself#, and what I have seen of the previews makes it clear that (with the exception of magic) things have either stood still, or got worse since then. Sad, and not what i was hoping for. Cheers, Nick Middleton # it's possible morbid curiosity may persuade me to pick up a copy cheap off eBay, from a second hand bin or when it's remaindered... From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 19 19:30:52 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:30:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <44929FE0.4107.1008AED@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060619093052.48215.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I don't really see "Legendary Abilities" as being equivalent to D&D feats. I agree they fall under the same kind of "RPG systems item", but they were not designed to fill the same goal than D&D feats, which is to ensure a greater diversity of fighter-type characters than in the previous versions of D&D. Of course, some high-level feats look a lot like those "legendary abilities", but most of what lower-level feats (such as weapon specialization or fighting in armor capacities) do is already covered in "normal" RQ rules. "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : On 15 Jun 2006 at 16:50, J and/or Ellen wrote: > No fair using esoteric jargon when most of us weren't testers. What's > a legendary ability? > Essentially a D&D feat bought with hero points. The whole chapter can be easily (and preferably) ignored. As with the ludicrous hoops one has to jump through to get Rune Magic. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface r?volutionnaire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/27b22c9a/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 19 19:39:18 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:39:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060619093052.48215.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >I don't really see "Legendary Abilities" as being equivalent to D&D feats. >I agree they fall under the same kind of "RPG systems item", but they were not designed to fill the same goal than D&D feats, which is to ensure a >greater diversity of fighter-type characters than in the previous versions of D&D. >Of course, some high-level feats look a lot like those "legendary abilities", but most of what lower-level feats (such as weapon specialization or >fighting in armour capacities)?do is already covered in "normal" RQ?rules. Actually, I think from a design PoV, that "low-level" use of feats was a secondary benefit of introducing the system - the primary purpose has always looked to me like it was the high level powers, as a way of differentiating high level characters and keeping the mechanical aspects of D&D as interesting at high levels as it was at lower levels. A way of keeping hack'n'slash (the bed rock, whatever fans might think, of D&D's market) fun and centre stage throughout a character's progression. Cheers, Nick Middleton From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 20:01:07 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:01:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points In-Reply-To: <20060619093142.AA5D287D346@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060619100107.71845.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Zunder: > Hero Points in MRQ are wholly unoriginal. > > You get some all the time for being an adventurer, you can use > them to tweak dice rolls (I think) and you also need them to > qualify as different ranks in a cult. You can also trade them in for > meta-feats. To tell the truth, Hero Points were one of the RQM rules that my players really liked. It reminded them a bit of HeroQuest and was also very useful. What we then did was to merge Hero Points and Experience Points together, so that they only had one set of points to use. It moves it even closer to HeroQuest, but that may not be a bad thing. We've been using them for over 6 months now, and they don't spoil the game at all, contrary to my early suspicions. > It's a totally unnecessary, totally not-RQ meta system that is so > pointless and superfluous that I suggest ignoring it and hoping it > will go away. Streamlining the system was good, adding a totally > pointless demi-xp system for a parallel advancement system is > not streamlining. What is even more laughable is that most of > the stuff you can buy with the points are either things you could > do anyway (chop someone's head off, well if you got that many > hero points to blow then you probably could do it in system > anyway) or are not worth getting bothered about. It depends how you want to play the game. It works for my players, they choose whether to keep Hero Points to spend in scenarios or to use in experience. I haven't used the Legendary Abilities system as I don't like how it is used, so they don't need to spend Hero Points on that kind of ability. But, if they had to then they would, quite happily. > The more I talk about this the more I feel like playing some > Savage Worlds. You do seem to have a bit of a downer of RQM, to tell the truth. I saw the system for bumping rolls in the DBRP playtest and RQM Hero Points beats that hands down. From: "Gianni" Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Message-ID: <20060616164852.780B6864343 at mini.thinbits.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > My original complaint was NOT about Legendary Abilities. I run Imperial > China-flavoured games, in which Legendary Abilities are necessary. What I > object to is Legendary Abilities which DUPLICATE the effects of > already-existing skills. Yes, it does seem a bit strange, doesn't it? Maybe they've improved it in the book. Tom Zunder: > My complaint isn't with the concept which is great, but the stupid > xp like hero point system, rather than a skill based one. After > when you get to 90%+ don't you feel you deserve something > funky? Plus, as Gianni says, many of them duplicate the core > game system pointlessly. So, make your own ones up - the ones described are only examples. Personally, I wouldn't give them out at 90% because that means you are just a Master, nothing particularly special. I'm always wary about getting new abilities _just_ because your skill has crossed a threshold. You should earn them on a HeroQuest or something similar rather than just be given them. Nick Middleton: >>I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the >>combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. >> >>Hang on, what does that leave? > There was nothing I could see that was a clear cut improvement over RQIII > in 1.4 (the last "full" version I saw), albeit there were some nice > variants and interesting ideas. Given the way Matt Sprange treated Steve > Perrin, I won't be buying a full price copy myself#, and what I have seen > of the previews makes it clear that (with the exception of magic) things > have either stood still, or got worse since then. Sad, and not what i was > hoping for. The Experience system is very good. Hero Points are fine. The general idea of the magic system was fine, but not the implementation. Using opposed skills rather than the Resistance Table is a good idea, but my players didn't like it. Although it was a bit sad seing Matt Sprange and Steve Perrin falling out, it wouldn't stop me buying RQM - in the past, Greg Stafford has apparently fallen out with a lot of people, but that hasn't stopped me buying HQ, HQ or even Chaosium games. Business is business and people fall out. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/6e1598a3/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 19 20:29:00 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points In-Reply-To: <20060619100107.71845.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >>>I wish they hadn't effed Rune Magic so badly, and most of the >>>combat system will go out of the window for me, but hey ho. >>> >>>Hang on, what does that leave? > >> There was nothing I could see that was a clear cut improvement over RQIII >> in 1.4 (the last "full" version I saw), albeit there were some nice >> variants and interesting ideas. Given the way Matt Sprange treated Steve >> Perrin, I won't be buying a full price copy myself#, and what I have seen >> of the previews makes it clear that (with the exception of magic) things >> have either stood still, or got worse since then. Sad, and not what i was >> hoping for. >The Experience system is very good. My group did not find it enough of an improvement. > Hero Points are fine. Generally perceived as a step back by my group. If we want to play that sort of game, we wouldn't be playing BRP / "RuneQuest". And as others have said, the implementation seemed inept. The Serenity RPG has a better system, not least because it's more in keeping with the genre and style being emulated. I personally would have preferred something more like the old RQ Divine Intervention, if there was to be a mechanic for this sort of thing >The general idea of the magic system was fine, but not the implementation. It is a nice idea, but again, not a noticeable improvement on RQII/III. And as you say, the implementation was poor (I have obviously not seen the final version). >Using opposed skills rather than the Resistance Table is a good idea, but my players didn't like it. But then, very few people used the resistance table for opposed skill tests anyway, and MRQ up to 1.4 remained terminally confused about its core mechanic for opposed resolution (or indeed, anything else). It ran through several alternatives for skills (some elegant, some not) but perpetually wanted to do different things for sake of doing different things; especially in combat. But then, "different things for the sake of different things" seemed to be the overriding design criteria from Mongoose's PoV as far as I could discern. >Although it was a bit sad seeing Matt Sprange and Steve Perrin falling out, it wouldn't stop me buying RQM - in the past, >Greg Stafford has apparently fallen out with a lot of people, but that hasn't stopped me buying HQ, HQ or even Chaosium games. Well, Glorantha is not the issue here, "RuneQuest" is. And frankly, Stafford's antics when the Mongoose deal first came to light ("The same system but not the same copyright words") cast quite a shadow over this anyway (as did his ludicrously snappy comment to Peter Maranici). > Business is business and people fall out. Quite possibly, but I am not a sub-contractor or business client of Mongoose or Issaries - I am a customer, and if they want my cash, they have to convince me their product is worth it, and that they are companies I wish to do business with. And the incident referred to, plus the clumsy handling of the open play test in general, the clumsy design of MRQ through iterations 1 - 1.4 and the apparent inept revisions since# has largely done the opposite I'm afraid. Cheers, Nick Middleton # e.g. random initiative every round, for every combatant?!? oh yes, thoroughly streamlined 21st century game design... NOT! From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 19 20:50:45 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:50:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060619093052.48215.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <44929FE0.4107.1008AED@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44968F95.22515.325A1D2@tom.zunder.org.uk> > I don't really see "Legendary Abilities" as being equivalent to D&D feats. They are similar in that they are 'binary', you have them or not. They're on/off attributes. > I agree they fall under the same kind of "RPG systems item", but they were not designed to fill > the same goal than D&D feats, which is to ensure a greater diversity of fighter-type characters > than in the previous versions of D&D. No, they are meant to be top-end attributes to aspire to. A great idea, and best done using the core RQ skill system. Like Ki skills in Nippon. The concept of mastery skills is something I've liked the idea of for a while. > Of course, some high-level feats look a lot like those "legendary abilities", but most of what lower- > level feats (such as weapon specialization or fighting in armor capacities)do is already covered in > "normal" RQrules. Indeed, as do may of the MRQ legendary abilities. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 19 21:00:54 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:00:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points In-Reply-To: <20060619100107.71845.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060619093142.AA5D287D346@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <449691F6.24981.32EEF3A@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 19 Jun 2006 at 11:01, Simon Phipp wrote: > To tell the truth, Hero Points were one of the RQM rules that my players really liked. It reminded > them a bit of HeroQuest and was also very useful. What we then did was to merge Hero Points > and Experience Points together, so that they only had one set of points to use. It moves it even > closer to HeroQuest, but that may not be a bad thing. I do like hero points in games where they are the main mechanism, like James Bond or Savage Worlds (bennies) and have even used them with some success in BRP games. > It depends how you want to play the game. It works for my players, they choose whether to keep > Hero Points to spend in scenarios or to use in experience. I haven't used theLegendary Abilities > system as I don't like how it is used, so they don't need to spend Hero Points on that kind of > ability. But, if they had to then they would, quite happily. Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc. It's the core clean approach I wanted. > You do seem to have a bit of a downer of RQM, to tell the truth. I saw the system for bumping > rolls in the DBRP playtest and RQMHero Pointsbeats that hands down. I do. I ran it and made a lot of core suggestions and I see little sign of it being done. I can ignore legendary abilities esaily so I won't fret them. > Yes, it does seem a bit strange, doesn't it? Maybe they've improved it in the book. We'll see, but don't hold your breath. > So, make your own ones up - the ones described are only examples. Personally, I wouldn't give > them out at 90% because that means you are just a Master, nothing particularly special. I'm > always wary about getting new abilities _just_ because your skill has crossed a threshold. You > should earn them on a HeroQuest or something similar rather than just be given them. Oh of course. But the 'make your own up' answer applis to all roleplaying. Of course we can 'make it up', but I think that by now the core system should work out of the box, so 'little Johnny' can pick it up and just play. Sod it, so I can pick it up and just play. Oh and yes, I agree, to start the Mastery skill off one needs to perform a Quest, find the Master, whatever. > The Experience system is very good. Hero Points are fine. The general idea of the magic system > was fine, but not the implementation. Using opposed skills rather than the Resistance Table is a > good idea, but my players didn't like it. The magic system is conceptually sound but implemented such that I suspect being a magic user is going to burn up too much skill points in character gen for a limited reward. It was not RQ again. Most people in the days of RQ3 wanted easier magic, not more difficult. Still, it does conceptually work and for a non- Glorantha low magic setting it might be quite good. > > Although it was a bit sad seing Matt Sprange and Steve Perrin falling out, it wouldn't stop me > buying RQM - in the past, Greg Stafford has apparently fallen out with a lot of people, but that > hasn't stopped me buying HQ, HQ or even Chaosium games. Business is business and people Exactly. We're all frail and weak and make mistakes and fall out. Thanks Simon, your email lifted me up. Gonna run some MRQ at Continuum? I might well like to sign up if you do.. > fall out. > See Ya > > Simon > Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 19 21:14:33 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:14:33 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points In-Reply-To: References: <20060619100107.71845.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44969529.9826.33B6CCD@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 19 Jun 2006 at 11:29, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > Hero Points are fine. > > Generally perceived as a step back by my group. If we want to play that > sort of game, we wouldn't be playing BRP / "RuneQuest". That is my point exactly. It's like D&D 3, it almost got to the point of being pure D&D, the core mechanics for everything. It then fudged it in some places, but it got close to the paradigm: xp, levels, classes. RQ should be d100, skill is what you see, roll under to succeed, roll over to get better. A uber-feat/mastery system should be the same. It's a stylistic choice. > old RQ Divine Intervention, if there was to be a mechanic for this sort of > thing Elan in Stormbringer for example. > It is a nice idea, but again, not a noticeable improvement on RQII/III. And > as you say, the implementation was poor (I have obviously not seen the > final version). It makes it much more the arcane preserve of specialists, I think. They'll have to loosen it a lot for Glorantha to feel Gloranthan, or find another approach. > But then, very few people used the resistance table for opposed skill tests Skill tests no, but I used to use it a lot. I am happy to seeit go since (as someone once said) it is a game system in it's own right. > But then, "different things for the sake of different things" seemed to be > the overriding design criteria from Mongoose's PoV as far as I could > discern. Yes, but not criteria, style. They're D&D heads and D&D heads that add rather than simplify. Conan solved d20 problems by adding when it could have done the same by simplifying. It's their house style I am afraid. > Quite possibly, but I am not a sub-contractor or business client of > Mongoose or Issaries - I am a customer, and if they want my cash, they have > to convince me their product is worth it, and that they are companies I > wish to do business with. And the incident referred to, plus the clumsy > handling of the open play test in general, the clumsy design of MRQ through > iterations 1 - 1.4 and the apparent inept revisions since# has largely done > the opposite I'm afraid. Yup. I wish them well tho' I'd like to go to my FLGS and get some BRPish gamers playing Glorantha, rather than endless Exalted and d20 games. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:18:25 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:18:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hero Points In-Reply-To: <20060619110114.587F787E082@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060619111825.28891.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Zunder: > Thanks Simon, your email lifted me up. Well, that's the general idea, anyway. > Gonna run some MRQ > at Continuum? I might well like to sign up if you do.. We'll see how the rules work. If they stink to high heaven then, no. Otherwise, then perhaps. I'm freeforming for the first time in 10 years, so I might not have time. Got to catch a train in 5 minutes .... See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/3d9b4454/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 19 21:49:48 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <44968F95.22515.325A1D2@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060619114949.67593.qmail@web27712.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > I agree they fall under the same kind of "RPG systems item", but they were not designed to fill > the same goal than D&D feats, which is to ensure a greater diversity of fighter-type characters > than in the previous versions of D&D. No, they are meant to be top-end attributes to aspire to. A great idea, and best done using the core RQ skill system. Like Ki skills in Nippon. The concept of mastery skills is something I've liked the idea of for a while. I'm also used to this kind of mechanism. I was first introduced to this by French Hawkmoon supplement on France, in which you could learn "bottes" skills that allowed you to automatically deal a specifi major wound to your opponent, and used it in my homebrew BRP system. D&D feats cover a far wider area of character customization. High-end feats are similar to MRQ Legendary abilities, but most of them (for instance, Weapon mastery feats) are best viewed as equivalents of skills in D&D's combat system. --------------------------------- 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/20060619/c4497263/attachment.html From pmj at comhem.se Mon Jun 19 22:19:18 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <449691F6.24981.32EEF3A@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <20060619093142.AA5D287D346@mini.thinbits.net> <449691F6.24981.32EEF3A@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44969646.1040204@comhem.se> Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' > game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the > core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance > table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game > system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 > for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc. > > It's the core clean approach I wanted. > Once upon a time (back in the mid 80's), a few of us in my original gaming group decided to create the ultimate game system after playing BRP, RQ2 and CoC for several years. We choose to base it on the resistance table and you compared your Skill with a Difficulty. For instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance of 40% to succeed with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified but the Difficulty was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the energy to finalize it. It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) /Peter J From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 19 23:46:15 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <44969646.1040204@comhem.se> Message-ID: <20060619134615.99261.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Johansson wrote: > Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > Which I understand. But this was touted as a > 'streamlined' > > game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ > that uses the > > core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop > the resistance > > table, even though it's a great mechanic (and > could be a game > > system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure > skill based d100 > > for everything, reolsution, advancement, > uber-feats etc. > > > > It's the core clean approach I wanted. > > > Once upon a time (back in the mid 80's), a few of us > in my original > gaming group decided to create the ultimate game > system after playing > BRP, RQ2 and CoC for several years. We choose to > base it on the > resistance table and you compared your Skill with a > Difficulty. For > instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance > of 40% to succeed > with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified > but the Difficulty > was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the > energy to finalize it. > It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) > The biggest problem with the resistance table is that it doesn't scale particularly well. For example, all in proportion. Skill 4 Difficulty 5 is a 45% chance Skill 8 Difficulty 10 is a 40% chance Skill 16 Difficulty 20 is a 30% chance ... Skill 40, Difficulty 50 is a 0% chance of success (well, maybe 5%). It can be fixed of course e.g.,(Skill/Difficulty)/2% but such complexities seems to confuse people these days :( __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 19 23:49:43 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:49:43 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <44969646.1040204@comhem.se> References: <449691F6.24981.32EEF3A@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <4496B987.21699.3C97C1C@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 19 Jun 2006 at 14:19, Peter Johansson wrote: > s. We choose to base it on the > resistance table and you compared your Skill with a Difficulty. For > instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance of 40% to succeed > with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified but the Difficulty > was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the energy to finalize it. > It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) Someone famous, (might have been Ken Hite but don't quote me) suggested this once and I have always meant to do it. Your Skill vs Difficulty, or Skill vs Skill for opposed skills. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 00:04:48 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:04:48 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> References: <20060616082252.13068.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <449276FE.1070702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> Isn't that D&D 3E? :) Oh wait, no, that's RQ(light)+[insert WotC gaming world here]. I just had some kids who had a lot of experience with D&D over, and was introducing them to the RQ rules in hopes I can get a campaign started over the summer. Over & over while explaining the basic concepts, they kept saying "Oh, ok, yeah, that's like how 3rd edition does it." to which my standard reply was "well, yes, except that RQ was doing it 20 years or more ago...." The only problem that I'd forgotten about RQ is that it can be MUCH harder than D&D to balance what's an "easy" encounter, what's a "hard" encounter, and what's a "flee immediately" encounter. With D&D's levels/HD mechanism, it's a much simpler shorthand quantification of capabilities while the the realism in RQ means that even a handful of trollkin - in the right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced adventurers. And yes, I still think that much of the D&D rules (cleaned up as they've been) are still a kludgy rationalization of inconstant game concepts...but then I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here. On 6/16/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > > > ... I've seen people hyping a Glorantha-D&D before.... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/e0f82da5/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Jun 20 01:17:29 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:17:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I was surprised by how clean DnD 3E was when it came out. I didn't like the ethos that much, but hey, DnD finally entered the late 1970s of game design in 2000. Now Mongoose are doing the same for RQ... Cheers, Ash --- Styopa wrote: > Isn't that D&D 3E? :) Oh wait, no, that's > RQ(light)+[insert WotC gaming > world here]. > I just had some kids who had a lot of experience > with D&D over, and was > introducing them to the RQ rules in hopes I can get > a campaign started over > the summer. > > Over & over while explaining the basic concepts, > they kept saying "Oh, ok, > yeah, that's like how 3rd edition does it." to > which my standard reply was > "well, yes, except that RQ was doing it 20 years or > more ago...." > > The only problem that I'd forgotten about RQ is that > it can be MUCH harder > than D&D to balance what's an "easy" encounter, > what's a "hard" encounter, > and what's a "flee immediately" encounter. With > D&D's levels/HD mechanism, > it's a much simpler shorthand quantification of > capabilities while the the > realism in RQ means that even a handful of trollkin > - in the right situation > - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced > adventurers. > > And yes, I still think that much of the D&D rules > (cleaned up as they've > been) are still a kludgy rationalization of > inconstant game concepts...but > then I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here. > > On 6/16/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > > > > > > ... I've seen people hyping a Glorantha-D&D > before.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 02:06:13 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:06:13 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> Actually, I _like_ the idea that "..even a handful of trollkin - in the right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced adventurers." Keeps the players on their toes and the game from being boring. Heck, I've had a NPC die accidently while I was rolling dice in front of the players. Although it left me scrambling as a GM because it forced me to alter my planned events, it led to a much more exciting series of events. It's not often that I as a GM say "oh sh--!" at the same time as the players. The death helped the campaign take on a life of its own because I now set up macro-events ahead of time much more than I have in past campaigns. It makes much more work for me ahead of a gaming session but I'm occasionally able to act as a player in my own campaign because of it. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/b2dcfaff/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 04:38:24 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606191138y43ab996fj1fb08b0b10440c6e@mail.gmail.com> Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree - it's this feature of RQ that was one of the first things that attracted me to it. However, (for example) I tend to take the shortcut of pillaging a number of pre-published modules for D&D as 'raw material' for adventures - maps, names, themes, etc. - and it becomes devilishly hard to balance risk vs. reward. For an 'average' party of 4-5th lvl D&D characters, a group of 8-10 orcs is unlikely to be much of a hindrance; for a skilled (let's say 80-90% in main weapon or 70%+ in magic skills) party of 4 RQ characters, that many slightly-better-than-average-human orcs would be a serious test, and very well could result in a few dead PCs if the orcs got the 'jump' on the PCs. FAR more realistic, FAR more "right" in my mind - but I find that only the weakest of D&D modules port to RQ nearly unscathed....as D&D characters (& what challenges them) ramp up in power levels, a judicious DM needs to be more and more draconian in nerfing the bad guys. I mean, in D&D a typical party of 12th-15th lvls (large party, perhaps, say 6-8) should be able to take down a moderately tough dragon. Anyone feel comfortable with just about ANY much-beloved character they play, going against a moderately powerful dragon in RQ? Further, I see RQ as a game that demands much more from its players. It could be the above reasons, or it could be something more intrinsic to the system, but I see RQ as a system that rewards careful, thoughtful play and punishes lazy or stupid decisions more than just about any other game. Thus, this makes it a little harder 'winning' D&D players over, unless they are actually LOOKING for a better challenge. Maybe that's just me? -S On 6/19/06, David Smart wrote: > > Actually, I _like_ the idea that "..even a handful of trollkin - in the > right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced > adventurers." Keeps the players on their toes and the game from being > boring. Heck, I've had a NPC die accidently while I was rolling dice in > front of the players. Although it left me scrambling as a GM because it > forced me to alter my planned events, it led to a much more exciting series > of events. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/573b4533/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Tue Jun 20 06:35:27 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:35:27 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606191138y43ab996fj1fb08b0b10440c6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0606191138y43ab996fj1fb08b0b10440c6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> I think it is more a stylistic difference than an actual mechanic difference. Yes, that stylistic difference shows up in the mechanics... RQ demands much more from its players, but not because that is its goal, much as it is not D&D's goal to allow for lazy play. But rather, D&D has always been designed from the perspective that the PCs are the protagonists of "the book" that the game is "writing". Protagonists don't routinely die. Especially not in the first chapter. They are, in a sense, fated to be special and important. This is why the D&D advancement system is, essentially, broken in the context of the game worlds they inhabit. After all, think about it. In D&D PCs gain a level every 13.666 encounters at an equal Challenge Rating to the party. Given the party is supposed to be able to handle between 4-5 encounters per day equal to their CR, and you get a level after 3 "days" of adventuring. Now factor in that most D&D PCs seem to have no other life beyond constant adventuring, and you get these stunning results where the PCs go from 1st level neophytes to god-shaking demi-gods in as little as a single year of campaign time. DUngeon magazine recently published a campaign of 12 adventures that take the PCs from 1st level to 20th level. The course of campaign time for those adventures can be as little as between 6 months and 1 year. Imagine a world where the rest of the world watches these hicks go off into the wilds for 6 months and return with the capabilities to level kingdoms. What's going to happen? Likely the rest of the world is going to covet such power and start adventuring themselves. Some portion will die, but the rest will become just as immensely powerful. You end up with either a sparesly populated world of superheroes or a world where every possible "dungeon" has been picked to the bone and whenever word arises of a new source of "experience" you have fifty different groups trying to clean it out. The point is that in D&D, the PCs are basically on an entirely different "track" than most of the rest of the campaign world. They are heroes. They have destinies. This is not the case in RQ. It almost cannot be, since to be heroic you have to take risks, and risks in RQ mean, eventually, death. I tried to run a heroic campaign in RQ. The PC attrition rate was astounding. Part of that was due to the fact that the players, long time AD&D players, tried to use the same tactics and swagger they did in AD&D and it got them annihilated. But even when they wised up, death was really too omnipresent to allow for a heroic story to be told. So, in some sense, it really depends on what style of story/game you want to run. I run D&D now because I want a heroic tale where the PCs have a good chance to survive all the way through the campaign. There are deaths of course, but those deaths are imminanently avoidable in D&D. In D&D, if you play well, it is very hard to die. In RQ, you can do everything right and still die with frequency. I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But it isn't heroic. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Styopa To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:38:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree - it's this feature of RQ that was one of the first things that attracted me to it. However, (for example) I tend to take the shortcut of pillaging a number of pre-published modules for D&D as 'raw material' for adventures - maps, names, themes, etc. - and it becomes devilishly hard to balance risk vs. reward. For an 'average' party of 4-5th lvl D&D characters, a group of 8-10 orcs is unlikely to be much of a hindrance; for a skilled (let's say 80-90% in main weapon or 70%+ in magic skills) party of 4 RQ characters, that many slightly-better-than-average-human orcs would be a serious test, and very well could result in a few dead PCs if the orcs got the 'jump' on the PCs. FAR more realistic, FAR more "right" in my mind - but I find that only the weakest of D&D modules port to RQ nearly unscathed....as D&D characters (& what challenges them) ramp up in power levels, a judicious DM needs to be more and more draconian in nerfing the bad guys. I mean, in D&D a typical party of 12th-15th lvls (large party, perhaps, say 6-8) should be able to take down a moderately tough dragon. Anyone feel comfortable with just about ANY much-beloved character they play, going against a moderately powerful dragon in RQ? Further, I see RQ as a game that demands much more from its players. It could be the above reasons, or it could be something more intrinsic to the system, but I see RQ as a system that rewards careful, thoughtful play and punishes lazy or stupid decisions more than just about any other game. Thus, this makes it a little harder 'winning' D&D players over, unless they are actually LOOKING for a better challenge. Maybe that's just me? -S On 6/19/06, David Smart wrote: Actually, I _like_ the idea that "..even a handful of trollkin - in the right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced adventurers." Keeps the players on their toes and the game from being boring. Heck, I've had a NPC die accidently while I was rolling dice in front of the players. Although it left me scrambling as a GM because it forced me to alter my planned events, it led to a much more exciting series of events. _______________________________________________ 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/20060619/bb1bb1a3/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 07:08:18 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:08:18 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> References: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0606191138y43ab996fj1fb08b0b10440c6e@mail.gmail.com> <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> Well..there's heroic in the style of the Knights of the Round Table and then there's heroic in the style of World War II. While D&D is the former and RQ is closer to the latter, my group has been able to combine both. But then only because they do put so much time and effort in building layers of magical defenses. I think layering defenses is the real key to surviving in RQ. That and the offensive tactic of hitting 'em fast, hitting 'em hard, and hitting 'em from behind at a distance. More and more, I see my player group going for "mission kills" rather than a hard kill. All except the uber dwarf who seems to have one hit, one kill ration. I have to admit, most of the players that survive a decent length of time usually end up using tactics similar to those of a Special Operations unit. At least that's been my experience over the last 20 years. RQ is definitely more gritty than D&D. David On 6/19/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But > it isn't heroic. > > Devin > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060619/64e1b08a/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 20 18:28:44 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:28:44 +0100 Subject: Heroism was Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >On 6/19/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But it isn't heroic. > Depends on ones definition of heroism to an extent. The most heroic RPG setting I know is strict Call of Cthulhu, played to the hilt: there is NO hope, NO redemption, NO possibility of ultimate victory and any achievements are at best partial, pyrrhic and often hollow. And still the investigators make their stand, unknown, unsung, their deeds a secret the world can never know. "Not for fame, not for glory. All alone in dark, where no one will know". Mind, I don't dislike D&D (I'm playing a Scarred lands 3e game at present, and I am likely to be running a game later this year): but for heroism that is apprehended after the fact, the sort of heroism that forms a central part of player stories about a campaign afterwards and that seems admirable because it is unexpected: that I get from BRP / RQ far more often. I fully expect it in my current BRP SF game, and we've had it in spades in my 1920's Yorkshire Call of Cthulhu campiagn (On hiatus during the summer, but to resume in the Autumn). Mind, as Sandy Petersen said, RQ favours the anti-heroic - it naturally focuses on the "scrabbling for a copper" people on the fringes of society: but then, I think when THEY make a stand against something it has more meaning than when a Paladin/Runelord does. And of course, a skilled GM and focused play group can play D&D as gritty and anti-heroic, and it's equally possible to tweak BRP/RQ to get very OTT characters. But I don't think it plays to either systems strengths, which is why I quite rapidly gave up on this notion of d20 as a generic system and just enjoy playing D&D for playing D&D and when I want something different, I play something different. Cheers, Nick Middleton From aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Jun 20 18:34:30 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:34:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <44969646.1040204@comhem.se> Message-ID: <20060620083430.58635.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The french company "Extraordinay World Studios" created a game system that was built on the BRP resistance table, the "EWS system", but with d20. I was not a big fan of this system, but the core system worked fine. A free version was available to download at a time, but as EWS-Studio is now dead, I don't know if it can be found easily. Peter Johansson a ?crit : Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' > game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the > core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance > table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game > system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 > for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc. > > It's the core clean approach I wanted. > Once upon a time (back in the mid 80's), a few of us in my original gaming group decided to create the ultimate game system after playing BRP, RQ2 and CoC for several years. We choose to base it on the resistance table and you compared your Skill with a Difficulty. For instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance of 40% to succeed with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified but the Difficulty was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the energy to finalize it. It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) /Peter J _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface r?volutionnaire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060620/d253bbae/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 20:22:48 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060619210833.B92238833C4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060620102248.23504.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > Actually, I _like_ the idea that "..even a handful of trollkin - in the > right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced > adventurers." Keeps the players on their toes and the game from being > boring. Heck, I've had a NPC die accidently while I was rolling dice in > front of the players. Although it left me scrambling as a GM because it > forced me to alter my planned events, it led to a much more exciting series > of events. The Rurik Syndrome. Some people think RQ is great because of it, others think RQ stinks because of it. They'll probably never agree. I like the idea. Styopa: > However, (for example) I tend to take the shortcut of pillaging a number of > pre-published modules for D&D as 'raw material' for adventures - maps, > names, themes, etc. - and it becomes devilishly hard to balance risk vs. > reward. It's always difficult to convert scenarios if you keep the same stats or convert them to RQ equivalents. It's better to keep the maps and events and then make up new stats as you go on. > For an 'average' party of 4-5th lvl D&D characters, a group of 8-10 > orcs is unlikely to be much of a hindrance; for a skilled (let's say 80-90% > in main weapon or 70%+ in magic skills) party of 4 RQ characters, that many > slightly-better-than-average-human orcs would be a serious test, and very > well could result in a few dead PCs if the orcs got the 'jump' on the PCs. Outnumbered 2 to 1 by slightly less skilled but stronger opponents, yes I'd suggest they would have problems. However, if they have healing potions/spells and are organised, then the PCs will probably win 9 times out of 10. FAR more realistic, FAR more "right" in my mind - but I find that only the weakest of D&D modules port to RQ nearly unscathed....as D&D characters (& what challenges them) ramp up in power levels, a judicious DM needs to be more and more draconian in nerfing the bad guys. I mean, in D&D a typical party of 12th-15th lvls (large party, perhaps, say 6-8) should be able to take down a moderately tough dragon. > Anyone feel comfortable with just > about ANY much-beloved character they play, going against a moderately > powerful dragon in RQ? Well, yes. From a purely numbers point of view, a reasonable dragon has something like 8 or 9 point armour, probably 50-80 hit points and does probably 8D6 damage. Say he is tough and has 100 HPs and 15 point armour, so he has about 33 HPs in the head. That means that to knock it unconscious, you need to do 48 points of damage in the head. Now, a troll with a Maul and a dollop of Crush could get to 48 fairly easily. Someone with Truesword and a Greatsword is doing 4D8 damage, add a 1D6 damage bonus and Bladesharp 8 and you are doing a maximum of 46 damage, almost enough to knock the dragon out in a single blow. If you use the RQ2 style slashing rules then you are adding at least 16 damage. Imagine using a Pike rather than a greatsword, you then do something like 2D6+2+14+1D6+8 on an impale, with a maximum of 42, or 46 with Truespear, more than enough to get rid of the dragon. If two people with similar abilities get stuck in, then the dragon isn't going to last long. "But," I hear you cry, "not everyone does those kinds of damage or has those spells or has the skill levels to do that!" True, but not everyone can stand up to a dragon and survive. It is possible with reasonable level characters. > Further, I see RQ as a game that demands much more from its players. It > could be the above reasons, or it could be something more intrinsic to the > system, but I see RQ as a system that rewards careful, thoughtful play and > punishes lazy or stupid decisions more than just about any other game. > Thus, this makes it a little harder 'winning' D&D players over, unless they > are actually LOOKING for a better challenge. Well, perhaps. I've played in thoughtful D&D campaigns and hack-and-slash RQ campaigns, both of which I've enjoyed. So it's more down to the GM's style of play and what the players are comfortable with. Devin: > The point is that in D&D, the PCs are basically on an entirely different "track" than most of the rest of the > campaign world. They are heroes. They have destinies. > This is not the case in RQ. It almost cannot be, since to be heroic you have to take risks, and risks in RQ > mean, eventually, death. I tried to run a heroic campaign in RQ. The PC attrition rate was astounding. Part of > that was due to the fact that the players, long time AD&D players, tried to use the same tactics and swagger > they did in AD&D and it got them annihilated. But even when they wised up, death was really too omnipresent > to allow for a heroic story to be told. Hmmm, are we talking death without Resurrection here? Most deaths I have seen in RQ are eminently fixable, so they don't really apply. If you are a Rune Lord then you have a guaranteed chance of coming back. If not, then you have a slight chance of coming back. Otherwise, you can be dragged back to the nearest healers, where you have a tab already set up, and can be brought back (no Re-Life Sickness in my games) and every major town has at least one Healing Temple with access to Resurrection (in my games, at least). I've run campaigns that are truly heroic. I've played in campaigns where the party of 6 PCs has had something like 8 deaths in a scenario and they still came through. Heroic is in the actions, intent and style of play, not in the rules or game system. > So, in some sense, it really depends on what style of story/game you want to run. I run D&D now because I > want a heroic tale where the PCs have a good chance to survive all the way through the campaign. There are > deaths of course, but those deaths are imminanently avoidable in D&D. In D&D, if you play well, it is very hard > to die. In RQ, you can do everything right and still die with frequency. Yes, but dying and staying dead is far different to dying and coming back. I admit that playing a Humakti does put a damper on being heroic, but anyone else has a fair chance. > I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But it isn't heroic. I beg to differ. David Smart: > Well..there's heroic in the style of the Knights of the Round Table and then > there's heroic in the style of World War II. While D&D is the former and RQ > is closer to the latter, my group has been able to combine both. But then > only because they do put so much time and effort in building layers of > magical defenses. Well, yes, but you can always play Knights of the Round Table using RQ, no problem. Chinese Martial Arts films have one lone swordsman fighting 20 soldiers and winning. That's heroic. You can do it in D&D and RQ, without a problem. > I have to admit, most of the players that survive a decent length of time > usually end up using tactics similar to those of a Special Operations unit. > At least that's been my experience over the last 20 years. There's a reason for that - those tactics work no matter what the scenario. > RQ is definitely more gritty than D&D. Yes, it is. But it isn't necessarily less heroic. I'm running a campaign at the moment and the players are extremely cautious and careful whatever they do. It drives me nuts sometimes, when they discuss everything in the minutest of detail before embarking on an action. Their style of play is not particularly heroic, even though we are using RQ. But, it is something that they are comfortable with. I'm trying to drag heroism out of them and may be slowly succeeding. With Hero Points and not dying at 0 HPs, things are a bit easier, so they don't die so often. However, we have had one person killed and succeeding in Divine Intervention, another so near death that only an emergency heal saved him and several people taken out by arbalest-wielding vampires, so it is still dangerous. The difficulty is balancing perceived danger, to make the game interesting and not a stroll in the park, with actaul danger and not making each encounter a bloodbath. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060620/abb83b3d/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 20 20:52:36 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:52:36 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I just have to reply to this one, to show my 100% consent. This is as if I should have written it myself. As for resistance-table-systems; my combat-system is skill vs. skill-based, but it allso makes it possible to end up having a nit wit killing heroes -"in the right situation", as you put it. >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ >Rules >Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:06:13 -0500 > >Actually, I _like_ the idea that "..even a handful of trollkin - in the >right situation - can prove staggeringly lethal to even experienced >adventurers." Keeps the players on their toes and the game from being >boring. Heck, I've had a NPC die accidently while I was rolling dice in >front of the players. Although it left me scrambling as a GM because it >forced me to alter my planned events, it led to a much more exciting series >of events. > >It's not often that I as a GM say "oh sh--!" at the same time as the >players. The death helped the campaign take on a life of its own because I >now set up macro-events ahead of time much more than I have in past >campaigns. It makes much more work for me ahead of a gaming session but I'm >occasionally able to act as a player in my own campaign because of it. > >David >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 20 21:08:57 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:08:57 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: When you say that RQ isn't heroic, I do not agree with you. I think that it is possible to play RQ in a heroic way; several background-things in setting-books, adventure-books, etc. suggests that the playing-characters were cut out/destined to become somthing more than the averidge peassant. That's why the game is called Rune Quest, not "Peassents quest for the lost cow" (shortened to "TQFTLC"). If you (as GM) let players get an experience check every time they succeed in a skill, and let them train and find mentors, they can race up in skill pretty fast. If you give them access to stat-increasing spells, they will go even higher up the scales in a faster way, as they have to roll under their skill+modifier in order to get an experience-check, but they do only need to roll over their actual skill in order to get a skill increase. You could then let them go up 1d10 (as in CoC), instead of 1d6. My point is that RQ could be played "Beowulf"-style just as well as D&D. The only difference is that your hero can die in RQ, whereas it cannot in D&D. (The other difference is that it is perfectly possible to play a low-level hero-free campagin in RQ as well as playing "Beowulf"-style. So if you want to play a hero, play D&D. If you want to play a hero and get the additional thrill of risking your character, play RQ ;-) >The point is that in D&D, the PCs are basically on an entirely different >"track" than most of the rest >of the campaign world. They are heroes. They >have destinies. >This is not the case in RQ. It almost cannot be, since to be heroic you >have to take risks, and risks >in RQ mean, eventually, death. I tried to >run a heroic campaign in RQ. The PC attrition rate was >astounding. Part of >that was due to the fact that the players, long time AD&D players, tried to > >use the same tactics and swagger they did in AD&D and it got them >annihilated. But even when >they wised up, death was really too omnipresent >to allow for a heroic story to be told. >So, in some sense, it really depends on what style of story/game you want >to run. I run D&D now >because I want a heroic tale where the PCs have a >good chance to survive all the way through >the campaign. There are deaths >of course, but those deaths are imminanently avoidable in D&D. >In D&D, if >you play well, it is very hard to die. In RQ, you can do everything right >and still die with >frequency. > >I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But it isn't >heroic. > >Devin From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 20 21:46:03 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:46:03 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> Heroism is not the same as Heroic. I agree RQ tends to gritty, realistic, grubby, special ops. Stormbringer, which is only a few rules tweaks away, is HEROIC (actually anti-HEROIC) so both genres can be done with BRP. I also only convert level 1-3 D&D stuff to BRP, above that it gets silly. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 20 21:46:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:46:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heroes In-Reply-To: <20060620102248.23504.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060619210833.B92238833C4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4497EE0C.28100.11D427D@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 20 Jun 2006 at 11:22, Simon Phipp wrote: > "But," I hear you cry, "not everyonedoes those kinds of damage or has those spells or has the > skill levels to do that!" True, but not everyone can stand up to a dragon and survive. It is > possiblewith reasonable level characters. Shall we say 'HEROIC' level characters? Bladesharp 8, TrueBlade, and a Greatsword suggests someone quite powerful to me! Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 22:04:13 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heroes In-Reply-To: <4497EE0C.28100.11D427D@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060620120413.88461.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > On 20 Jun 2006 at 11:22, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > "But," I hear you cry, "not everyonedoes those > kinds of damage or has those spells or has the > > skill levels to do that!" True, but not everyone > can stand up to a dragon and survive. It is > > possiblewith reasonable level characters. > > Shall we say 'HEROIC' level characters? > Bladesharp 8, TrueBlade, and a Greatsword suggests > someone > quite powerful to me! In games I played, I have seen characters do over 100 points of damage on a hit, had over 50 points of Divine magic, fought armies, faced dragons, demigods, nazgul, and started new subcults. I say that would count as heroic. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Jun 20 23:50:51 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:50:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heroes In-Reply-To: <4497EE0C.28100.11D427D@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <20060619210833.B92238833C4@mini.thinbits.net> <4497EE0C.28100.11D427D@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1150811451.2e486d352c3c5@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> > > "But," I hear you cry, "not everyonedoes those kinds of damage or has those > spells or has the > > skill levels to do that!" True, but not everyone can stand up to a dragon > and survive. It is > > possiblewith reasonable level characters. > > Shall we say 'HEROIC' level characters? > Bladesharp 8, TrueBlade, and a Greatsword suggests someone > quite powerful to me! That doesn't sound _that_ heroic to me. A Truesword is a one-use spell that a character can pick up relatively easily, a Greatsword can be bought at a city for an amount of money that many adventurers will easily afford - especially if they're warriors wanting a new fancy weapon. The Bladesharp is trickier, but a bladesharp 6 (which only takes a few points off of the damage) isn't out of the question, doesn't cost the earth (unless you're in RQ II) and it's not as if Bladesharp isn't an uncommon spell. I'd say a character could pack this kind of wallop at around the advanced initiate level. Of course, if you ran a game where you curbed magic, made it hard to get hold of, then it'd be harder. Or if you ran a campaign with little plundering, so maybe they can't afford a Greatsword, then it'd be different. But this I think is a well-played character from a bog standard campaign (Bladesharp 8 being a bit trickier to get than Bladesharp 6). Heroic levels would include spell enhancing crystals (make that Bladesharp 8 a Bladesharp 14!). Mind you, I still wouldn't want to stand up to a dragon, I wouldn't fancy my chances even with the get-up Simon gives (although Si's right, you'd stand a fair chance). Alternative dragon-killing could be using Sever Spirit or Mindblast, IIRC a dragon's POW isn't outrageous, and could be taken down before it even got to you. Whilst Sever Spirit might be little used by initiates, if I were a Seven Mothers initiate I'd make damn certain I had a one-use Mindblast read for emergencies (and if a dragon doesn't count, what does?!?!). From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Jun 21 00:05:30 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:05:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> > I agree RQ tends to gritty, realistic, grubby, special ops. > Stormbringer, which is only a few rules tweaks away, is > HEROIC (actually anti-HEROIC) so both genres can be done > with BRP. Certainly my RQ campaign was like that for a long time. But once they get access to reusable divine magic and enough magic points, things do get much less realistic, what with the heads rolling off and getting stuck back on again, and the access to ressurections if you do die. You could prevent these things - make ressurection harder to get access too, change the rules so gluing lost body parts on with Heal is trickier, ensure that every magic point matrix the enemy has has an appropriate condition so the PCs can't use it for themselves (thus preventing the inevitable build-up of magic points that leads to this less realistic style of play). But, as written, I find RQ leads to 'heroic' games. Is it a good thing? I don't know. My players certainly enjoy being able to survive combats, and fighting the epic battles, but we all agree that combats were better at lower level than at the less realistic higher level (where quite the reverse is true in D&D, 1st and 2nd level combat is naff, at higher levels it gets to be rather fun). Certainly combat is nowdays a terrible experience for the players, as buckets of dice get chucked around, death is relatively rare, and it takes forever with the number crunching. I've promised to ensure as little combat as possible in future in my campaign, and I think a lot of people miss the deadly days when a trollkin with a spear was a dangerous thing to meddle with. Nikk From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jun 21 00:46:14 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:46:14 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <1150814774.44980a364ff40@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered that you get +5% to weapon skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ that the target has. (RQ3) So this means that against some really big monsters, such as Mother of Monsters (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane increase to hit chance with any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. So any person attacking it would get about +63% to chance of having a critical hit that bypasses armor. (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such large monsters are very easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers shooting at once. The bigger the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother of Monsters only couple of volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a weak point in RQ3-rules, or am I missing something essential? Marko Per?l? From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Jun 21 00:55:28 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:55:28 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <1150814774.44980a364ff40@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1150814774.44980a364ff40@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <1150815328.7ccab924d313c@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> I recall this coming up in my group (I remember once killing a PC with a creature the size of a thirty foot house because he missed his previous attack by 2%, the rules lawyre in the group promised him he'd somehow find 'the 2%', so we broke for the evening, and as he flicked through the book in the pub he found the exact rule you mention that I had forgotten about. We backtracked one blow, and the PC survived; later they figured out this rule applies in the case of the Bat and the MoM). This might not be official, but I rule that situation modifiers can only ever double your chance to hit. So it's a minor, but easily resolvable, weakness in the RQIII rules. Nikk From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 01:00:38 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <20060620150038.71762.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yeah, creatures like that are immune to criticals. That is criticals do not bypass their armor. Go ahead, fire away. ;) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered that you get +5% to weapon > skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ that the target has. (RQ3) So > this means that against some really big monsters, such as Mother of Monsters > (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane increase to hit chance with > any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. So any person attacking it > would get about +63% to chance of having a critical hit that bypasses armor. > (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such large monsters are very > easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers shooting at once. The bigger > the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother of Monsters only couple of > volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a weak point in RQ3-rules, or > am I missing something essential? > > Marko Per?l? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 01:12:41 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:12:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606200812w6a55991bk3147847d5944262c@mail.gmail.com> Now Nikk, we all know that it wouldn't take a particularly creative DM to make that wish come true, don't we? (evil DM chuckle). In fact, I could see Ralzakark doing it for a laugh. [but I get your point, of course] On 6/20/06, Nikk Effingham wrote: > > ...I think a lot of people miss the deadly days when a trollkin with > a spear was a dangerous thing to meddle with. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060620/5110e3f9/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 01:21:40 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:21:40 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <20060620150038.71762.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060620150038.71762.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606200821k61ede4c4t9a36cc4a8cce2c89@mail.gmail.com> My house rule is if AP>maximum possible weapon damage (including specials), then no crit/ignore armor is possible. At best you can ignore up to max weapon damage. Of course, in the tradition of Smaug, I do have a trickster Rune spell called "Fatal Vulnerability" that will reduce ONE location's armor by half (cumulative per point - so a 4pt spell would reduce it to 1/16). On 6/20/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > Yeah, creatures like that are immune to criticals. > That is criticals do not bypass their armor. > > Go ahead, fire away. ;) > > Leon > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered > that you get +5% to weapon > > skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ > that the target has. (RQ3) So > > this means that against some really big monsters, > such as Mother of Monsters > > (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane > increase to hit chance with > > any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. > So any person attacking it > > would get about +63% to chance of having a critical > hit that bypasses armor. > > (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such > large monsters are very > > easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers > shooting at once. The bigger > > the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother > of Monsters only couple of > > volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a > weak point in RQ3-rules, or > > am I missing something essential? > > > > Marko Per?l? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060620/84f3ca50/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 01:28:32 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:28:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroes/Killing of Mother of Monsters In-Reply-To: <20060620145552.EC9FC88ABF9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060620152832.96319.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> I see the High-Level-Supporters have awoken and dragged themselves out of their lairs. Good-oh! Leon Kirshtein: >> > "But," I hear you cry, "not everyonedoes those >> kinds of damage or has those spells or has the >> > skill levels to do that!" True, but not everyone >> can stand up to a dragon and survive. It is >> > possiblewith reasonable level characters. >> >> Shall we say 'HEROIC' level characters? >> Bladesharp 8, TrueBlade, and a Greatsword suggests >> someone >> quite powerful to me! > > In games I played, I have seen characters do over 100 > points of damage on a hit, had over 50 points of > Divine magic, fought armies, faced dragons, demigods, > nazgul, and started new subcults. > > I say that would count as heroic. Absolutely. You have to have played in that kind of game to truly believe it can be done, and not in a munchinny "I want to roll someone up with Crush 50" way. Nikk Effingham: That doesn't sound _that_ heroic to me. A Truesword is a one-use spell that a character can pick up relatively easily, a Greatsword can be bought at a city for an amount of money that many adventurers will easily afford - especially if they're warriors wanting a new fancy weapon. The Bladesharp is trickier, but a bladesharp 6 (which only takes a few points off of the damage) isn't out of the question, doesn't cost the earth (unless you're in RQ II) and it's not as if Bladesharp isn't an uncommon spell. I'd say a character could pack this kind of wallop at around the advanced initiate level. Of course, if you ran a game where you curbed magic, made it hard to get hold of, then it'd be harder. Or if you ran a campaign with little plundering, so maybe they can't afford a Greatsword, then it'd be different. > But this I think is a well-played character > from a bog standard campaign (Bladesharp 8 being a bit trickier to get than > Bladesharp 6). Heroic levels would include spell enhancing crystals (make that > Bladesharp 8 a Bladesharp 14!). I used to have an RQ2 PC with a Spell Enhancing Crystal POW 9! Those were the days, Countermagic 18, Detection Blank 18, but all the rest at 4 points cast on two people. In RQ3, we banned Spell Enhancing Crystals because there was no limit to Variable spells, so I could have had a Bladesharp 18/Protection 18 as well. Those were the days. Of course, I needed to have POW Storage crystals sewn into a belt to supply the Magic Points, though. > Mind you, I still wouldn't want to stand up to a dragon, I wouldn't fancy my > chances even with the get-up Simon gives (although Si's right, you'd stand a > fair chance). In single combat, I'd fancy the dragon, as they breathe on you and go claw/claw/bite, which if they had over 100% could be nasty. Rack up three of four PCs against a dragon and I'd fancy the PCs. True Dragons are a bit trickier, though...... > Alternative dragon-killing could be using Sever Spirit or Mindblast, IIRC a > dragon's POW isn't outrageous, and could be taken down before it even got to > you. Whilst Sever Spirit might be little used by initiates, if I were a Seven > Mothers initiate I'd make damn certain I had a one-use Mindblast read for > emergencies (and if a dragon doesn't count, what does?!?!). Oh, yes, Seven Mothers cultists should always have Mindblast, especially NPCs. Dragons normally have fairly high POW, so spells bounce off them, unfortunately. Otherwise they wouldn't still be around. > You could prevent these things - make ressurection harder to get access too, > change the rules so gluing lost body parts on with Heal is trickier, ensure > that every magic point matrix the enemy has has an appropriate condition so the > PCs can't use it for themselves (thus preventing the inevitable build-up of > magic points that leads to this less realistic style of play). But, where's the fun in that? That takes it back to "Oh no, I've lost another PC" and we're back to square one. > I've promised to ensure as little combat as possible in future in my > campaign, and I think a lot of people miss the deadly days when a trollkin with > a spear was a dangerous thing to meddle with. I've run sessions over the phone with absolutely no combat at all. A trollkin with a spear can still give you a nasty nip - he can get 15 points of damage (1D10+1+1D4) on a good day, if he gets you in the vittals and ignores armour then most people will go down, no matter how souped up they are (15 HP Abdomen implies 44HPs or 21 HPs and enchanted location). I suppose if you had 21 HPs naturally and used Stregthening Enchatments to get 42HPs _and_ used more to get double HPs in vitals, then you could get 28HP in the abdomen, which is pretty trollkin-proof. Marko Per?l?: > I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered that you get +5% to weapon > skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ that the target has. (RQ3) So > this means that against some really big monsters, such as Mother of Monsters > (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane increase to hit chance with > any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. So any person attacking it > would get about +63% to chance of having a critical hit that bypasses armor. Yes, we had the same problem. I just said that whilst it increased the chance to hit, it didn't increase the special/critical chance. Then someone pointed out that if you stood on the back of the Mother of Monsters, it would have such gnarly skin that it would be _so_ easy to fit your sword through the cracks and automatically score a critical. That made me think. Then I said "No, it's silly" and that was that. > (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such large monsters are very > easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers shooting at once. The bigger > the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother of Monsters only couple of > volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a weak point in RQ3-rules, or > am I missing something essential? It's almost certainly a bug. I would put a restriction on the SIZ affected, so it only affects up to SIZ 100, or something. Nikk Effingham: > I recall this coming up in my group (I remember once killing a PC with a > creature the size of a thirty foot house because he missed his previous attack > by 2%, the rules lawyre in the group promised him he'd somehow find 'the 2%', > so we broke for the evening, and as he flicked through the book in the pub he > found the exact rule you mention that I had forgotten about. We backtracked one > blow, and the PC survived; later they figured out this rule applies in the case > of the Bat and the MoM). Oh, I never backtrack or take time back. I might relent after an hour's heated discussion and back down "just this once". Normally, though, I say "tough, you should have read the rules better" and that's the end of it. > This might not be official, but I rule that situation > modifiers can only ever double your chance to hit. So it's a minor, but easily > resolvable, weakness in the RQIII rules. That's a reasonable argument. So, lower-skilled PCs get a nice bonus that gives them a good chance to hit and higher-skilled PCs only get a substantial bonus when facing something truly big and nasty. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060620/69aa8065/attachment.html From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jun 21 01:40:06 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems Message-ID: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How could we add paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean paralyzation by spells or after hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. I haven't really encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except couple of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing goes for hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by spreading diseases. The only time, when a person could theoretically get spinal injury is when chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and that is usually solved only by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to head injuries. I saw this movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same possibility within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical conditions ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty Healing-spell fixes all of these condition almost as soon as they appear? Marko Per?l? From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 01:45:54 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <20060620154554.59807.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a > while now: How could we add > paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > paralyzation by spells or after > hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries > and people in wheelchairs. I > haven't really encountered any handicapped people in > RQ-material, except couple > of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos > features. Same thing goes for > hernia and other medical conditions that are not > caused by spreading diseases. > The only time, when a person could theoretically get > spinal injury is when > chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and > that is usually solved only > by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to > head injuries. I saw this > movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in > the head with a sword and > survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't > seen the same possibility > within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: > Are these medical conditions > ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the > allmighty Healing-spell fixes > all of these condition almost as soon as they > appear? > > Marko Per?l? It is possible in Mythworld, which is similar to RQ in combat rules. In fact, one PC I am currently playing is an ex-ranger who is only 75% in Run, Jump, and similar skills although once a master at them. An avalanche crushed her ankle while on patrol and healing was incomplete. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jun 21 01:58:27 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:58:27 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorcerous Fly and runic connection Message-ID: <1150819107.44981b2390253@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Some time ago there was a thread where the sorcery spell Fly was said to be connected to the Air rune and because of that to be unusable underwater or in Middle Air. I just remembered the old Strangers in Prax, where a mages familiar used a Fly spell on its master. The event was described to be different from the usual Fly spell (The runespell of the orlanthi) because he just raised into the air without any support from, say a gust of wind. This got me thinking: What if sorcerous Fly-spell wasn't connected to Air rune at all as its runic counterpart, but to the rune of Movement? That would make more of kin of teleport spells than manipulation of Air-element. Therefore it wouldn't be dependent from air and worked underwater as well. This makes more sense to me than a connection to Air rune, for there is no mention in the Fly-spells description that it couldn't be used without air. With Orlanth's Fly there is an obvious connection even if it wasn't mentioned, since it's an Air rune cult, but in my opinion that connection shouldn't be extended to sorcery just because both spells have a same name and a similar end result. I rest my case, So, Air or Movement? Marko Per?l? From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jun 21 02:17:40 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:17:40 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <20060620154554.59807.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060620154554.59807.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1150820260.44981fa4accc2@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> > --- perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > > > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a > > while now: How could we add > > paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > > paralyzation by spells or after > > hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries > > and people in wheelchairs. I > > haven't really encountered any handicapped people in > > RQ-material, except couple > > of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos > > features. Same thing goes for > > hernia and other medical conditions that are not > > caused by spreading diseases. > > The only time, when a person could theoretically get > > spinal injury is when > > chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and > > that is usually solved only > > by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to > > head injuries. I saw this > > movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in > > the head with a sword and > > survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't > > seen the same possibility > > within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: > > Are these medical conditions > > ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the > > allmighty Healing-spell fixes > > all of these condition almost as soon as they > > appear? > > > > Marko Per?l? > > It is possible in Mythworld, which is similar to RQ in > combat rules. In fact, one PC I am currently playing > is an ex-ranger who is only 75% in Run, Jump, and > similar skills although once a master at them. An > avalanche crushed her ankle while on patrol and > healing was incomplete. > > Paul Cardwell > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Thanks, that is helpful. Maybe I could compose some sort of table for additional damages in case location goes to 0 hp. I could borrow effects from similar tables in Rolemaster and Stormbringer. From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jun 21 02:38:48 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:38:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <20060620163848.17715.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> ~Runs away screaming as the ghost of RoleMaster rears it's ugly mug...~ Ash --- perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a > while now: How could we add > paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > paralyzation by spells or after > hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries > and people in wheelchairs. I > haven't really encountered any handicapped people in > RQ-material, except couple > of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos > features. Same thing goes for > hernia and other medical conditions that are not > caused by spreading diseases. > The only time, when a person could theoretically get > spinal injury is when > chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and > that is usually solved only > by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to > head injuries. I saw this > movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in > the head with a sword and > survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't > seen the same possibility > within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: > Are these medical conditions > ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the > allmighty Healing-spell fixes > all of these condition almost as soon as they > appear? > > Marko Per?l? > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Jun 21 03:28:44 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:28:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy References: <1150814774.44980a364ff40@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> <1150815328.7ccab924d313c@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <004401c6948e$fe692b90$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Nikk Effingham wrote: > I recall this coming up in my group (I remember once killing a PC > with a creature the size of a thirty foot house because he missed his > previous attack by 2%, the rules lawyre in the group promised him > he'd somehow find 'the 2%', so we broke for the evening, and as he > flicked through the book in the pub he found the exact rule you > mention that I had forgotten about. We backtracked one blow, and the > PC survived; later they figured out this rule applies in the case of > the Bat and the MoM). This might not be official, but I rule that > situation modifiers can only ever double your chance to hit. So it's > a minor, but easily resolvable, weakness in the RQIII rules. You could also rule that bonus does NOT come with an increased chance to crit. Frank From devinc at aol.com Wed Jun 21 03:49:37 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:49:37 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060620102248.23504.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C862A9082BDEE4-C7C-1633@mblk-r33.sysops.aol.com> "Hmmm, are we talking death without Resurrection here? Most deaths I have seen in RQ are eminently fixable, so they don't really apply. If you are a Rune Lord then you have a guaranteed chance of coming back. If not, then you have a slight chance of coming back. Otherwise, you can be dragged back to the nearest healers, where you have a tab already set up, and can be brought back (no Re-Life Sickness in my games) and every major town has at least one Healing Temple with access to Resurrection (in my games, at least)." Well, first, in a canonical Gloranthan setting, I don't think Resurrection is available to everyone. But even aside from that, the resurrection rules penalize you heavily for being dead even a few days, and you still have to deal with a POW vs POW roll. Yes, I suppose after 6-7 days of being dead you could still play your PC....but it will be thrashed. Most PCs have an annoying tendency to die in some forgotten, broo-infested hell hole some distance away from the nearest Chalanna Arroy healer. And while Orlanthi can teleport back to the temple, not all Orlanthi have that ability, and not all parties have Orlanthi. Mind you, I never said or even implied people cannot come back from the dead in RQ, but: 1) Deaths are much more frequent, and 2) Deaths are much less the video-game type restarts in RQ as they are in D&D. Devin ________________________________________________________________________ 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/20060620/d8addd7d/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Wed Jun 21 03:55:15 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:55:15 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <004401c6948e$fe692b90$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <000601c69492$afa7e5b0$0201a8c0@laptop2> You could also rule that bonus does NOT come with an increased chance to crit. Frank ****************** That was my thought, as well. The chance for a critical or special hit should probably be derived from the character's skill, not upon magic or target size. I think I'll institute that at once. -- Joe _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From IQuinn at surewest.net Wed Jun 21 04:01:08 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:01:08 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <1150814774.44980a364ff40@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <003101c69493$8263a6b0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> At some point wasn't the rule for natural armor that a critical hit doubles the damage done but AP still counted in full? If this were the case then even an army of archers each scoring multiple criticals would still have their arrows bouncing harmlessly off. Of course I was never sure of this rule since a creature with less then 10AP skin could obviously suffer more then a trollkin with 1AP leather (ie the damage done is 14pts,... a creature with 6AP skin takes 28 damage 22 gets through while the trollkin simply surrenders the 1AP protection of the leather and takes the original 14pts.) Does anyone else remember this rule? -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of perala at cc.joensuu.fi Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:46 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered that you get +5% to weapon skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ that the target has. (RQ3) So this means that against some really big monsters, such as Mother of Monsters (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane increase to hit chance with any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. So any person attacking it would get about +63% to chance of having a critical hit that bypasses armor. (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such large monsters are very easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers shooting at once. The bigger the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother of Monsters only couple of volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a weak point in RQ3-rules, or am I missing something essential? Marko Per?l? _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jun 21 04:26:31 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:26:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <003101c69493$8263a6b0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: <20060620182631.59344.qmail@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> It was the RQ II rule. If you critically hit a parry or natural armour you doubled the damage and counted the armour. Cheers, Ash --- Robert Hoffman wrote: > At some point wasn't the rule for natural armor that > a critical hit > doubles the damage done but AP still counted in > full? If this were the > case then even an army of archers each scoring > multiple criticals would > still have their arrows bouncing harmlessly off. > > Of course I was never sure of this rule since a > creature with less then > 10AP skin could obviously suffer more then a > trollkin with 1AP leather > (ie the damage done is 14pts,... a creature with 6AP > skin takes 28 > damage 22 gets through while the trollkin simply > surrenders the 1AP > protection of the leather and takes the original > 14pts.) > > Does anyone else remember this rule? > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of > perala at cc.joensuu.fi > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:46 AM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of > Mother of Monsters made > easy > > I just had moment of munchkinism. I just remembered > that you get +5% to > weapon > skill for every 10 SIZ points over initial 20 SIZ > that the target has. > (RQ3) So > this means that against some really big monsters, > such as Mother of > Monsters > (SIZ 2522) this hitting bonus would mean an insane > increase to hit > chance with > any weapon. With Mother of monsters this is +1250%. > So any person > attacking it > would get about +63% to chance of having a critical > hit that bypasses > armor. > (RQ3) (Mother of Monsters has 530 AP) Therefore such > large monsters are > very > easy to kill, if you had, say a thousand archers > shooting at once. The > bigger > the monster the easier it is to kill it. With Mother > of Monsters only > couple of > volleys would be enough. The question is: Is this a > weak point in > RQ3-rules, or > am I missing something essential? > > 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 jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 04:31:18 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:31:18 -0500 Subject: Heroism was Re: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606201131q7df777e4t16081e5fac86dff6@mail.gmail.com> Good points, Nick. On 6/20/06, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >On 6/19/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > I am not knocking RQ. I personally LOVE to play that style. But it > isn't heroic. > > > > Depends on ones definition of heroism to an extent. The most heroic RPG > setting I know is strict Call of Cthulhu, played to the hilt: there is NO > hope, NO redemption, NO possibility of ultimate victory and any > achievements are at best partial, pyrrhic and often hollow. And still the > investigators make their stand, unknown, unsung, their deeds a secret the > world can never know. > > "Not for fame, not for glory. All alone in dark, where no one will know". > > Mind, I don't dislike D&D (I'm playing a Scarred lands 3e game at present, > and I am likely to be running a game later this year): but for heroism > that > is apprehended after the fact, the sort of heroism that forms a central > part of player stories about a campaign afterwards and that seems > admirable > because it is unexpected: that I get from BRP / RQ far more often. I fully > expect it in my current BRP SF game, and we've had it in spades in my > 1920's Yorkshire Call of Cthulhu campiagn (On hiatus during the summer, > but > to resume in the Autumn). > > Mind, as Sandy Petersen said, RQ favours the anti-heroic - it naturally > focuses on the "scrabbling for a copper" people on the fringes of society: > but then, I think when THEY make a stand against something it has more > meaning than when a Paladin/Runelord does. > > And of course, a skilled GM and focused play group can play D&D as gritty > and anti-heroic, and it's equally possible to tweak BRP/RQ to get very OTT > characters. But I don't think it plays to either systems strengths, which > is why I quite rapidly gave up on this notion of d20 as a generic system > and just enjoy playing D&D for playing D&D and when I want something > different, I play something different. > > > Cheers, > > 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/20060620/f9ac8380/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Jun 21 05:30:23 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:30:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits References: <000601c69492$afa7e5b0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <008d01c6949f$fa904e70$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Joe Mills wrote: > You could also rule that bonus does NOT come with an increased chance > to crit. > > Frank > > ****************** > > That was my thought, as well. The chance for a critical or special hit > should probably be derived from the character's skill, not upon magic > or target size. I think I'll institute that at once. I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. Frank From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Jun 21 05:35:45 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:35:45 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <20060620102248.23504.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b301c694a0$c7f9e880$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Simon Phipp wrote: >> David Smart: >>> However, (for example) I tend to take the shortcut of pillaging a >>> number of >>> pre-published modules for D&D as 'raw material' for adventures - >>> maps, >>> names, themes, etc. - and it becomes devilishly hard to balance >>> risk vs. >>> reward. >> >> It's always difficult to convert scenarios if you keep the same >> stats or convert them to RQ equivalents. It's better to keep the >> maps and events and then make up new stats as you go on. This is what I tend to do. Works pretty good. The biggest thing I see is that the traditional multi-level D&D dungeon doesn't work so well in RQ (though Snakepipe Hollow certainly was somewhat of a traditional dungeon) since people tend to need to rest up more often. Frank From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Jun 21 05:43:57 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:43:57 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems References: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <00be01c694a1$e257acc0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How > could we add paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > paralyzation by spells or after hit locations hp are at 0. I mean > spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. I haven't really > encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except couple of > limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing > goes for hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by > spreading diseases. The only time, when a person could theoretically > get spinal injury is when chest or stomach lose twice their location > hp and that is usually solved only by death or magical healing. Same > thing applies to head injuries. I saw this movie called Flesh & blood > where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and survived, but became > mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same possibility within > current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical > conditions ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty > Healing-spell fixes all of these condition almost as soon as they > appear? I see two problems with this: First, in general, it isn't fun playing a crippled PC. Second, given that there is magic to deal with severed limbs (and severed heads...), there would be magic to deal with the new conditions. The same or different spells? If different, it may become crazy how many different spells you need to be a competent healer (of course there's a crazy number of different modern medical specializations). I guess in one sense, the problem comes down to what is really being added to the game by adding numerous different conditions? Either you create new ways for PCs to become crippled (and potentially unfun to play), or the differences are just waved away with generic healing spells. Of course nothing stops you from giving NPCs any sort of special handicap you want. And if your players are willing to deal with it, you could have effects for them too. One possibility (as Perala mentioned) is to have a possibility of a detrimental effect if a location is reduced to 0 or less. Set up a table based on hit location (and weapon? - and consider Ashley's comment about Chart Master I mean Role Master...). Frank From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jun 21 08:20:10 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:20:10 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <00be01c694a1$e257acc0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> References: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> <00be01c694a1$e257acc0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <1150842010.4498749ab9cc8@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Quoting Frank Filz : > perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How > > could we add paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > > paralyzation by spells or after hit locations hp are at 0. I mean > > spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. I haven't really > > encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except couple of > > limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing > > goes for hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by > > spreading diseases. The only time, when a person could theoretically > > get spinal injury is when chest or stomach lose twice their location > > hp and that is usually solved only by death or magical healing. Same > > thing applies to head injuries. I saw this movie called Flesh & blood > > where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and survived, but became > > mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same possibility within > > current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical > > conditions ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty > > Healing-spell fixes all of these condition almost as soon as they > > appear? > > I see two problems with this: > > First, in general, it isn't fun playing a crippled PC. Second, given that > there is magic to deal with severed limbs (and severed heads...), there > would be magic to deal with the new conditions. The same or different > spells? If different, it may become crazy how many different spells you need > > to be a competent healer (of course there's a crazy number of different > modern medical specializations). > > I guess in one sense, the problem comes down to what is really being added > to the game by adding numerous different conditions? Either you create new > ways for PCs to become crippled (and potentially unfun to play), or the > differences are just waved away with generic healing spells. > > Of course nothing stops you from giving NPCs any sort of special handicap > you want. And if your players are willing to deal with it, you could have > effects for them too. > > One possibility (as Perala mentioned) is to have a possibility of a > detrimental effect if a location is reduced to 0 or less. Set up a table > based on hit location (and weapon? - and consider Ashley's comment about > Chart Master I mean Role Master...). > > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Point taken. You are quite right, PCs don't need excessive hindrances that slow gameplay, Although finding a cure to some exotic injury is a nice hook for an adventure. And what comes to Rolemaster I know quite well it is a Chart hell. I just think that there is always an idea or two to be pinched to my own games. If I see something useful in other RPGs, I take it and convert to suite RQ3. There is no need screaming and running away just because the RPG in question happens to be repulsive as a whole. From joemills at columbus.rr.com Wed Jun 21 16:10:15 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:10:15 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <008d01c6949f$fa904e70$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <001201c694f9$5e7fd000$0201a8c0@laptop2> I don't know about bladesharp == will having the blade be extra sharp help the swordwielder find an opening in the armor? Just a matter of preference, probably. I'd as soon see crits and special hits limited as much as possible, anyway. -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Frank Filz Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:30 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Crit hits Joe Mills wrote: > You could also rule that bonus does NOT come with an increased chance > to crit. > > Frank > > ****************** > > That was my thought, as well. The chance for a critical or special hit > should probably be derived from the character's skill, not upon magic > or target size. I think I'll institute that at once. I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. Frank _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From julian.lord at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 19:20:58 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:20:58 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <1e842f7f0606210220k252cbef5h208fa216dbd45b4c@mail.gmail.com> IIRC the attack bonus against large creatures is capped at +50% ; good try though Hidden away somewhere on p. xxx paragraph Y of the AH RuneBloat III rules ... Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/daaa9b06/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 19:55:13 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:55:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <20060620175002.7629C88C951@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060621095513.69448.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Marko Per?l?: > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How could we add > paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean paralyzation by spells or after > hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. I > haven't really encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except couple > of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing goes for > hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by spreading diseases. > The only time, when a person could theoretically get spinal injury is when > chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and that is usually solved only > by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to head injuries. I saw this > movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and > survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same possibility > within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical conditions > ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty Healing-spell fixes > all of these condition almost as soon as they appear? Well, if a hit location is maimed and not magically healed, then normal healing doesn't restore the full hit points, so that would count as a disability - having a bad leg, for instance. Vital hit locations are more problematic since, as you pointed out, being maimed in a vital means you die at the end of the round. Perhaps someone could be maimed, have a little bit of healing and then be left to heal naturally. The GM could rule that the effects of the maiming are permanent, so someone who was maimed in the abdomen can't use their legs, someone maimed in the chest can't use chest/abdomen or legs and someone maimed in the head is permanently in a coma. Similarly, permanent blinding and deafness is rare in games, although they could easily occur. Having a broo spit acid in your eyes could blind you without magical healing. Personally, as a player I wouldn't really want these effects to happen to my PC and as a GM I wouldn't want to permanently main a PC, either, so I probably wouldn't use them. But they would make good story lines and scenario hooks, if nothing else. > Some time ago there was a thread where the sorcery spell Fly was said to be > connected to the Air rune and because of that to be unusable underwater or in > Middle Air. I just remembered the old Strangers in Prax, where a mages familiar > used a Fly spell on its master. The event was described to be different from > the usual Fly spell (The runespell of the orlanthi) because he just raised into > the air without any support from, say a gust of wind. This got me thinking: > What if sorcerous Fly-spell wasn't connected to Air rune at all as its runic > counterpart, but to the rune of Movement? That would make more of kin of > teleport spells than manipulation of Air-element. Therefore it wouldn't be > dependent from air and worked underwater as well. This makes more sense to me > than a connection to Air rune, for there is no mention in the Fly-spells > description that it couldn't be used without air. With Orlanth's Fly there is > an obvious connection even if it wasn't mentioned, since it's an Air rune cult, > but in my opinion that connection shouldn't be extended to sorcery just because > both spells have a same name and a similar end result. I rest my case, So, Air > or Movement? Sorcery spells tend to draw their power from manipulation of the world, not particularly from runes, in my opinion. So, a sorcerer might get his power to Fly from his own natural "magicness", or because he drains a flying demon of its power, or becasue he rides on the winds or because he knows the Movement rune. I wouldn't particularly bother about the source of the spell. I would just make a ruling that Fly couldn't work unerwater, because that would need the Swim spell, but it could work in the Middle Air because the person is flying. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/dec38d46/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Jun 21 20:03:56 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:03:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <008d01c6949f$fa904e70$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <4499279C.28011.3AF4192@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 20 Jun 2006 at 12:30, Frank Filz wrote: > > I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow > positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. I think I would. It's bigger and easier to get a critical organ, they're bigger. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Jun 21 20:03:56 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:03:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heroes In-Reply-To: <20060620120413.88461.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4497EE0C.28100.11D427D@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <4499279C.27175.3AF3F31@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 20 Jun 2006 at 5:04, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > In games I played, I have seen characters do over 100 > points of damage on a hit, had over 50 points of > Divine magic, fought armies, faced dragons, demigods, > nazgul, and started new subcults. Wow! I'd love to play in that one day! Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Jun 21 20:10:11 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:10:11 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <1150884611.91e38e32bf84a@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How could we > add > paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean paralyzation by spells or > after > hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. You're exceedingly mean, I think that my players would murder me if I made combat more deadly! >The question is: Are these medical > conditions > ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty Healing-spell fixes > all of these condition almost as soon as they appear? The way I see it is this: healing spells are easily available to PCs, but not too most people! Most people mught know Joe the Healer who has a Heal 2, but that won't be enough to cure a spinal injury, just as a Heal 6 is needed to glue limbs back on. If you wnated to you could implement that rule with spinal wounds, severe head injuries etc... and say that they are only cured by (for example) a Heal 4 or above. Then for each location say that every time it goes below zero there's a chance (say 20% or something) of permanent damage (so your arm doesn't work properly, you take spinal damage and are paralysed if it's your chest, you lose INT if it's your head etc...) unless you receive Heal 4 within 10 Melee Rounds. This saves your PCs, and explains why lots of other people limp around feebly in villages - they never received the Healing in the time frame allowed! Of course, this is still pretty brutal. Low level characters who can't access the appropriate Healing will suffer, as will the odd high level character who gets stuck in a situation where they can't be healed. Does RQ need to be more brutal? Nikk Remember, that limbs can only be glued on with a Heal 6 or higher, I'd say a similar thing was intended for damage like spinal wounds, and times when your head gets caved in by a maul. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 21 21:12:00 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:12:00 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: Good question. I sometimes let improvising overrule the rules. Yesterday, for instance, a Basmoli entangeled in spirit combat with a ghost were beeing pounded by some soldiers (he managed to keep his consentration). He lost 10 hp from fists and kicks before the soldiers were dealt with, and after winning the spirit combat he woke up, having a tooth knocked out. I then ruled that a unless he succeeded a POW x 3 luck test, his tooth did not grow out again/get attached in the mouth again when he healed himself. >From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems >Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:06 +0300 > >Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How could we >add >paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean paralyzation by spells or >after >hit locations hp are at 0. I mean spinal injuries and people in >wheelchairs. I >haven't really encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except >couple >of limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing goes >for >hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by spreading >diseases. >The only time, when a person could theoretically get spinal injury is when >chest or stomach lose twice their location hp and that is usually solved >only >by death or magical healing. Same thing applies to head injuries. I saw >this >movie called Flesh & blood where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and >survived, but became mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same >possibility >within current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical >conditions >ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty Healing-spell >fixes >all of these condition almost as soon as they appear? > >Marko Per?l? > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 21 21:13:49 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:13:49 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150818006.449816d641173@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: (posted before I finished :-) ..........my point is that I like "battlescars", and it might be that if someone having 5hp in head lost 9 hp/10 hp from beeing bashed by a club, then healed up again, I might consider letting him have lost 1 point of INT/1d10 of INT, or just ruled that he had earned som sort of malfunction in his brain. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 21 21:27:46 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:27:46 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <001201c694f9$5e7fd000$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: I'd say it represents the magically enhanced swords ability to cut/pierce through areas of the armour that under normal circomstances is strong enough to stop the edge/point of a regular sword? >From: "Joe Mills" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Crit hits >Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:10:15 -0400 > >I don't know about bladesharp == will having the blade be extra sharp help >the swordwielder find an opening in the armor? Just a matter of preference, >probably. I'd as soon see crits and special hits limited as much as >possible, anyway. > >-- Joe > >-----Original Message----- >From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] >On Behalf Of Frank Filz >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:30 PM >To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Crit hits > >Joe Mills wrote: > > You could also rule that bonus does NOT come with an increased chance > > to crit. > > > > Frank > > > > ****************** > > > > That was my thought, as well. The chance for a critical or special hit > > should probably be derived from the character's skill, not upon magic > > or target size. I think I'll institute that at once. > >I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow >positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. > >Frank > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Ludowick at aol.com Wed Jun 21 22:50:24 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:50:24 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <529.6568ae.31ca9a90@aol.com> I think the problem with MOM is that SIZ 1250 is about 2.72 x 10 ^ 48 kilograms. This is according to the RQIII SIZ table (actually the formula from Superworld that produces the SIZ table for BRP). The planet earth masses about 6 x 10 ^ 24 kilograms. The Milky Way galaxy masses about 1 x 10 ^ 42 kilograms. >From what I guess of its linear dimensions (I've never heard of it before), MOM should have its own event horizon. Michael Hoxie (who used Google to get the astronomical figures) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/0f85573d/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Wed Jun 21 22:58:57 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:58:57 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems Message-ID: <4f0.10d72f6.31ca9c91@aol.com> Marko Per?l? wrote: > > Here is a question that I have been wondering for a while now: How > > could we add paralyzation into the rules of RQ. I don't mean > > paralyzation by spells or after hit locations hp are at 0. I mean > > spinal injuries and people in wheelchairs. I haven't really > > encountered any handicapped people in RQ-material, except couple of > > limbs lost due to Seal wound and various chaos features. Same thing > > goes for hernia and other medical conditions that are not caused by > > spreading diseases. The only time, when a person could theoretically > > get spinal injury is when chest or stomach lose twice their location > > hp and that is usually solved only by death or magical healing. Same > > thing applies to head injuries. I saw this movie called Flesh & blood > > where a nun got hit in the head with a sword and survived, but became > > mentally handicapped. I haven't seen the same possibility within > > current (RQ3) rulesystem. The question is: Are these medical > > conditions ignored in RQ-rules, or can we assume that the allmighty > > Healing-spell fixes all of these condition almost as soon as they > > appear? You could get a copy of 1st to 3rd edition Stormbringer rules and adapt the "Major Wound" rules which cover similar effects. I'm not sure if they show up in 4th and later editions. Major wounds will also be an option in the new DBRP rules from Chaosium. Michael Hoxie From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Jun 22 00:19:17 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:19:17 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <4499279C.28011.3AF4192@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <001b01c6953d$ae5cd160$0201a8c0@laptop2> On 20 Jun 2006 at 12:30, Frank Filz wrote: > > I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow > positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. I think I would. It's bigger and easier to get a critical organ, they're bigger. Tom Zunder ****************************************** So is the surrounding mass of non-essential stuff? It's harder to get around the skin, flab and matted fur: it's bigger. -- Joe From rog_benham at hotmail.com Thu Jun 22 00:47:15 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:47:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: <4499279C.28011.3AF4192@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: But surely the sheer bulk of a creature would mitigate you getting an easy organ hit? Try killing a sperm whale with a broadsword... see how "easy" it would be after cutting through inches of blubber (Which presumably could be considered armour or flesh depending on the GM), and then do sufficient damage to harm a creature. I'm in favour of capping the crit result at the skill level- after all, the bonus (+50% now) is only because the thing is so huge in front of you. The crit results from the base skill the blow is used at rather than "Its really big, so I can kill it really easily." This all strikes me as a bit of rules lawyering. I daresay it strikes the big monsters as grossly unfair- do they get a bonus to hit really tiny creatures like pesky adventurers because they're really big and cover a lot of ground with a single blow? Cuts both ways in my mind! >From: "Tom Zunder (Home)" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Crit hits >Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:03:56 +0100 > >On 20 Jun 2006 at 12:30, Frank Filz wrote: > > > > > I'd still let bladesharp increase crits. I'd probably also still allow > > positional bonus to increase crits. But pure size? No. > >I think I would. It's bigger and easier to get a critical organ, >they're bigger. > >Tom Zunder >http://www.zunder.org.uk >http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ >http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ >ICQ: 1521799 >MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk >Y!: tzunder >Google Talk: tom.zunder >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 01:05:14 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:05:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <00b301c694a0$c7f9e880$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> References: <20060620102248.23504.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> <00b301c694a0$c7f9e880$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606210805w5eb4f52bidf3aaa1dbd71b8c5@mail.gmail.com> Ironically, I find RQ 'dungeon delving' much more akin to what the ORIGINAL (1st Ed) D&D seemed to intend...carefully-planned multi-day expeditions where there is a short 'assault' into a complex, with the PCs retiring to some sort of basecamp outside to rest and recoup. Of course, a good DM has to ensure that the dungeon environment isn't so static, so the inhabitants respond realistically to what's happening over time. On 6/20/06, Frank Filz wrote: > > > The biggest thing I see is that the traditional multi-level D&D dungeon > doesn't work so well in RQ (though Snakepipe Hollow certainly was somewhat > of a traditional dungeon) since people tend to need to rest up more often. > > Frank > ______________________________________ > 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/20060621/752cfa21/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 01:08:02 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:08:02 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <529.6568ae.31ca9a90@aol.com> References: <529.6568ae.31ca9a90@aol.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606210808w75a00f26geaa61ac1f68fa912@mail.gmail.com> Got that formula, by any chance? On 6/21/06, Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > > I think the problem with MOM is that SIZ 1250 is about 2.72 x 10 ^ 48 > kilograms. > This is according to the RQIII SIZ table (actually the formula from > Superworld > that produces the SIZ table for BRP). > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/7465b223/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 01:13:47 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:13:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Crit hits In-Reply-To: References: <4499279C.28011.3AF4192@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606210813o56d930cakb08b0339932878e@mail.gmail.com> It does help them, with a judicious use of the 'sweep attack' rules, allowing them both a better chance to hit AND an 'area of effect' attack with a simple melee blow. Also, with certain huge creatures I feel free to adjudicate that they are simply hitting the nearest location. There is no reasonable way a 6' PC with a 3' sword is going to be able to hit the head of a not-comically-stupid 24' giant. You always have the damn duck with the magic-buffed heavy crossbow called-shot-head'ing. Bloody sniper ducks. On 6/21/06, Roger Benham wrote: > > This all strikes me as a bit of rules lawyering. I daresay it strikes the > big monsters as grossly unfair- do they get a bonus to hit really tiny > creatures like pesky adventurers because they're really big and cover a > lot > of ground with a single blow? Cuts both ways in my mind! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/c206e91b/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 01:33:21 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <1150884611.91e38e32bf84a@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20060621153321.26033.qmail@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Nikk Effingham wrote: Does RQ need to be more brutal? That's up to RQ. Mythworld, subtitling itself as "realistic fantasy" is not particularly more brutal, just more...uh realistic. Just as one cannot realistically wield a broadsword all day without feeling it, so some injuries are permanent - particularly when the needed healing magic spells are not immediately available. This was the case of my previously cited ex-ranger who was alone and only had Healing 2 when the boulder crushed her right ankle. As another poster pointed out, if you want indestructable PCs, play superheroes or D&D. But a realistic system is a lot easier to learn - assume the fantasy world's polytheism, magic, and all those other intelligent species exist, and play the real world with that overlay. It sure saves memorizing hectares of charts and loopholes. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 02:11:02 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:11:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Crit hits/Big Fat Momma In-Reply-To: <20060621150811.75A5C8965A1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060621161102.61490.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Joe Mills: >I don't know about bladesharp == will having the blade be extra sharp help >the swordwielder find an opening in the armor? Just a matter of preference, >probably. I'd as soon see crits and special hits limited as much as >possible, anyway. Yes, I'd say it would. Bladesharp makes the blade sharper and more accurate, so it is easier to find the gaps. Limited crits? Where's the fun in that? Michael Hoxie (who used Google to get the astronomical figures): > I think the problem with MOM is that SIZ 1250 is about 2.72 x 10 ^ 48 > kilograms. > This is according to the RQIII SIZ table (actually the formula from > Superworld > that produces the SIZ table for BRP). I think you might find (rulebook at home, working from memory but pretty sure) that after a certain point, each SIZ point adds a tonne (1000kg) or something similar. They must have realised that you can't keep on doubling. So, SIZ 1250 would probably be under 2000 tonnes (2,000,000 kg), a mere stripling, a slight and slender thing, if you ask me. > You could get a copy of 1st to 3rd edition Stormbringer rules and adapt > the "Major Wound" rules which cover similar effects. I'm not sure if they > show up in 4th and later editions. Major wounds will also be an option in > the new DBRP rules from Chaosium. Yeah, I never really liked the idea. It's OK for fancy scars and the like, but I've played a PC who had his tongue cut out by a fellow PC (don't ask) and it isn't much fun. Once you learn mindspeech, it isn't half bad, though. Roger Benham: > This all strikes me as a bit of rules lawyering. I daresay it strikes the > big monsters as grossly unfair- do they get a bonus to hit really tiny > creatures like pesky adventurers because they're really big and cover a lot > of ground with a single blow? Cuts both ways in my mind! Avtually, yes. I think the MoM gets an area attack on her stomp, basically she splats everything under her feet, so you can't parry and you have to junp out of the way. She's funny. Styopa: > Ironically, I find RQ 'dungeon delving' much more akin to what the ORIGINAL > (1st Ed) D&D seemed to intend...carefully-planned multi-day expeditions > where there is a short 'assault' into a complex, with the PCs retiring to > some sort of basecamp outside to rest and recoup. Standard fantasy-fare. The difference being, perhaps, is that in RQ you get things that are vaguely consistent in the dungeon, rather than having completely random wandering monsters. Also, encounters are not always hostile. > Of course, a good DM has to ensure that the dungeon environment isn't so > static, so the inhabitants respond realistically to what's happening over > time. Yes, but that applies to any scenario, dungeon-delving or not. See Ya Simon (Who didn't go to Google to get his figures but has Broadband again at work - Yippee!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/dffed90a/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 02:49:08 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <00be01c694a1$e257acc0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Message-ID: <20060621164908.68737.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Frank Filz wrote: > > First, in general, it isn't fun playing a crippled > PC. > De gustibus non est disputandam. I designed Alita with her ankle problem precisely because I was sick and tired of bombproof PCs. I wanted the challenge of playing a character who once thought she was in that category, but because of no fault of her own, has discovered she isn't. She can't run away, or charge recklessly into battle either, unless mounted. As a result, she is intrensically opposed to hack'n'slash and has to use her mind more than her body. Challenge is fun. You should try it sometime. The state of the art in RPG would improve if players would work more on playing realistic characters and less on devising special rules to inflict megaton damage without ever getting the same in return. As I mentioned in the Latin, this is strictly my taste in gaming and as such, it is not really a matter for debate - just witness. Still, try a different flavor on occasion. You might find it tasty, and if not, that is your right. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Thu Jun 22 03:02:48 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:02:48 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems References: <20060621164908.68737.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000c01c69554$88010ec0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Frank Filz wrote: >> >> First, in general, it isn't fun playing a crippled >> PC. >> > De gustibus non est disputandam. I designed Alita with > her ankle problem precisely because I was sick and > tired of bombproof PCs. I wanted the challenge of > playing a character who once thought she was in that > category, but because of no fault of her own, has > discovered she isn't. I said "in general" > She can't run away, or charge recklessly into battle > either, unless mounted. As a result, she is > intrensically opposed to hack'n'slash and has to use > her mind more than her body. > > Challenge is fun. You should try it sometime. The > state of the art in RPG would improve if players would > work more on playing realistic characters and less on > devising special rules to inflict megaton damage > without ever getting the same in return. Different strokes for different folks. However, I should note, you're talking about a character you designed. That's different than playing a character who gets crippled in play. The suitability of a crippled character also depends on the style of campaign envisioned. In most campaigns I run, a crippled character would realistically retire (if not find themselves begging on the streets which was the usual fait of most cripples in non-modern settings [heck, probably even in the modern world if you count the entire world, and not just say the USA or other "first world" countries...]). I'm just pointing out the downfall of more complex crippling rules - that for many players they just spell more ways to have your character rendered unplayable. And from what I've seen of player reactions, they consider such WORSE than their PC dying, which is at least clean, with a dead PC, they know they are free to create a new PC. And for what it's worth, I quite enjoy games with a decent challenge level. My RQ campaign has already had 3 PCs die in about 10 sessions of play. It's enough that some players have started to complain. Frank From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 04:28:14 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:28:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] webserver Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606211128g1662ee34j14a9e7a86404dc65@mail.gmail.com> Is there a fileserver or webhost for this list? I have (finally) finished the core functionality of my MS Excel-based RQ NPC/Creature generator & FAQ. It's not terribly comprehensive, but I think it does what it does rather well. I have an extensive readme/faq, to detail wherever I used a house rule, so it shouldn't be too hard to use with/modify back to canonical RQ either. I'd like to put it up where people could download, try it out, and give me some feedback. It's a 67k file zipped, so it shouldn't burden anyone's fileserver too badly. :) Thanks! -Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/68dafc22/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Jun 22 04:30:51 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:30:51 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <329.650a455.31caea5b@aol.com> Styopa wrote: > Got that formula, by any chance? Here it is: Mass in kg = 25 * ( 2 ^ ( SIZ / 8 ) ) SIZ 11 = 64.8 kg RQ2 mean human SIZ SIZ 13 = 77.1 kg RQ3 mean human SIZ; more "heroic" SIZ 96 = 102,400 kg = blue whale / seismosaurus Michael Hoxie From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Jun 22 05:08:32 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:08:32 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Crit hits/Big Fat Momma Message-ID: <4f5.faa999.31caf330@aol.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > I think you might find (rulebook at home, working from memory but pretty sure) that after a > certain point, each SIZ point adds a tonne (1000kg) or something similar. > > They must have realised that you can't keep on doubling. I checked again. The table matches the formula, the only change they make is in rounding-off the numbers. I like the doubling bit, as it explains why the resistance table makes it almost impossible to beat someone 10 points higher than yourself -- each 8 characteristic points doubles the magnitutude of the characteristic. So, INT 36 is twice as smart as INT 28 (whatever that means), and so on. Michael Hoxie (defending the resistance table since 1983) From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 06:32:51 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:32:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <329.650a455.31caea5b@aol.com> References: <329.650a455.31caea5b@aol.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606211332y59c6c7a9mb1b4d30bde4f2c8c@mail.gmail.com> Thank you. I always knew it wasn't linear but for each point to indicate a 9% increase in mass over the previous SIZ?....wow. (That means a doubling every 8 SIZ) That makes it a meaningless value for small things (anything less than 50lbs is SIZ 0?) and the granularity eventually means each SIZ point is 15 tons at SIZ 100....so a SIZ 92 is half the mass of a SIZ 100? That seems wonky to me. I think I'm just going to stick with my not-precisely-tied-to-numbers houserule chart that has SIZ 1 = 0.5 kg (canon = 27 kg) SIZ 10 = 48 kg (canon = 59 kg) SIZ 15 = 98 kg (canon = 91 kg) SIZ 25 = 311 kg (canon = 218 kg) SIZ 50 = 2400 kg (canon = 1900 kg) SIZ 75 = 11,600 kg (canon = 16,600 kg) SIZ 100 = 43,000 kg (canon = 144,000 kg) On 6/21/06, Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > > Styopa wrote: > > Got that formula, by any chance? > Here it is: > Mass in kg = 25 * ( 2 ^ ( SIZ / 8 ) ) > SIZ 11 = 64.8 kg RQ2 mean human SIZ > SIZ 13 = 77.1 kg RQ3 mean human SIZ; more "heroic" > SIZ 96 = 102,400 kg = blue whale / seismosaurus > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060621/1637e8da/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 18:43:13 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:43:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MS Excel-based RQ NPC/Creature generator & FAQ In-Reply-To: <20060621182834.B0F4789891D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060622084313.94425.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Styopa (Syeve): > Is there a fileserver or webhost for this list? I don't know. It's not a Yahoo group so it isn't easy to find. > I have (finally) finished the core functionality of my MS Excel-based RQ > NPC/Creature generator & FAQ. > It's not terribly comprehensive, but I think it does what it does rather > well. I have an extensive readme/faq, to detail wherever I used a house > rule, so it shouldn't be too hard to use with/modify back to canonical RQ > either. Sounds good. > I'd like to put it up where people could download, try it out, and give me > some feedback. It's a 67k file zipped, so it shouldn't burden anyone's > fileserver too badly. :) If you want, send it to me and I'll put it on my site, but only link it from here, for the time being, so you can get some feedback. Alterantively, set up a free site of your own and put it on that. That's how I started off (once I'd abandoned AOL). See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060622/3ba4a7cd/attachment.html From julian.lord at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 19:34:37 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:34:37 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Crit hits/Big Fat Momma Message-ID: <1e842f7f0606220234r5213489dm7066322153b376ad@mail.gmail.com> > > Simon Phipp : Michael Hoxie (who used Google to get the astronomical figures): > > > I think the problem with MOM is that SIZ 1250 is about 2.72 x 10 ^ 48 > > kilograms. > > This is according to the RQIII SIZ table (actually the formula from > > Superworld > > that produces the SIZ table for BRP). > > I think you might find (rulebook at home, working from memory but pretty > sure) that after a certain point, each SIZ point adds a tonne (1000kg) or > something similar. > > They must have realised that you can't keep on doubling. Yeah, the wimps .... Here I was, hoping we could find out how many HPs a CON 18 Black Hole would have, and how many archers it would take to kill one ... So, SIZ 1250 would probably be under 2000 tonnes (2,000,000 kg), a mere > stripling, a slight and slender thing, if you ask me. Oh well, as a consolation prize I guess I'll just cherish the knowledge that we now know how to calculate the damage bonus of a 2 Megaton Nuclear Weapon at Ground Zero in RQ3, ie +76 D6, so probably about 12D6+76D6 total damage which should be quite enough to take out the MoM... Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060622/2381090e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 22:31:35 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <20060620083430.58635.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <44969646.1040204@comhem.se> <20060620083430.58635.qmail@web27707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606220531o8a7902fo23ef4bee98594fca@mail.gmail.com> The EWS-Studio website is still up at http://www.ew-studio.com/catalog/ for anyone who reads French. On 6/20/06, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > The french company "Extraordinay World Studios" created a game system that > was built on the BRP resistance table, the "EWS system", but with d20. I was > not a big fan of this system, but the core system worked fine. > A free version was available to download at a time, but as EWS-Studio is > now dead, I don't know if it can be found easily. > > Peter Johansson a ?crit : > Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' > > game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the > > core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance > > table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game > > system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 > > for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc. > > > > It's the core clean approach I wanted. > > > Once upon a time (back in the mid 80's), a few of us in my original > gaming group decided to create the ultimate game system after playing > BRP, RQ2 and CoC for several years. We choose to base it on the > resistance table and you compared your Skill with a Difficulty. For > instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance of 40% to succeed > with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified but the Difficulty > was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the energy to finalize it. > It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) > > /Peter J > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son > interface r?volutionnaire. > From aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Jun 23 00:58:23 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:58:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606220531o8a7902fo23ef4bee98594fca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060622145823.5848.qmail@web27708.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Yes, but as far as I can see, it is now only an empty shell in which you will not find even the slightest trace of their system. Anyone interested should take a look at this site, that I found recently : http://cassendre.indie-rpg.info/ And download the "Lite" version here : http://cassendre.indie-rpg.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=66 I'm not a big fan of this system, but it is a good example of what can be done with the resistance table. David Smart a ?crit : The EWS-Studio website is still up at http://www.ew-studio.com/catalog/ for anyone who reads French. On 6/20/06, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > The french company "Extraordinay World Studios" created a game system that > was built on the BRP resistance table, the "EWS system", but with d20. I was > not a big fan of this system, but the core system worked fine. > A free version was available to download at a time, but as EWS-Studio is > now dead, I don't know if it can be found easily. > > Peter Johansson a ?crit : > Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > Which I understand. But this was touted as a 'streamlined' > > game and I'd like to see a tightly focused RQ. RQ that uses the > > core skill concept and runs with just that. Drop the resistance > > table, even though it's a great mechanic (and could be a game > > system in it's own), drop Defense, go for pure skill based d100 > > for everything, reolsution, advancement, uber-feats etc. > > > > It's the core clean approach I wanted. > > > Once upon a time (back in the mid 80's), a few of us in my original > gaming group decided to create the ultimate game system after playing > BRP, RQ2 and CoC for several years. We choose to base it on the > resistance table and you compared your Skill with a Difficulty. For > instance, Skill 7 and Difficulty 9 gave you a chance of 40% to succeed > with the skill roll. The Skill was never modified but the Difficulty > was. It worked pretty well, but we never had the energy to finalize it. > It was a "core clean approach" though. :-) > > /Peter J > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son > interface r?volutionnaire. > _______________________________________________ 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/20060622/c59f0a62/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 23 02:22:01 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:22:01 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Crit hits/Big Fat Momma In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0606220234r5213489dm7066322153b376ad@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e842f7f0606220234r5213489dm7066322153b376ad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606220922pe5f7173m2a7ee5189704ecf3@mail.gmail.com> We do?!? What, did I miss a post with formulas somewhere? Darn. David On 6/22/06, Julian Lord wrote: ...We now know how to calculate the damage bonus of a 2 Megaton Nuclear Weapon at Ground Zero in RQ3... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060622/09b89926/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jun 23 02:24:03 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:24:03 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Resistance table game system In-Reply-To: <20060622145823.5848.qmail@web27708.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1c92296e0606220531o8a7902fo23ef4bee98594fca@mail.gmail.com> <20060622145823.5848.qmail@web27708.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606220924u47f1d652kd88139dd4717cf9a@mail.gmail.com> Merci! On 6/22/06, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > Yes, but as far as I can see, it is now only an empty shell in which you > will not find even the slightest trace of their system. > Anyone interested should take a look at this site, that I found recently : > > http://cassendre.indie-rpg.info/ > > And download the "Lite" version here : > > > http://cassendre.indie-rpg.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=66 > > I'm not a big fan of this system, but it is a good example of what can be > done with the resistance table. > ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060622/da2d4853/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jun 23 04:19:16 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:19:16 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MS Excel-based RQ NPC/Creature generator & FA In-Reply-To: <20060622084313.94425.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060621182834.B0F4789891D@mini.thinbits.net> <20060622084313.94425.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606221119u667a349oeb3392845f801a82@mail.gmail.com> Sent, thank you! On 6/22/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > I'd like to put it up where people could download, try it out, and give > me > > some feedback. It's a 67k file zipped, so it shouldn't burden anyone's > > fileserver too badly. :) > > If you want, send it to me and I'll put it on my site, but only link it > from here, for the time being, so you can get some feedback. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060622/e3a25ddc/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Fri Jun 23 15:23:03 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:23:03 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical problems In-Reply-To: <20060621164908.68737.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060621164908.68737.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580A75AF-0278-11DB-94DD-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I couldn't agree more. I very much enjoyed playing a character who hand his leg amputated below the knee, without immediate access to healing magic. Not because it made for an obvious quest hook (to find some magic to regrow it, of course), but because it really made me think about my own legs in a way I hadn't before. It was a challenge, and I'm glad to have experienced it without actually having to have experienced it for real. On 21-Jun-06, at 10:49 AM, Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Frank Filz wrote: >> >> First, in general, it isn't fun playing a crippled >> PC. >> > De gustibus non est disputandam. I designed Alita with > her ankle problem precisely because I was sick and > tired of bombproof PCs. I wanted the challenge of > playing a character who once thought she was in that > category, but because of no fault of her own, has > discovered she isn't. > > She can't run away, or charge recklessly into battle > either, unless mounted. As a result, she is > intrensically opposed to hack'n'slash and has to use > her mind more than her body. > > Challenge is fun. You should try it sometime. The > state of the art in RPG would improve if players would > work more on playing realistic characters and less on > devising special rules to inflict megaton damage > without ever getting the same in return. > > As I mentioned in the Latin, this is strictly my taste > in gaming and as such, it is not really a matter for > debate - just witness. Still, try a different flavor > on occasion. You might find it tasty, and if not, > that is your right. > > Paul Cardwell > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Ludowick at aol.com Fri Jun 23 23:18:28 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:18:28 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <50a.15413d0.31cd4424@aol.com> Syopa wrote: > That makes it a meaningless value for small things (anything less than 50lbs > is SIZ 0?) For SIZ less than 10 it gets strange: SIZ 9 = 39 kg SIZ 7 = 20 kg SIZ 5 = 10 kg SIZ 3 = 4 kg SIZ 1 = 1 kg SIZ 0 = 500 grams SIZ -2 (!) = 10 grams SIZ -3 = 1 gram SIZ -4 = 100 mg SIZ -5 = 10 mg >and the granularity eventually means each SIZ point is 15 tons at > SIZ 100....so a SIZ 92 is half the mass of a SIZ 100? > That seems wonky to me. I think the DC Heroes RPG had each stat point doubling the magnitude. I think something like this is necessary for super-heroic level stats. Michael Hoxie From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 24 09:17:20 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:17:20 -1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy In-Reply-To: <50a.15413d0.31cd4424@aol.com> References: <50a.15413d0.31cd4424@aol.com> Message-ID: <449C7680.102@concentric.net> Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Syopa wrote: > >> That makes it a meaningless value for small things (anything less than > 50lbs >> is SIZ 0?) > > For SIZ less than 10 it gets strange: > > SIZ 9 = 39 kg > SIZ 7 = 20 kg > SIZ 5 = 10 kg > SIZ 3 = 4 kg > SIZ 1 = 1 kg > SIZ 0 = 500 grams > SIZ -2 (!) = 10 grams > SIZ -3 = 1 gram > SIZ -4 = 100 mg > SIZ -5 = 10 mg Hmmm, instead of going negative, I'd be inclined to switch to fractions for SIZes less than 1, halving as you go: SIZ .5 = 500 grams SIZ .25 = 10 grams SIZ .125 = 1 gram SIZ .0625 = 100 mg ... Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jun 24 18:46:24 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:46:24 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes Message-ID: <20060624084642.50ABD8B150C@mini.thinbits.net> All-- I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is going to be an 'Open gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this means the rules but not the setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and usable by anybody. But since the Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it is impossible to use the magic system in the basic rules book without also using the corresponding runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes also part of the OGL? Cheers Gianni From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jun 24 18:59:15 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:59:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <20060624084642.50ABD8B150C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <449D0CF3.4697.8AD8CFA@tom.zunder.org.uk> I'd wait and read the licence. It's not finished yet. On 24 Jun 2006 at 10:46, Gianni wrote: > All-- > > I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is going to be an 'Open > gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this means the rules but not the > setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and usable by anybody. But since the > Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it is impossible to use the > magic system in the basic rules book without also using the corresponding > runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes also part of the OGL? > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sun Jun 25 00:44:20 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:44:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> References: <56e64e7a0606190704p4efdb135n5787570e5befd48a@mail.gmail.com> <20060619151729.73211.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0606190906g1f3b6520yb7be6fce9a22fcfb@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0606191138y43ab996fj1fb08b0b10440c6e@mail.gmail.com> <8C861F7085ADDAF-12D4-1D9F@mblk-r25.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <449D4FC4.9050906@inetnebr.com> devinc at aol.com wrote: > I think it is more a stylistic difference than an actual mechanic > difference. Yes, that stylistic difference shows up in the mechanics... > > RQ demands much more from its players, but not because that is its > goal, much as it is not D&D's goal to allow for lazy play. But rather, > D&D has always been designed from the perspective that the PCs are > the protagonists of "the book" that the game is "writing". > Protagonists don't routinely die. Especially not in the first chapter. > They are, in a sense, fated to be special and important. This is why > the D&D advancement system is, essentially, broken in the context of > the game worlds they inhabit. After all, think about it. In D&D PCs > gain a level every 13.666 encounters at an equal Challenge Rating to > the party. Given the party is supposed to be able to handle between > 4-5 encounters per day equal to their CR, and you get a level after 3 > "days" of adventuring. hehehe yup seen it happen flabberghasted the Dungeon Master too. > > Now factor in that most D&D PCs seem to have no other life beyond > constant adventuring, and you get these stunning results where the PCs > go from 1st level neophytes to god-shaking demi-gods in as little as a > single year of campaign time. DUngeon magazine recently published a > campaign of 12 adventures that take the PCs from 1st level to 20th > level. The course of campaign time for those adventures can be as > little as between 6 months and 1 year. Robert Jordans Wheel of Time is a book series where the main characters are basically recognized by the world itself as being ummm I cant remember the word in the game world but it amounts to mover and shaker protagonists around whom fate and destiny get yanked kicking and screaming ;-) > > Imagine a world where the rest of the world watches these hicks go off > into the wilds for 6 months and return with the capabilities to level > kingdoms. See the above books it really does have some of the other people in the books scratching their heads... but these special types also have undo influence over the NPC's they can rally villages to stave off the hoards when that village never would have or could have without the PC's prodding. The whole thing really does have greater dignity in the books ... ;-) From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Sun Jun 25 00:50:09 2006 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:50:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Craig Carter is away Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 22/06/2006 and will not return until 03/07/2006. 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 alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sun Jun 25 01:07:11 2006 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:07:11 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 9, Issue 34 In-Reply-To: <20060624144531.8C6B08B36F4@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060624144531.8C6B08B36F4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550606240807u56d6b92ft548f6d09b551d49d@mail.gmail.com> > > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:23:03 -0600 > From: Tom Cantine > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Paralyzation and other unusual medical > problems > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: <580A75AF-0278-11DB-94DD-000D9334A9EA at incentre.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > I couldn't agree more. I very much enjoyed playing a character who hand > his leg amputated below the knee, without immediate access to healing > magic. Not because it made for an obvious quest hook (to find some > magic to regrow it, of course), but because it really made me think > about my own legs in a way I hadn't before. It was a challenge, and I'm > glad to have experienced it without actually having to have experienced > it for real. > A friend of my wife is an occupational therapist. And also happens to have only one arm. Part of the first year of her OT training involved tasks such as 'Imagine you only had one arm try to think how would get dressed in the morning.' Apparently she had to fight very hard to gain permission to miss out this modules and to not fail the course for not writing the assignments! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060624/31c2c75c/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Sun Jun 25 10:07:25 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:07:25 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <20060624084642.50ABD8B150C@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060624084642.50ABD8B150C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <94B7F4A8-03DE-11DB-B43B-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I have always been puzzled by this concept of open gaming licenses. My understanding of intellectual property law is perhaps incomplete, but it seems to me that rules systems are pretty much free to use anyway. Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, and while it also extends to "derivative works" such as those set in the same universe or featuring the same characters, I don't believe that can or should extend to rules systems. For one thing, nobody buys a copy of a rulebook without expecting to be able to use the rules to "create" stories using those rules, and no one sells a rulebook ignorant of that reasonable expectation. The text of the rulebook, its artwork and layout, those are all copyrightable, but the rules system itself? How? A rules system might be covered by patent law, but you have to apply for and register those, and they only last for 20 years. So far as I can tell, then, this OGL business can really only apply to trademarks. In principle, you could write a game supplement or adventure using any game system you want, but identifying it as using a particular system by using the trademarked name of that system would be the tricky part. Strictly speaking, ownership of a trademark does not give you a monopoly on the USE of your trademark; it only means that trademark can only be used to refer to your product. However, there was a case decided in the sixties or so that seemed to say you can't even use someone else's trademark when comparing your product to theirs. I think this was wrong, but there you go. (This was here in Canada, by the way; I don't know how it works in the U.S. or elsewhere.) Bottom line? I don't know. I just don't understand this open game license concept, because you can't legally prevent someone from rolling dice and telling stories using a mathematical algorithm you happen to have described, even if you happen to hold a copyright on the description you wrote. On 24-Jun-06, at 2:46 AM, Gianni wrote: > All-- > > I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is going to be an 'Open > gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this means the rules but not > the > setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and usable by anybody. But > since the > Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it is impossible to use > the > magic system in the basic rules book without also using the > corresponding > runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes also part of the OGL? > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From dzappone at metamythos.net Sun Jun 25 14:57:13 2006 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <94B7F4A8-03DE-11DB-B43B-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <000101c69813$d3694550$0202fea9@quicksilver> As I understand it you can't copyright or trademark a rules system only the text (i.e. the book, images, logos, examples, campaigns, histories, etc.) itself. So theoretically you could release a rules system identical to any number of systems so long as you do not plagiarize the book itself. I've heard (and I may be entirely wrong) that this is pretty much what Greg Stafford has said in the past as well regarding rules systems - and I would imagine he has some idea of what he's talking about. Which leaves the only real advantage of OGL is that you can use the trademarked logos and leverage the brand name to promote your own products. Copyrighting a rules system would pretty much be like trying to copyright a programming language or even a real language like Spanish. It's framework within which everything else is defined. Oh, well I ramble - it's late(ish) and I'm going to sleep. .dan ------------------------------------- dzappone at metamythos.net http://www.metamythos.net -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Tom Cantine Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 7:07 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes understanding of intellectual property law is perhaps incomplete, but it seems to me that rules systems are pretty much free to use anyway. Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, and while it also extends to "derivative works" such as those set in the same universe or featuring the same characters, I don't believe that can or should extend to rules systems. For one thing, nobody buys a copy of a rulebook without expecting to be able to use the rules to "create" stories using those rules, and no one sells a rulebook ignorant of that reasonable expectation. The text of the rulebook, its artwork and layout, those are all copyrightable, but the rules system itself? How? A rules system might be covered by patent law, but you have to apply for and register those, and they only last for 20 years. So far as I can tell, then, this OGL business can really only apply to trademarks. In principle, you could write a game supplement or adventure using any game system you want, but identifying it as using a particular system by using the trademarked name of that system would be the tricky part. Strictly speaking, ownership of a trademark does not give you a monopoly on the USE of your trademark; it only means that trademark can only be used to refer to your product. However, there was a case decided in the sixties or so that seemed to say you can't even use someone else's trademark when comparing your product to theirs. I think this was wrong, but there you go. (This was here in Canada, by the way; I don't know how it works in the U.S. or elsewhere.) Bottom line? I don't know. I just don't understand this open game license concept, because you can't legally prevent someone from rolling dice and telling stories using a mathematical algorithm you happen to have described, even if you happen to hold a copyright on the description you wrote. On 24-Jun-06, at 2:46 AM, Gianni wrote: > All-- > > I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is going to be an 'Open > gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this means the rules but not > the > setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and usable by anybody. But > since the > Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it is impossible to use > the > magic system in the basic rules book without also using the > corresponding > runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes also part of the OGL? > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.3/374 - Release Date: 6/23/2006 From darthvogel at hotmail.com Sun Jun 25 17:12:03 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:12:03 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <000101c69813$d3694550$0202fea9@quicksilver> Message-ID: >From: "Dan Zappone" >Copyrighting a rules system would pretty much be like trying to copyright a >programming language or even a real language like Spanish. It's framework >within which everything else is defined. I'm confident that Perrin has some knowledge in this area to clarify whether rules can be copyrighted, but I bet they can be if you write them the correct way. The liscensing isn't about you rolling dice and playing the game, its about who can sell what and make money off of it. The OGL concept as i understand it provides a legal means for companies other than the game publisher to easily make products that utilize the framework and settings provided. This allows for a more diverse product array appealing to a broader group that uses the Mongoose product at its core, and the idea is that will lead to more sales. Only time will tell if this concept is successful. For us, the consumer, it means that there can be multiple lines of settigns and stories by different publishers. I personally dont care for Glorantha, but it that is the setting the publisher chooses and they are the only ones allowed to make products...I would just have to suck it up. As to your comment about programming languages, the language in fact CAN be copyrighted and or patented. Any software you write that you want to publish and sell you would have to have the publishers permission and provide a royalty to if such an agreement was required by that publisher. I have worked for companies that have done this very thing. I have also worked for companies who developed and owned proprietary languages. In fact, even if a publisher does not own the language they can own libraries and toolsets that would require similar liscensing if used for product development. For languages that have an ANSI specification, you would have a hard time trademarking or patenting a language you developed using the standard; but, you could still produce extentions, libraries, tools, wrappers, etc that you could. Do not underestimate what can be protected by law. Fred From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Jun 25 19:53:48 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:53:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <94B7F4A8-03DE-11DB-B43B-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <20060625095348.47308.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> What's so puzzling? If you say something's OGL you're giving someone permission to copy it and create derivative works from it. They don't have to worry about working out their own way of saying things, they can just retype your words. If you derive works from something that's OGL you can charge cash for it, but you can't stop anyone else charging cash for works derived from yours. Cheers, Ash --- Tom Cantine wrote: > I have always been puzzled by this concept of open > gaming licenses. My > understanding of intellectual property law is > perhaps incomplete, but > it seems to me that rules systems are pretty much > free to use anyway. > Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the > idea itself, and > while it also extends to "derivative works" such as > those set in the > same universe or featuring the same characters, I > don't believe that > can or should extend to rules systems. For one > thing, nobody buys a > copy of a rulebook without expecting to be able to > use the rules to > "create" stories using those rules, and no one sells > a rulebook > ignorant of that reasonable expectation. The text of > the rulebook, its > artwork and layout, those are all copyrightable, but > the rules system > itself? How? > > A rules system might be covered by patent law, but > you have to apply > for and register those, and they only last for 20 > years. > > So far as I can tell, then, this OGL business can > really only apply to > trademarks. In principle, you could write a game > supplement or > adventure using any game system you want, but > identifying it as using a > particular system by using the trademarked name of > that system would be > the tricky part. Strictly speaking, ownership of a > trademark does not > give you a monopoly on the USE of your trademark; it > only means that > trademark can only be used to refer to your product. > However, there was > a case decided in the sixties or so that seemed to > say you can't even > use someone else's trademark when comparing your > product to theirs. I > think this was wrong, but there you go. (This was > here in Canada, by > the way; I don't know how it works in the U.S. or > elsewhere.) > > Bottom line? I don't know. I just don't understand > this open game > license concept, because you can't legally prevent > someone from rolling > dice and telling stories using a mathematical > algorithm you happen to > have described, even if you happen to hold a > copyright on the > description you wrote. > > > > On 24-Jun-06, at 2:46 AM, Gianni wrote: > > > All-- > > > > I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is > going to be an 'Open > > gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this > means the rules but not > > the > > setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and > usable by anybody. But > > since the > > Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it > is impossible to use > > the > > magic system in the basic rules book without also > using the > > corresponding > > runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes > also part of the OGL? > > > > Cheers > > > > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > > 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 Ludowick at aol.com Sun Jun 25 22:04:24 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:04:24 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Killing of Mother of Monsters made easy Message-ID: <503.1924b3f.31cfd5c8@aol.com> Steven Posey wrote: > Hmmm, instead of going negative, I'd be inclined to switch to fractions > for SIZes less than 1, halving as you go: > > SIZ .5 = 500 grams > SIZ .25 = 10 grams > SIZ .125 = 1 gram > SIZ .0625 = 100 mg I like this much better. Characteristic rolls wouldn't be broken like they are with negative SIZ. Michael Hoxie From dzappone at metamythos.net Sun Jun 25 23:00:04 2006 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:00:04 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c69857$4790da90$0202fea9@quicksilver> Sure I'll buy your comments about programming languages. I'm sure you know more about the legal ramification than I do. I personally think patenting, copyright and trademarking is out of control these days. As this is not the place for it that's all I'll say on the topic. In any event I imagine it would be extremely difficult to get that kind of control over a game system as even minor alterations could radically change the way the system works. I wouldn't put it past the legal system to completely misunderstand what a game system is either if something went to court. Actually that could be quite humorous. .dan ------------------------------------- dzappone at metamythos.net http://www.metamythos.net -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Fred Vogel Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:12 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes As to your comment about programming languages, the language in fact CAN be copyrighted and or patented. Any software you write that you want to publish and sell you would have to have the publishers permission and provide a royalty to if such an agreement was required by that publisher. I have worked for companies that have done this very thing. I have also worked for companies who developed and owned proprietary languages. In fact, even if a publisher does not own the language they can own libraries and toolsets that would require similar liscensing if used for product development. For languages that have an ANSI specification, you would have a hard time trademarking or patenting a language you developed using the standard; but, you could still produce extentions, libraries, tools, wrappers, etc that you could. Do not underestimate what can be protected by law. From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Jun 26 02:16:34 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:16:34 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <20060625095348.47308.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060625095348.47308.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What's puzzling is that it purports to grant a right that in large part was never there to be granted. Consider: With or without OGL, I could write a book about the development of RQ, including a complete description of how the rules worked in each edition, why the changes were made, how they were received and interpreted, and so on. (I could even include verbatim excerpts from various editions of the rules, provided I kept them short and abided by the principles of fair use, but I don't need to do that.) In principle, such a book could provided the reader with everything she needed to know to run a game with canonical rules for any edition. Such a work would be entirely permissible under IP law as it stands. I would have mentioned the trademarks throughout, in referring to the various published versions, but at no point would there be any danger that a reader would think I was claiming my book was in any way related to the owners of those trademarks, any more than if I discuss Coca Cola in an article. Now, suppose in writing this book, I decide that the reader could not get a complete understanding of my subject without my providing a collection of adventures and characters, to see how the rules play out and how the genre is organized. I could include in my book a complete, original adventure and setting, explicitly written for use with an identified version of the RQ rules, without running afoul of copyright or trademark. I'll go a bit further. Suppose, after I've written and published this book, I decide to put together more adventures and sell them, too. I'm careful in my design and layout to make it very clear that I am not associated with any of the trademark or copyright holders of Runequest in its various forms. If the word "Runequest" appears at all on the cover, it is either in very small print ("Running this adventure will be easier if you have a copy of either Chaosium's "Runequest", 2nd Edition or chapter 4 of my "Illustrated History of Runequest") or it is under my name in "From the author of Illustrated History of Runequest". I'll admit, OGL makes it a little easier to use trademarks and excerpts of text, but it seems to me to be a very minor concession. On 25-Jun-06, at 3:53 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: > What's so puzzling? > > If you say something's OGL you're giving someone > permission to copy it and create derivative works from > it. They don't have to worry about working out their > own way of saying things, they can just retype your > words. > > If you derive works from something that's OGL you can > charge cash for it, but you can't stop anyone else > charging cash for works derived from yours. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Tom Cantine wrote: > >> I have always been puzzled by this concept of open >> gaming licenses. My >> understanding of intellectual property law is >> perhaps incomplete, but >> it seems to me that rules systems are pretty much >> free to use anyway. >> Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the >> idea itself, and >> while it also extends to "derivative works" such as >> those set in the >> same universe or featuring the same characters, I >> don't believe that >> can or should extend to rules systems. For one >> thing, nobody buys a >> copy of a rulebook without expecting to be able to >> use the rules to >> "create" stories using those rules, and no one sells >> a rulebook >> ignorant of that reasonable expectation. The text of >> the rulebook, its >> artwork and layout, those are all copyrightable, but >> the rules system >> itself? How? >> >> A rules system might be covered by patent law, but >> you have to apply >> for and register those, and they only last for 20 >> years. >> >> So far as I can tell, then, this OGL business can >> really only apply to >> trademarks. In principle, you could write a game >> supplement or >> adventure using any game system you want, but >> identifying it as using a >> particular system by using the trademarked name of >> that system would be >> the tricky part. Strictly speaking, ownership of a >> trademark does not >> give you a monopoly on the USE of your trademark; it >> only means that >> trademark can only be used to refer to your product. >> However, there was >> a case decided in the sixties or so that seemed to >> say you can't even >> use someone else's trademark when comparing your >> product to theirs. I >> think this was wrong, but there you go. (This was >> here in Canada, by >> the way; I don't know how it works in the U.S. or >> elsewhere.) >> >> Bottom line? I don't know. I just don't understand >> this open game >> license concept, because you can't legally prevent >> someone from rolling >> dice and telling stories using a mathematical >> algorithm you happen to >> have described, even if you happen to hold a >> copyright on the >> description you wrote. >> >> >> >> On 24-Jun-06, at 2:46 AM, Gianni wrote: >> >>> All-- >>> >>> I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ is >> going to be an 'Open >>> gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this >> means the rules but not >>> the >>> setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and >> usable by anybody. But >>> since the >>> Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it >> is impossible to use >>> the >>> magic system in the basic rules book without also >> using the >>> corresponding >>> runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes >> also part of the OGL? >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >> > Gianni_______________________________________________ >>> 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jun 26 05:31:17 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:31:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060625193117.23043.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> What's the right that it "purports" to give that we didn't have anyway? About the only rights I can see you get with OGL are: - You can copy it verbatim and you can make money off it - You can't stop other people using your derivative works in the same way Maybe it's cause I live in the UK but AFAIK the first is illegal and if you have the right to publish something legally you can stop people using it in their own works, outside of certain arena's of fair use. Cheers, Ash PS: If you're concerned about the utility of a lot of OGL stuff out there and the reasons for it's existence (to crush any non-DnD system) I empathise. --- Tom Cantine wrote: > What's puzzling is that it purports to grant a right > that in large part > was never there to be granted. > > Consider: With or without OGL, I could write a book > about the > development of RQ, including a complete description > of how the rules > worked in each edition, why the changes were made, > how they were > received and interpreted, and so on. (I could even > include verbatim > excerpts from various editions of the rules, > provided I kept them short > and abided by the principles of fair use, but I > don't need to do that.) > In principle, such a book could provided the reader > with everything she > needed to know to run a game with canonical rules > for any edition. > > Such a work would be entirely permissible under IP > law as it stands. I > would have mentioned the trademarks throughout, in > referring to the > various published versions, but at no point would > there be any danger > that a reader would think I was claiming my book was > in any way related > to the owners of those trademarks, any more than if > I discuss Coca Cola > in an article. > > Now, suppose in writing this book, I decide that the > reader could not > get a complete understanding of my subject without > my providing a > collection of adventures and characters, to see how > the rules play out > and how the genre is organized. I could include in > my book a complete, > original adventure and setting, explicitly written > for use with an > identified version of the RQ rules, without running > afoul of copyright > or trademark. > > I'll go a bit further. Suppose, after I've written > and published this > book, I decide to put together more adventures and > sell them, too. I'm > careful in my design and layout to make it very > clear that I am not > associated with any of the trademark or copyright > holders of Runequest > in its various forms. If the word "Runequest" > appears at all on the > cover, it is either in very small print ("Running > this adventure will > be easier if you have a copy of either Chaosium's > "Runequest", 2nd > Edition or chapter 4 of my "Illustrated History of > Runequest") or it is > under my name in "From the author of Illustrated > History of Runequest". > > I'll admit, OGL makes it a little easier to use > trademarks and excerpts > of text, but it seems to me to be a very minor > concession. > > > On 25-Jun-06, at 3:53 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: > > > What's so puzzling? > > > > If you say something's OGL you're giving someone > > permission to copy it and create derivative works > from > > it. They don't have to worry about working out > their > > own way of saying things, they can just retype > your > > words. > > > > If you derive works from something that's OGL you > can > > charge cash for it, but you can't stop anyone else > > charging cash for works derived from yours. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Tom Cantine wrote: > > > >> I have always been puzzled by this concept of > open > >> gaming licenses. My > >> understanding of intellectual property law is > >> perhaps incomplete, but > >> it seems to me that rules systems are pretty much > >> free to use anyway. > >> Copyright covers the expression of an idea, not > the > >> idea itself, and > >> while it also extends to "derivative works" such > as > >> those set in the > >> same universe or featuring the same characters, I > >> don't believe that > >> can or should extend to rules systems. For one > >> thing, nobody buys a > >> copy of a rulebook without expecting to be able > to > >> use the rules to > >> "create" stories using those rules, and no one > sells > >> a rulebook > >> ignorant of that reasonable expectation. The text > of > >> the rulebook, its > >> artwork and layout, those are all copyrightable, > but > >> the rules system > >> itself? How? > >> > >> A rules system might be covered by patent law, > but > >> you have to apply > >> for and register those, and they only last for 20 > >> years. > >> > >> So far as I can tell, then, this OGL business can > >> really only apply to > >> trademarks. In principle, you could write a game > >> supplement or > >> adventure using any game system you want, but > >> identifying it as using a > >> particular system by using the trademarked name > of > >> that system would be > >> the tricky part. Strictly speaking, ownership of > a > >> trademark does not > >> give you a monopoly on the USE of your trademark; > it > >> only means that > >> trademark can only be used to refer to your > product. > >> However, there was > >> a case decided in the sixties or so that seemed > to > >> say you can't even > >> use someone else's trademark when comparing your > >> product to theirs. I > >> think this was wrong, but there you go. (This was > >> here in Canada, by > >> the way; I don't know how it works in the U.S. or > >> elsewhere.) > >> > >> Bottom line? I don't know. I just don't > understand > >> this open game > >> license concept, because you can't legally > prevent > >> someone from rolling > >> dice and telling stories using a mathematical > >> algorithm you happen to > >> have described, even if you happen to hold a > >> copyright on the > >> description you wrote. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 24-Jun-06, at 2:46 AM, Gianni wrote: > >> > >>> All-- > >>> > >>> I had a thought this morning.... Apparently MRQ > is > >> going to be an 'Open > >>> gaming Licence'. My understanding is that this > >> means the rules but not > >>> the > >>> setting (Glorantha) are going to be free and > >> usable by anybody. But > >>> since the > >>> Gloranthan Runes are now part of the rules -- it > >> is impossible to use > >>> the > >>> magic system in the basic rules book without > also > >> using the > >>> corresponding > >>> runes -- does that make now the Gloranthan runes > >> also part of the OGL? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> > === message truncated === From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Jun 26 07:58:43 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:58:43 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <20060625193117.23043.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060625193117.23043.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <449F0713.6080901@brinkdata.se> It's important I think to realize that a game is a type of product that is in general difficult to protect under IPR law. The ideas, algorithms, methods of play etc. (i.e. the game mechanics) are not copyrightable, neither in the U.S. nor in the E.U. or anywhere else. Game mechanics cannot be patented (outside the U.S. - and even in the U.S. it's far from easy...). In the E.U. Game mechanics cannot be trademark protected. What you could protect is the way the rules are explained, but that is not easy. There are only a few meaningful ways to express any given method or process and this means that the possibility of independent double-creation is far from minute - it is, in fact, quiet likely. The result is that courts, both in the U.S. (using the merger theory) and in Europe, would (in the best of worlds) be quite skeptical toward any claim of copyright in the rules of a game. So it would seem the the OGL isn't really needed. In theory games are not copyrightable. In practice however it's not that simple. There are very few known cases where courts have had to analyze the copyright status of games, which makes the issue an uncertain one. I'm aware of a few U.S. cases and a few European ones. The European cases are more useful - from a RPG POW. From those one can deduct that only truly original expressions of a game's rules can be protected but also that a verbatim copy of a game could be attacked using market law instead of copyright law. In the end the O.G.L. is useful to producers of RPG:s because it makes copying others game rules safe. In theory it might not be a "fair" deal but in practice it's (so far) the safest bet. /Peter Brink From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:16:45 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:16:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <20060624144531.8C6B08B36F4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060626101645.60846.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> > I think it is more a stylistic difference than an actual mechanic > difference. Yes, that stylistic difference shows up in the mechanics... I'm currently looking at adapting the Desert of Desolation AD&D scenarios for use with Prax/Oasis Folk as they seem a reasonable fit and a friend was having a clean out, so I "borrowed" them for a couple of weeks. When was looking at the scenarios, I saw things like " Harem Play: The monster will be encountered first. The Treasure is contained in a box hiden in a hole dug beneath the center rug. Monster: The three wives of the sheik live here. " and ... " Slaves' Quarters Monster: Two slaves are busy preparing palm dates " So, slave girls and sheiks' wives are described as "monsters". The Washing House says "The Monster is encountered within." and "Monster: 4-16 nomad women and 1-4 slaves will be in this building washing clothes". Monsters! Hah! In the shrines, the holy idols are described as Treasure, as if the party will automatically strip the shrines of everything of value as a matter of course. There is a stable boy described as a Monster and it goes on and on. The cleric of Anu, a good gos, has virtually the same spells as a cleric of Set, an evil god. It all looks very odd indeed to a long-time RQer. However, the basic scenario and setting can be easily converted, the stats of the encounters/denizens have to be completely redone. And finally, in a room next to the guards' quarters "A lone, slim girl struggles to her feet." and "Monster: A sleva girl is chained to the floor." and "Character: The slave girl, kidnapped from a caravan going to her native land, has been forced to cook for the guards there." Cook! That's right, they kidnap a young, slim girl from a caravan, drag her back to their guards quarters and make her cook! Am I missing something here ..... See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/71642fd1/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jun 26 20:43:20 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:43:20 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <20060626101645.60846.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060624144531.8C6B08B36F4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> When you're 14 all girls are monsters.. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From andrew at crashbox.com Mon Jun 26 21:14:14 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:14:14 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] webserver In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606211128g1662ee34j14a9e7a86404dc65@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0606211128g1662ee34j14a9e7a86404dc65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Mailman doesn't have a fileserver portion, and I don't really have anything set up. I can stick it in my personal directory if you just need to put it somewhere. -Andrew On Jun 21, 2006, at 2:28 PM, Styopa wrote: > Is there a fileserver or webhost for this list? > I have (finally) finished the core functionality of my MS Excel- > based RQ NPC/Creature generator & FAQ. > It's not terribly comprehensive, but I think it does what it does > rather well. I have an extensive readme/faq, to detail wherever I > used a house rule, so it shouldn't be too hard to use with/modify > back to canonical RQ either. > > I'd like to put it up where people could download, try it out, and > give me some feedback. It's a 67k file zipped, so it shouldn't > burden anyone's fileserver too badly. :) > > Thanks! > -Steve > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 23:54:16 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:54:16 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <20060624144531.8C6B08B36F4@mini.thinbits.net> <20060626101645.60846.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606260654r139633c2w887ed4aa206de091@mail.gmail.com> Funny how that all changes in a year or two. On 6/26/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > When you're 14 all girls are monsters.. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/0851d7dc/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 23:54:54 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) Message-ID: <20060626135454.37988.qmail@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is nothing worse when being out in the middle of the desert and have noone in your group who knows anything about cooking? Imagine their relef, when they discover that the young (beutiful) girl they just kiddnaped is also a ZAGAT rated chef! Well, I tell you boys, it seems sure logical to me. :)))) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > When you're 14 all girls are monsters.. > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 23:57:17 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D Message-ID: <20060626135717.47587.qmail@web32102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> But, later on you realized that at 14 ....... you were right. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Funny how that all changes in a year or two. > > On 6/26/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > > > When you're 14 all girls are monsters.. > > > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jun 27 00:07:56 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:07:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: webserver In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606211128g1662ee34j14a9e7a86404dc65@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0606211128g1662ee34j14a9e7a86404dc65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606260707r36aadf56l5b9235ba2ff8a29@mail.gmail.com> Simon has graciously posted the RQ-Roller program and FAQ (really, you need to read it to understand what's going on in the program) at www.soltakss.com/rqroller.zip Comments welcome. Thanks! -Steve On 6/21/06, Styopa wrote: > > Is there a fileserver or webhost for this list? > I have (finally) finished the core functionality of my MS Excel-based RQ > NPC/Creature generator & FAQ. > It's not terribly comprehensive, but I think it does what it does rather > well. I have an extensive readme/faq, to detail wherever I used a house > rule, so it shouldn't be too hard to use with/modify back to canonical RQ > either. > > I'd like to put it up where people could download, try it out, and give me > some feedback. It's a 67k file zipped, so it shouldn't burden anyone's > fileserver too badly. :) > > Thanks! > -Steve > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/98bff327/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 01:56:21 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060626155621.32619.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > When you're 14 all girls are monsters.. > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder Actually it is mainly between 8 and 12. 13-14 attitudes are changing, 15-? it is reverse (some never recover), but rationality develops usually in the 20s. In Mythworld, sex is a secondary characteristic: high STR and SIZ is male, high CON and DEX is female. When we were developing the game in a small town without a college, we had four adults and the rest junior and senior high school. The younger ones, in particular, universally reacted with "you mean we play girls?" After it got too old to laugh, we would just silently slide over the character sheet of one of our particularly advanced female PCs. We never had any problem with them after that. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 03:35:49 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:35:49 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <20060626135454.37988.qmail@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> I am playing tales of symphonia on my GameCube and cooking food regains hit points, it's very integral to the game system. SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting Uresia Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/f4626f8d/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 03:35:50 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:35:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <20060626155621.32619.qmail@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44A02906.9286.500AE7@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 26 Jun 2006 at 8:56, Paul Cardwell wrote: > Actually it is mainly between 8 and 12. 13-14 > attitudes are changing, 15-? it is reverse (some never > recover), but rationality develops usually in the 20s. > > In Mythworld, sex is a secondary characteristic: high > STR and SIZ is male, high CON and DEX is female. What a strangely rational and role-player like answer, Paul. I note that you managed to drop in a whol chunk about Mythworld as well.. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 03:35:48 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:35:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0606260654r139633c2w887ed4aa206de091@mail.gmail.com> References: <449FC858.8397.9564201@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44A02904.29380.5005D7@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 26 Jun 2006 at 8:54, David Smart wrote: > > Funny how that all changes in a year or two. > Unless you are an 'elite gamer' and write AD&D scenarios, when oddly enough it continues until you're 40.. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 04:10:26 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <44A02906.9286.500AE7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060626181026.99369.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > On 26 Jun 2006 at 8:56, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > Actually it is mainly between 8 and 12. 13-14 > > attitudes are changing, 15-? it is reverse (some > never > > recover), but rationality develops usually in the > 20s. > > > > In Mythworld, sex is a secondary characteristic: > high > > STR and SIZ is male, high CON and DEX is female. > > What a strangely rational and role-player like > answer, Paul. > I note that you managed to drop in a whol chunk > about > Mythworld as well.. > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Having kept up with the discussion, particularly from RQ2 fans, about how current RQ development is diverging from the game they prefer, I think Mythworld is just as proper a topic of discussion here as are the current RQ variants. After all, it was originally a proposal for RQ3, and rejected primarily on the grounds that it was *too* detailed for Greg's taste. That makes it a RQ variant not any more distant from RQ2 than what Mongoose is presumably doing while keeping the name. At least I admit mine is a different game. :-) 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 Tue Jun 27 04:27:36 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <20060626135454.37988.qmail@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0606261127h197595a6jd96bacc4c2e3aa72@mail.gmail.com> It's become very standard fare for MMOGs. Normal HP regen might be 1% hp every 3 seconds of realtime, while food of varying qualities might be boost this to 10% every 3 seconds, up to a cap based on the quality of the food (frex: in RQ terms low level food might be capped at 6hp gained, high-lvl might be 25). It exists on the spectrum of healing options available to players: For World of Warcraft: - (slowest) natural healing over time, costs nothing, doesn't happen while in combat. - (slow) food (as above), craftable with materials, cheap, anyone can do it, interruptable - (medium) bandages, craftable with materials, cooldown, interruptable - (fast) - most healing spells, cost mana but can heal staggering amounts, can give the character short term buffs to max him, or regen over time, interruptable - (fastest) - potions, magic items On that note, I'm not sure how many of you play MMOGs, but in trying to draw in younger (teen) players to RQ or any RPG, I find it intensely interesting how the mass-market participation has already codified the language and roles used in our roughly-30-year-old hobby like never before. A lot of these things I'd never even heard before as a term, until I played MMOGs, but they represent things & concepts that we all did, knew, and discussed for decades...without really having such a concise vocabulary for it. This is of course both useful to the players, as well as possibly being a conceptual straitjacket. Examples: 'Tank' (n), or "to tank"something (vb) - to basically occupy an enemy in melee, allowing the generally more-fragile ranged damage dealers to kill it & healers to work unhindered. 'aggro' (n or passive vb) - the focus of an enemy's attack. "I held aggro on the Troll Shaman while the archer moved for a better shot" NOTE: I find it ... amusing ... as a DM to have the monsters attacking what makes sense to them, and the younger players, used to the rigid algorithms of MMOGs are disconcerted that a smart opponent will perhaps IGNORE the 'warrior dude' to try to kill the healer, or will flee from their carefully-arranged ambush before taking any damage at all. :) 'buffs' - any sort of magical enhancement the increases the capabilities of a character or equipment 'debuff' (the opposite of buff) Those are just a few. Anyone else find that interesting? How the mass public has distilled essential concepts from our hobby down so quickly? (Granted, it has something do to with the medium where rules are simplistic and succinct communication - by a few quickly typed lines of chattext - is at a premium.) -Steve On 6/26/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > I am playing *tales of symphonia *on my GameCube and cooking food regains > hit points, it's very integral to the game system. > > SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting *Uresia* > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060626/e0c95799/attachment.html From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jun 27 11:16:14 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:16:14 -1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <449F0713.6080901@brinkdata.se> References: <20060625193117.23043.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <449F0713.6080901@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <44A086DE.2010607@concentric.net> Peter Brink wrote: > It's important I think to realize that a game is a type of product that > is in general difficult to protect under IPR law. > > The ideas, algorithms, methods of play etc. (i.e. the game mechanics) > are not copyrightable, neither in the U.S. nor in the E.U. or anywhere > else. Game mechanics cannot be patented (outside the U.S. - and even in > the U.S. it's far from easy...). In the E.U. Game mechanics cannot be > trademark protected. > > What you could protect is the way the rules are explained, but that is > not easy. There are only a few meaningful ways to express any given > method or process and this means that the possibility of independent > double-creation is far from minute - it is, in fact, quiet likely. The > result is that courts, both in the U.S. (using the merger theory) and in > Europe, would (in the best of worlds) be quite skeptical toward any > claim of copyright in the rules of a game. > > So it would seem the the OGL isn't really needed. In theory games are > not copyrightable. In practice however it's not that simple. There are > very few known cases where courts have had to analyze the copyright > status of games, which makes the issue an uncertain one. I'm aware of a > few U.S. cases and a few European ones. The European cases are more > useful - from a RPG POW. From those one can deduct that only truly > original expressions of a game's rules can be protected but also that a > verbatim copy of a game could be attacked using market law instead of > copyright law. In the end the O.G.L. is useful to producers of RPG:s > because it makes copying others game rules safe. In theory it might not > be a "fair" deal but in practice it's (so far) the safest bet. Seems to me that one thing that the OGL and similar do buy you (at least theoretically) is the good graces of the Rules originators, which is handy if you want to include copy like "Approved for use with " on your product. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net This message and its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the address listed in the From: field and destroy all copies of the original message and its attachments. From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Jun 27 05:36:34 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:36:34 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <44A086DE.2010607@concentric.net> References: <20060625193117.23043.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <449F0713.6080901@brinkdata.se> <44A086DE.2010607@concentric.net> Message-ID: <44A03742.4050000@brinkdata.se> Stephen Posey skrev: > > Seems to me that one thing that the OGL and similar do buy you (at least > theoretically) is the good graces of the Rules originators, which is > handy if you want to include copy like "Approved for use with " on > your product. > Hmm - well referring to other producers brand names or trademarks is explicitly not allowed under the OGL ;) That part of the license is quite certainly not in line with current E.U. trademark law btw... /Peter Brink From devinc at aol.com Tue Jun 27 07:38:46 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:38:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606261127h197595a6jd96bacc4c2e3aa72@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060626135454.37988.qmail@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> <56e64e7a0606261127h197595a6jd96bacc4c2e3aa72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C867800A256C30-B84-1673@mblk-r23.sysops.aol.com> "On that note, I'm not sure how many of you play MMOGs, but in trying to draw in younger (teen) players to RQ or any RPG, I find it intensely interesting how the mass-market participation has already codified the language and roles used in our roughly-30-year-old hobby like never before. A lot of these things I'd never even heard before as a term, until I played MMOGs, but they represent things & concepts that we all did, knew, and discussed for decades...without really having such a concise vocabulary for it. This is of course both useful to the players, as well as possibly being a conceptual straitjacket. Examples: 'Tank' (n), or "to tank"something (vb) - to basically occupy an enemy in melee, allowing the generally more-fragile ranged damage dealers to kill it & healers to work unhindered. 'aggro' (n or passive vb) - the focus of an enemy's attack. "I held aggro on the Troll Shaman while the archer moved for a better shot" NOTE: I find it ... amusing ... as a DM to have the monsters attacking what makes sense to them, and the younger players, used to the rigid algorithms of MMOGs are disconcerted that a smart opponent will perhaps IGNORE the 'warrior dude' to try to kill the healer, or will flee from their carefully-arranged ambush before taking any damage at all. :) 'buffs' - any sort of magical enhancement the increases the capabilities of a character or equipment 'debuff' (the opposite of buff)" We've been using the terms "tank" and "buff" long before MMOGs ever came out. They are time-honoured RPG terms. "Tank" actually refers to someone with a high armour class and lots of ability to withstand damage ala D&D. "Meat Shield" is another such term. Devin ________________________________________________________________________ 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/20060626/b292582f/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jun 27 07:56:57 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <8C867800A256C30-B84-1673@mblk-r23.sysops.aol.com> References: <20060626135454.37988.qmail@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> <56e64e7a0606261127h197595a6jd96bacc4c2e3aa72@mail.gmail.com> <8C867800A256C30-B84-1673@mblk-r23.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606261456x675c74d1l48b99a26c6d9380a@mail.gmail.com> And the tactics I've used in RPGs to deal with tanks seem to work pretty well in MMOGs too. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/b03b44f5/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Jun 27 13:46:05 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:46:05 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <75AC3E81-058F-11DB-8F73-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I had toyed for a long while with using this sort of thing for my own house rules on fatigue and nutrition. The idea had involved "Nutrition Points", and foraging or hunting would yield so many points worth of edible stuff. However, a successful Craft (Cooking) roll could increase the effective NP yielded from the raw materials. I have since abandoned that approach, but I still want to make cooking skill more worthwhile somehow. On 26-Jun-06, at 11:35 AM, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > I am playing tales of symphonia on my GameCube and cooking food > regains hit points, it's very integral to the game system. > > > SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting Uresia > > > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1887 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/3a314124/attachment.bin From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jun 27 15:42:13 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:42:13 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls aregood for) References: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> <75AC3E81-058F-11DB-8F73-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <001801c699ac$70d83500$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Cooking is obviously a skill of interest. I know a lot of people who like to play characters who are either cooks, or have cooking as a skill that they use regularly. I've done it myself. The way to a gamer's interest is through his stomach...? Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Cantine To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls aregood for) I had toyed for a long while with using this sort of thing for my own house rules on fatigue and nutrition. The idea had involved "Nutrition Points", and foraging or hunting would yield so many points worth of edible stuff. However, a successful Craft (Cooking) roll could increase the effective NP yielded from the raw materials. I have since abandoned that approach, but I still want to make cooking skill more worthwhile somehow. On 26-Jun-06, at 11:35 AM, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: I am playing tales of symphonia on my GameCube and cooking food regains hit points, it's very integral to the game system. SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting Uresia Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060626/a0db82ca/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 19:04:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:04:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <20060626181026.99369.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <44A02906.9286.500AE7@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44A10294.6038.2E8B8CD@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 26 Jun 2006 at 11:10, Paul Cardwell wrote: > Having kept up with the discussion, particularly from > RQ2 fans, about how current RQ development is > diverging from the game they prefer, I think Mythworld > is just as proper a topic of discussion here as are > the current RQ variants. After all, it was originally I was teasing. Note the emoticon? Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 19:04:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:04:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking In-Reply-To: <001801c699ac$70d83500$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <44A10294.5752.2E8B989@tom.zunder.org.uk> Wasn't it C&S that first had detailed cooking and gourmet rules? Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Jun 27 19:04:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:04:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL, MRQ, Runes In-Reply-To: <44A03742.4050000@brinkdata.se> References: <44A086DE.2010607@concentric.net> Message-ID: <44A10294.21416.2E8BA06@tom.zunder.org.uk> Mongoose will write their own licence, so I suspect they will want RuneQuest mentioned in exchange for you not touching part of the system OR always saying it requires their corebook. I shall be interested, it's a business model that worked well for Mongoose and Green Ronin and many others as well as WoTC. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Jun 27 19:05:21 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:05:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls are good for) In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606261127h197595a6jd96bacc4c2e3aa72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060627090521.89537.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I am currently playing World of Warcraft, so nothing you're saying here is new to me :) I don't see the "aggro" mechanism as something silly. Basically, it is the mechanism that make the monster go to the enemy that did the most damage or the healer. However, in order that warriors with a big armour still play a role in the game, they have techniques that distract the monster and generate Aggressivity. In my view, this mechanism has been implemented because there is no "threat zone" mechanism -like in D&D 3.X- and no collisions between characters (you can freely pass through a monster...). This is actually a problem when you face players : as they are not subject to aggro, there is no reason why they would stay and kill a tank while a mage is blasting them or a priest heals the tank... One thing that stroke me when I first played this game was the distinction between what deserved to be governed by a skill and what did not. For instance, there are a dozen weapon skills in the game : 1H Sword, 2H Axes, Bows, Crossbows, Pole Weapons, etc... But there are no skills for spells or for bargaining, for instance. You can actually find such skills in games like Morrowind. However, I saw that in the beta version there was a lot more skills. I guess it was a little too complex for a "massively multiplayer" game... Styopa a ?crit : It's become very standard fare for MMOGs. Normal HP regen might be 1% hp every 3 seconds of realtime, while food of varying qualities might be boost this to 10% every 3 seconds, up to a cap based on the quality of the food (frex: in RQ terms low level food might be capped at 6hp gained, high-lvl might be 25). It exists on the spectrum of healing options available to players: For World of Warcraft: - (slowest) natural healing over time, costs nothing, doesn't happen while in combat. - (slow) food (as above), craftable with materials, cheap, anyone can do it, interruptable - (medium) bandages, craftable with materials, cooldown, interruptable - (fast) - most healing spells, cost mana but can heal staggering amounts, can give the character short term buffs to max him, or regen over time, interruptable - (fastest) - potions, magic items On that note, I'm not sure how many of you play MMOGs, but in trying to draw in younger (teen) players to RQ or any RPG, I find it intensely interesting how the mass-market participation has already codified the language and roles used in our roughly-30-year-old hobby like never before. A lot of these things I'd never even heard before as a term, until I played MMOGs, but they represent things & concepts that we all did, knew, and discussed for decades...without really having such a concise vocabulary for it. This is of course both useful to the players, as well as possibly being a conceptual straitjacket. Examples: 'Tank' (n), or "to tank"something (vb) - to basically occupy an enemy in melee, allowing the generally more-fragile ranged damage dealers to kill it & healers to work unhindered. 'aggro' (n or passive vb) - the focus of an enemy's attack. "I held aggro on the Troll Shaman while the archer moved for a better shot" NOTE: I find it ... amusing ... as a DM to have the monsters attacking what makes sense to them, and the younger players, used to the rigid algorithms of MMOGs are disconcerted that a smart opponent will perhaps IGNORE the 'warrior dude' to try to kill the healer, or will flee from their carefully-arranged ambush before taking any damage at all. :) 'buffs' - any sort of magical enhancement the increases the capabilities of a character or equipment 'debuff' (the opposite of buff) Those are just a few. Anyone else find that interesting? How the mass public has distilled essential concepts from our hobby down so quickly? (Granted, it has something do to with the medium where rules are simplistic and succinct communication - by a few quickly typed lines of chattext - is at a premium.) -Steve On 6/26/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: I am playing tales of symphonia on my GameCube and cooking food regains hit points, it's very integral to the game system. SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting Uresia Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface r?volutionnaire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/3938880c/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 19:06:18 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:06:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking In-Reply-To: <44A10294.5752.2E8B989@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/2fb1dcb3/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Tue Jun 27 22:36:07 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:36:07 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking skill Message-ID: <264.c3520f5.31d28037@aol.com> Tom Cantine wrote: > I have since abandoned that approach, but I still want to make cooking > skill more worthwhile somehow. Make it a social influence skill, like calligraphy was in some cultures. Use it to improve the chances to get a good business deal with a wealthy noble or merchant. I'm pretty sure a well made feast can serve as a valid means of inducement (read gift or bribe) in Tekumel's Five Empires, for example. Michael Hoxie From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 00:16:25 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking skill In-Reply-To: <264.c3520f5.31d28037@aol.com> References: <264.c3520f5.31d28037@aol.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606270716v66f1ca52u9deb353568aeca9f@mail.gmail.com> I've heard mock pork is pretty tasty. (grin, duck, run) David On 6/27/06, Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > > Tom Cantine wrote: > > > I have since abandoned that approach, but I still want to make cooking > > skill more worthwhile somehow. > > Make it a social influence skill, like calligraphy was in > some cultures. Use > it to improve the chances to get a good business deal with a > wealthy noble > or merchant. I'm pretty sure a well made feast can serve as a valid > means > of inducement (read gift or bribe) in Tekumel's Five Empires, > for example. > > Michael Hoxie > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060627/bce36d97/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Jun 28 00:34:48 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:34:48 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest SRD and Open Licence Available Message-ID: <44A14208.4000709@brinkdata.se> From Mongooses website: "Mongoose Publishing is (finally) reading to begin distributing the RuneQuest Developer's Kit, including the full Open Content SRD of the main rulebook. Parties interested in producing material for the new RuneQuest system should contact me at msprange at mongoosepublishing.com Print publishers (that is, publishers with at least one product already in print and in the distribution chain) will be sent their Developer's Kit over the weekend. PDF publishers will be sent their copies a few days later. Everyone else will be able to download it freely from our web site after the game's release. 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." From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 02:30:31 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking skill In-Reply-To: <264.c3520f5.31d28037@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060627163031.75247.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Tom Cantine wrote: > > > I have since abandoned that approach, but I still > want to make cooking > > skill more worthwhile somehow. > > Make it a social influence skill, like calligraphy > was in some cultures. Use > it to improve the chances to get a good business > deal with a wealthy noble > or merchant. I'm pretty sure a well made feast can > serve as a valid means > of inducement (read gift or bribe) in Tekumel's Five > Empires, for example. > > Michael Hoxie > Cooking is not a worthwhile skill? Have you no aesthetics? Concern about your health? Are you dependent on someone else for your very survival? Why should your character be any different. In my now out of print America's Camping Book (Scribner's, 1968, 1976, available at used book stores everywhere), I mentioned in the introduction to the do-it-yourself section, the sad story of Kit Carson. When he signed on as scout for the Fr?mont expedition, he refused to use an army tent and demanded a tipi. It was agreed, but they soon realized that even though Carson had lived in one for years, he had no skills, or even knowlege, in how to set and strike one. That was a woman's property. They had to pay a hefty amount to a woman to teach this very basic skill. The moral was that it showed why the Plains culture was one of the strongest matriarchies known to anthropology and that any man should be able cook and sew, simply to be able to survive in the absence of a woman. And so should your characters - including if they are female. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 03:01:17 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <44A10294.6038.2E8B8CD@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060627170117.13958.qmail@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > I was teasing. Note the emoticon? > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder I took no umbrage. However, my point still stands. If the current RQ2 derived RQ variants are still proper topics for this discussion, then so should Mythworld which has the same ancestry, although considerably different from the current RQ and moderately different from RQ2 which got me into RPG in the first place. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Jun 28 04:34:38 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:34:38 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <20060627170117.13958.qmail@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <44A10294.6038.2E8B8CD@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44A1884E.25925.13AFCB@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 27 Jun 2006 at 10:01, Paul Cardwell wrote: > I took no umbrage. However, my point still stands. > If the current RQ2 derived RQ variants are still > proper topics for this discussion, then so should > Mythworld which has the same ancestry, although > considerably different from the current RQ and > moderately different from RQ2 which got me into RPG in > the first place. Not as a main topic but certainly as an aside. After all on that basis we could discuss a huge range of games from CoC to D_och_D in Sweden. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jun 28 05:09:16 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:09:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking In-Reply-To: <44A10294.5752.2E8B989@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060627190916.12670.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> C&S second edition had pages on cooking. There again, it was an FGU game, so why am I surprised it had loads of rules detail for so little in-game effect? Cheers, Ash --- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > Wasn't it C&S that first had detailed cooking and > gourmet rules? > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 05:18:01 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:18:01 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young slave girls aregood for) In-Reply-To: <001801c699ac$70d83500$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <44A02905.20750.5007EA@tom.zunder.org.uk> <75AC3E81-058F-11DB-8F73-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <001801c699ac$70d83500$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <44A18469.805@gmail.com> What I did, was if a character was making a batch of "camping food" (way-bread, dried fish, etc) or cooking for the day they would make a cooking roll. Success at cooking added to the eaters fatigue level by 20% of their total possible fatigue, special success would reduce fatigue consumption rates by 1 point. Steve Perrin wrote: > Cooking is obviously a skill of interest. I know a lot of people who > like to play characters who are either cooks, or have cooking as a > skill that they use regularly. I've done it myself. The way to a > gamer's interest is through his stomach...? > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Tom Cantine > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Monday, June 26, 2006 8:46 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D (or what young > slave girls aregood for) > > I had toyed for a long while with using this sort of thing for my > own house rules on fatigue and nutrition. The idea had involved > "Nutrition Points", and foraging or hunting would yield so many > points worth of edible stuff. However, a successful Craft > (Cooking) roll could increase the effective NP yielded from the > raw materials. > > I have since abandoned that approach, but I still want to make > cooking skill more worthwhile somehow. > > > > On 26-Jun-06, at 11:35 AM, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > I am playing /tales of symphonia /on my GameCube and cooking > food regains hit points, it's very integral to the game system. > > > SJ Ross put the same thing in his BESM setting /Uresia/ > > > > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/66fbdc14/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Jun 28 05:18:23 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:18:23 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking In-Reply-To: <20060627190916.12670.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/7a26e2b1/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 05:51:27 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:51:27 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Converting from AD&D In-Reply-To: <44A1884E.25925.13AFCB@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <44A10294.6038.2E8B8CD@tom.zunder.org.uk> <20060627170117.13958.qmail@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44A1884E.25925.13AFCB@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0606271251s44fa39bbr1c5b6b38649584e8@mail.gmail.com> Which some of us don't have, more's the pity. (D_och_D, not CoC) David On 6/27/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > Not as a main topic but certainly as an aside. After all on that > basis we could discuss a huge range of games from CoC to > D_och_D in Sweden. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/0edb0760/attachment.html From bick10 at comcast.net Wed Jun 28 06:08:03 2006 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:08:03 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking Message-ID: <062720062008.8833.44A1902300002CC9000022812207300793CFCE050C070D@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. I did not ask for Cooking skill rolls unless it was in a stressful situation. Such as trying to cook while keeping the baboon children from snatching the meal and conduct a bargaining session with an adult baboon. A successful skill check there meant the meal was made and added to the bargain result. Failure would deduct from the bargaining. 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. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Roger Benham" Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Cooking Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:19:12 +0000 Size: 2666 Url: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060627/4ca2678b/attachment.mht From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jun 28 07:37:31 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:37:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RuneQuest SRD and Open Licence Available In-Reply-To: <44A14208.4000709@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <20060627213731.67426.qmail@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> That's something at least, if the SRD contains as much as the DnD one we should have enough to play the game without buying the book. Which is great for attracting players so they don't feel they have to shell out for a shiny book just to cater for their GM's taste in system. Cheers, Ash --- Peter Brink wrote: > From Mongooses website: > > "Mongoose Publishing is (finally) reading to begin > distributing the > RuneQuest Developer's Kit, including the full Open > Content SRD of the > main rulebook. Parties interested in producing > material for the new > RuneQuest system should contact me at > msprange at mongoosepublishing.com > > Print publishers (that is, publishers with at least > one product already > in print and in the distribution chain) will be sent > their Developer's > Kit over the weekend. PDF publishers will be sent > their copies a few > days later. Everyone else will be able to download > it freely from our > web site after the game's release. > > 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." > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aluban at yahoo.fr Wed Jun 28 21:57:04 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:57:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Cooking In-Reply-To: <062720062008.8833.44A1902300002CC9000022812207300793CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20060628115704.98928.qmail@web27711.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I think knowledge skills should work like that. Or perhaps, if you want to add a little random factor : If a subject falls in a category that is just above your skill range, there is an INTx1 % chance that you know something about it. If it is under your "skill range", you automatically know it. If it is inside your skill range, you roll INTx5. Note that it might be a guideline for an entire skill system, but it is off-topic. bick10 at comcast.net a ?crit : 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. I did not ask for Cooking skill rolls unless it was in a stressful situation. Such as trying to cook while keeping the baboon children from snatching the meal and conduct a bargaining session with an adult baboon. A successful skill check there meant the meal was made and added to the bargain result. Failure would deduct from the bargaining. 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. Jim De: "Roger Benham" ?: rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet: Re: [Rq-rules] Cooking Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:19:12 +0000 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. --------------------------------- From: Ashley Munday Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Cooking Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:09:16 +0100 (BST) >C&S second edition had pages on cooking. There again, >it was an FGU game, so why am I surprised it had loads >of rules detail for so little in-game effect? > >Cheers, > >Ash > >--- "Tom Zunder (Home)" wrote: > > > Wasn't it C&S that first had detailed cooking and > > gourmet rules? > > > > Tom Zunder > > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > > ICQ: 1521799 > > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > > Y!: tzunder > > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 --------------------------------- Hear about latest news and freebies first when you join The Insider Club. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail r?invente le mail ! D?couvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface r?volutionnaire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060628/0782e99e/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Jun 28 23:04:19 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A27E53.10603@inetnebr.com> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > When you say that RQ isn't heroic, I do not agree with you. > I think that it is possible to play RQ in a heroic way; several > background-things in setting-books, adventure-books, etc. suggests > that the playing-characters were cut out/destined to become somthing > more than the averidge peassant. That's why the game is called Rune > Quest, not "Peassents quest for the lost cow" (shortened to "TQFTLC"). > If you (as GM) let players get an experience check every time they > succeed in a skill, and let them train and find mentors, they can race > up in skill pretty fast. If you give them access to stat-increasing > spells, they will go even higher up the scales in a faster way, as > they have to roll under their skill+modifier in order to get an > experience-check, but they do only need to roll over their actual > skill in order to get a skill increase. You could then let them go up > 1d10 (as in CoC), instead of 1d6. people can advance fairly quickly in RQ > > My point is that RQ could be played "Beowulf"-style just as well as > D&D. The only difference is that your hero can die in RQ, whereas it > cannot in D&D. Well in some sense you are right on.. D&D character death is highly predictable (that doesnt sound right) errrrrrr its something one plan for and or avoid. The reliability of HP as a measure of fatigue and running out of luck means that crit hit occurs well predictable when your hitpoints are shot. HP only vaguely model wounding in that game ;-) > (The other difference is that it is perfectly possible to play a > low-level hero-free campagin in RQ as well as playing "Beowulf"-style. Yup but in RQ you really do have to do something over the top.. if you want to avoid pointless random death ... and still act like Glimli and Legalos...counting them Orc heads with impudence. Ofcourse your character could be clinically insane. Somebody added Fate Points to patch this kind of difficulty and we have seen critical hits introduced to D&D many many times to give it the element of random danger you are talking about... either are fairly straight forward mods. D&D is Heroic out of the box and playing your character like a hero is pretty much encourage systemically... 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. Lance