From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Mar 1 00:40:18 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:40:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060228134018.14918.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I was quite relieved to find Ken Hite's writing the game. Hopefully there's a chance that it'll be okay rather than a cack handed d20 ish pile of wank with percentage dice. Hopefully he's got the clout to make sure it's good and the balls to resist the Ian Livingstoneque hyperbole that seems to surround Mongoose. As I vowed to never support Mongoose again after their fuhrer described them as the next Games Workshop* I'll have to wear dark glasses and a mac when I go and buy a copy. If it's any good that is. Cheers, Ash * A certain representative had a bit of sense of humour failure when I asked if this included buying the lease on people's premises out from under them, retaining paid for stock and burning your warehouse down for the insurance money. --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >According to a thread on RPGNet, I am told, > Mongoose decided they weren't > getting useful feedback and pulled the plug. > >Certain people (I am not one of them, despite > Mongoose's claims of Greg > and I having oversight) have been invited to a > group that Mongoose is > running. > > Mongoose were always entitled to do pretty much > whatever they wanted with > the Yahoo Group - what I find sad is that Matt > Sprange couldn't spare the > few seconds required to empty the Yahoo Group and > lock it down with a > single post remaining saying "thank you, we've now > switched to a private > playtest"; rather than just delete the group and > leave everyone to find out > via RPGNet or wherever. Good manners cost nothing, > other than goodwill... > > >I talked to Ken Hite, who wrote the most recent set > of the rules. He said > he took what Mongoose gave him and made it as much > like classic RQ as > possible. > > Can I just say, given how snippy Matt Sprange got > when various people > (including myself) queried why early iterations were > changing things from > RQII/III (for no good reason, as far as we could > see), that I find this > _deeply_ ironic? > > > We'll see what happens from there. > > Indeed, but with myself at least Mongoose have (yet > again...) blotted their > copybook. If it's "number compatible" with RQII/III > I'll still be > interested in particular sourcebooks, and as ever > what will actual count is > the actual product on the FLGS shelf. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aluban at yahoo.fr Wed Mar 1 01:03:20 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:03:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt In-Reply-To: <44042530.12889.37E5547@localhost> Message-ID: <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : On 28 Feb 2006 at 9:15, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Can I just say, given how snippy Matt Sprange got when various people > (including myself) queried why early iterations were changing things from > RQII/III (for no good reason, as far as we could see), that I find this > _deeply_ ironic? I have it. Let's say Ken did a good job, it's a slightly different version of RQ2/3 with Steve's new and interesting RuneMagic rules. It's good since RQ is good, it has little that is radically different, even the new Strike Ranks and Combat Actions are ok, although much more like D&D. You can use the stat blocks with any BRP with minimal roleplayers sense. The opening text about the radical overhaul and modernisation is a bit of a laugh tho', but then again for a d20 player this is still a leap forward. I'm also one of the few ones that got it, and my opinion is similar to yours. It is not perfect, and some of the changes I expected were not included, but it is far better than version 1.5. --------------------------------- 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/20060228/132b5581/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 03:04:57 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Steve Lieb) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:04:57 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt In-Reply-To: <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <44042530.12889.37E5547@localhost> <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0602280804s3d769415k4c97ce5c66fc2463@mail.gmail.com> In any case, I'll be delighted if they produce even a moderate amount of source material. For this particular adult, I simply no longer have the opportunities I used to to create RQ adventures. Even my kids like RQ much^3 better than d20 D&D, but when you see outstanding source material like The Shackled City....d20 wins out of sheer time-economy. If Mongoose produces material even nearly the quality of paizo.com, I'll be happy. Sad thing is, I guess I'll never have to finish the RQ3 random creature/character generator I have as one of my 'pending' projects...at least maybe this will inspire me to go back to that Gloranthan weather generator program and finish that damn thing....(does anyone else have a list like this? A stack of "75% done" stuff you've just never quite gotten back to?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060228/74b7acd4/attachment.html From Turloigh at gmx.net Wed Mar 1 08:04:58 2006 From: Turloigh at gmx.net (Mark Mesek) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:04:58 +0100 (MET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt References: <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <12489.1141160698@www020.gmx.net> Thanks for the update to Alban, Tom, and Steve Perrin. So it looks like there is still hope (even though I'm a bit disappointed that Steve isn't involved with the final stage of development). Good to find all of you here, btw. Mark M. > --- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Alban de ROSTOLAN > An: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Betreff: Re: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt > Datum: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:03:20 +0100 (CET) > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > On 28 Feb 2006 at 9:15, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > Can I just say, given how snippy Matt Sprange got when various people > > (including myself) queried why early iterations were changing things > from > > RQII/III (for no good reason, as far as we could see), that I find this > > _deeply_ ironic? > I have it. Let's say Ken did a good job, it's a slightly > different version of RQ2/3 with Steve's new and interesting > RuneMagic rules. It's good since RQ is good, it has little > that is radically different, even the new Strike Ranks and > Combat Actions are ok, although much more like D&D. > You can use the stat blocks with any BRP with minimal > roleplayers sense. The opening text about the radical > overhaul and modernisation is a bit of a laugh tho', but > then again for a d20 player this is still a leap forward. > I'm also one of the few ones that got it, and my opinion is similar to > yours. It is not perfect, and some of the changes I expected were not > included, but it is far better than version 1.5. > > > --------------------------------- > 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. -- 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++ From Turloigh at gmx.net Wed Mar 1 08:04:58 2006 From: Turloigh at gmx.net (Mark Mesek) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:04:58 +0100 (MET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt References: <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <12489.1141160698@www020.gmx.net> Thanks for the update to Alban, Tom, and Steve Perrin. So it looks like there is still hope (even though I'm a bit disappointed that Steve isn't involved with the final stage of development). Good to find all of you here, btw. Mark M. > --- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Alban de ROSTOLAN > An: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Betreff: Re: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt > Datum: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:03:20 +0100 (CET) > > "Tom Zunder (Home)" a ?crit : > On 28 Feb 2006 at 9:15, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > Can I just say, given how snippy Matt Sprange got when various people > > (including myself) queried why early iterations were changing things > from > > RQII/III (for no good reason, as far as we could see), that I find this > > _deeply_ ironic? > I have it. Let's say Ken did a good job, it's a slightly > different version of RQ2/3 with Steve's new and interesting > RuneMagic rules. It's good since RQ is good, it has little > that is radically different, even the new Strike Ranks and > Combat Actions are ok, although much more like D&D. > You can use the stat blocks with any BRP with minimal > roleplayers sense. The opening text about the radical > overhaul and modernisation is a bit of a laugh tho', but > then again for a d20 player this is still a leap forward. > I'm also one of the few ones that got it, and my opinion is similar to > yours. It is not perfect, and some of the changes I expected were not > included, but it is far better than version 1.5. > > > --------------------------------- > 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. -- 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++ From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Mar 1 11:45:29 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:45:29 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt Message-ID: <20060301004530.73894.qmail@ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060301/e7e8f458/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 7 19:50:08 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Darkshade Gaming new RQ stock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm the proud owner of both "masterpieces" (bought all my stuff from a RQ GM that needed money) for 300NoKr back in -91. (300 Nok = $40) DoD and Eldrad was amongst the other stuff. I haven't played either of them yet, but I'm ***bent on incorporating them into a campagin some time, as I am so tight that I hate the thought of not finding an use for somthing I've spent money on ;-) >From: "Den, Tony T" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Darkshade Gaming new RQ stock >Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:33:17 +0200 > > I bought it myself, when I was young and foolish. Then again, compared >to Daughter of Darkness it was a masterpiece. > >-----Original Message----- >Leon Kirshtein > > >I am so ashamed. I have actually used several things out of both of >those. > >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 >___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 7 19:58:43 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:58:43 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Slave Skills - Social RolePlay Experiment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slaves could have had any kind of experience from their upbringing. A slave basically is a person without any rights. In the societes where the slaves belonged to the same culture, they were often treated quite nicely, actually (In Greece it was quite normal that owners granted freedom for their slaves, who often were greek POW's from neighbouring city states), and the Roman empire's clergy/administration consisted mainly of slaves. In areas where slaves belonged to a different race like in America, (Rome-foregin races) or in Scandinavia (the fact that slav's and slaves is the same word in Anglo-Germanic languages says somthing about Germanic and Slav-interaction) - slaves ("Thrall"/Trell in Saxon/Norse) probably suffered more ill-treatment >From: "Den, Tony T" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "RQ Rules List" >Subject: [Rq-rules] Slave Skills - Social RolePlay Experiment >Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:53:45 +0200 > >I was having a chat with a friend about the different type of characters >people have played over the years. More recently, there has been a bit of a >leaning in my group towards pre rolled characters. Kind of if the GM wants >to run a short adventure and needs a party that is tight and focussed. I >blame myself really because I started with this and it has snowballed. But >I digress..... > >The postulation is that of a party of 15 years olds (or there abouts). The >characters are all slaves and have either been born into slavery, or have >just been slaves for a long time. Depending on whom their master(s) are and >how they are treated, they could come with a whole bunch of pre determined >issues. EG: They were humans taken slave by orcs when they were around 5 >years old. Some may remember being small and free, some not. Some may hate >their masters, others may have "become orcs" through conditioning and >abuse. > >The adventure can start in a couple of ways, off the top of my head: - they >are freed after their master meets his untimely death (like in Sl?ine and >the Shoggy Beast 2000AD comic mid 1980's) - they could run away - they >could have rebelled etc etc. (A lot of this may depend on their slave >personality). > >Anyway, to get to my point, if I ever run an adventure like this, what are >the general skills a slave is likely to have acquired. Unless they were >lucky/unlucky enough to have been chucked into a fighting pit like in the >Conan The Barbarian movie, they would likely have zero weapon skills. >However they may be very good brawlers (Head but, fist, kick, grapple) from >fighting for food. Having lived so long, perhaps their stats could be >juiced a bit, STR and CON (and perhaps INT) come to mind. They may have >also taken a beating, so APP and maybe DEX (broken bones) could also have >been negatively affected. A few skills may have been learned by the type of >slaves they were, whether they were put to work farming barley for ale, or >building a road in a civilised land. But what other skills may they have >gained - on the assumption they were not afforded much freedom/were kept >chained. Agility skills would be low, Communication, hmm, so so (is there a >follow instructions skill:) Knowledge would prob be low, bar any >crafts/lores they may have picked up. Manipulation I think could be good, >depending. Perception and Stealth I would think would have been >researched/experienced well enough t be pretty good. Magic, reckon zero >there. > >What does everyone else think? >Tony > >__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > >Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note > >This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless >the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank >Group Limited >and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and >intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and >receive this e-mail by >mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and >do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions >expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as >those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss >or >damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or >arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not >warrant the integrity >of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or >interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised >financial services providers >in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of >2002 (FAIS). >For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website >http://www.standardbank.co.za >___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Mar 7 21:29:59 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:29:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Variant on Steve's Magic Rules for RQPavis In-Reply-To: <20060307085856.9425F4D6F3A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060307102959.63907.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All I've been using a _heavily_ modified version of Steve's Runic magic for Spirit Magic in my RQPavis campaign. Originally, I had problems in how the runes were described, how the magic was too wooly and not specific enough and the fact that it was not spell driven. The runes were too powerful, gave too many abilities that were too powerful and did not lend themselves to specific cult-based magic. What I have done is to turn the idea on its head, making it driven by the runes and the spells themselves. So, you get runes with associated Runecasting skills, you can attune/align more runes to up your chance of casting a spell, you can manipulate a spell to get a greater effect/number of targets/duration/range but you have a specific spell list that is compatible with older versions of RQ. It seems to work reasonably well, especially after I realigned the table so that it behaves in a similar way to RQ3, and the players in my campaign prefer it to the RQ3 idea of variable/non-variable spirit magic. However, I do call it Spirit Magic, not Rune Magic, as Rune Magic is, in my eyes, another name for Divine Magic. I have saved it as an Excel Spreadsheet for several reasons: 1. Tables are so much easier to lay out in Excel than HTML 2. I can specifiy the format to print out each tab landscape/portrait or specify the number of pages 3. I can have multiple tabs with more information in one file rather than having a huge HTML file or many HTML files Most people should be able to read Excel spreadsheets, especially as there is nothing particularly fancy in it. Anyway, I have posted it on the RQPavis site at http://www.geocities.com/rqpavis/magic.xls in case anyone is interested in having a look and giving me some feedback. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060307/8308007c/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue Mar 7 22:25:03 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:25:03 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Slave Skills - Social RolePlay Experiment Message-ID: Thanks all for your replies. Yes, I was leaning toward a more brutal type slave master who ma have free access to captives so would have no real need to treat existing slaves well. I t is noted that the slaves that can handle the circumstances may well come out the better for it, gaining a "slave trade (maybe even a craft like smith work or such) as well as prob some decent STR training. Now o get off my lazy a$$ and craft an adventure around the concept. -----Original Message----- Bjorn Stolen Slaves could have had any kind of experience from their upbringing. A slave basically is a person without any rights. In the societes where the slaves belonged to the same culture, they were often treated quite nicely, actually (In Greece it was quite normal that owners granted freedom for their slaves, who often were greek POW's from neighbouring city states), and the Roman empire's clergy/administration consisted mainly of slaves. In areas where slaves belonged to a different race like in America, (Rome-foregin races) or in Scandinavia (the fact that slav's and slaves is the same word in Anglo-Germanic languages says somthing about Germanic and Slav-interaction) - slaves ("Thrall"/Trell in Saxon/Norse) probably suffered more ill-treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Mar 7 22:56:14 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:56:14 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runequestpt In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0602280804s3d769415k4c97ce5c66fc2463@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060228140320.31281.qmail@web26202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <440D74DE.27126.AFB746@localhost> On 28 Feb 2006 at 10:04, Steve Lieb wrote: > Sad thing is, I guess I'll never have to finish the RQ3 random creature/character generator I have > as one of my 'pending' projects...at least maybe this will inspire me to go back to that Gloranthan > weather generator program and finish that damn thing....(does anyone else have a list like this? A > stack of "75% done" stuff you've just never quite gotten back to?) It'll probably switch to MRQ easily. I already have a semi auto character sheet in Excel and I never do that kind of stuff. I convert d20 to BRP, I use a simple skill rank *5% plus 30% or 50% as I see fit. HP = CON (or double if its a biggie), armour is easy to jot down. I use the D&D spells or a close BRP one. I do this as I play, I am so loose with rules that it's easy. But yes, my wish is for a reasonable RQ on the shelf and a swarm of RQ adventures that basically you can run with MRQ or RQ1-3 or Stormbringer or whatever. From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Mar 8 01:34:06 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:34:06 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt Message-ID: <20060307143414.A83D54D8C37@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Simon, > > "We selected a number of people with good track records on the Newsgroup > and > > invited them to a more private list. After getting a wide range of > opinions > > in, we now need to narrow the focus and hammer out the remaining balance > > issues. > > Purely as a matter of interest, is anyone on this group one of the "people > with good track records" who have been invitied to take part in the current > playtesting? I have received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. As far as I know, there is no new mailing list. I am supposed to send my feedback directly to Mongoose, not to a mailing list for my comments to be discussed by the other "people with good track records". Cheers, Gianni From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Mar 8 02:10:08 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:10:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Slave Skills - Social RolePlay Experiment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060307151008.82688.qmail@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The North American situation was interesting. At least until Europeanization was prevalent, slaves were mostly POWs and frequently were freed as a status-gaining act, similar to status from sharing the results of a hunt, or potlatch - acceptance of the gifts was an acknowlegement that the giver had the rights to that dance, totem, etc. The "Five Civilized Tribes" (i.e. almost totally Europeanized) Cherokee, Chickasaw, Moskogi (Creek), Choctaw, and Seminole tribes were forced to accept slaves into their tribal rolls as punishment for allying with the Confederacy. They thought the punishment was hillarious - they had always been considered members of the tribe, just at a lower status until freed. At the time of the Trail of Tears, about the only difference between Cherokee and US was language, clothing, and the cultural status of slaves. Thanks to Sequoyah's syllibary, the "savage" Indians had a 95% adult literacy rate, while the "superior" whites were at about 35%! There were printing presses on the wagons on the Trail. The Cherokee Phoenix was a five-column newspaper, three columns in English, two in Cherokee (because one squiggle per syllable takes up less space than one squiggle per phoneme). In the 17th and 18th centuries, many women who had been captured and lived with whatever tribe captured them, refused to return to their European culture. As slaves, they had more rights than they did as free women in the white culture. Even into the 19th century, there were those like Cynthia Ann Parker, who when freed, had to be kept locked up or under armed guard to keep her from returning to her Comanche husband, Peta Nocona. Her daughter, captured with her, was abused by her family and died less than two years after "freedom", while Cynthia Ann only lasted five years before dying, despite the efforts of her son, Quanah Parker, and the intermediary efforts of Charles Goodnight, to reunite the family. In Mythword, slavery in one form or another is common, but there is one religion (included as an example of a cultural-minority religion) which opposes slavery. They are tolerated because they do not free slaves by force, but will purchase them when possible, and more importantly, they are always available to help try to rescue captives. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Turloigh at gmx.net Wed Mar 8 06:51:19 2006 From: Turloigh at gmx.net (Mark Mesek) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:51:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt References: <20060307143414.A83D54D8C37@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <2206.1141761079@www096.gmx.net> Is the playtest still going on, then? I assumed it was finished. MongooseMatt indicated as much when he said the book was "due to go to layout" (Jan 27th on RPGnet). Greetings from Hamburg, Mark M. > > I have received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. As far as I know, there > is > no new mailing list. I am supposed to send my feedback directly to > Mongoose, > not to a mailing list for my comments to be discussed by the other "people > with good track records". > > Cheers, > > Gianni > -- "Feel free" mit GMX FreeMail! Monat f?r Monat 10 FreeSMS inklusive! http://www.gmx.net From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Mar 8 09:46:12 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:46:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt Message-ID: <20060307224614.01EDE4DC491@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Mark > Is the playtest still going on, then? I assumed it was finished. > MongooseMatt indicated as much when he said the book was "due to go to > layout" (Jan 27th on RPGnet). Maybe our feedback is ignored then :-P BTW I'm surprised you're not amongst the version 1.5 playtesters. Back on the RQPT mailing list, I always found your comments about character generation most useful. Cheers Gianni From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Mar 8 16:14:50 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:14:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Variant on Steve's Magic Rules for RQPavis In-Reply-To: <20060307102959.63907.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060308051450.84811.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Hiya All > > I've been using a _heavily_ modified version of > Steve's Runic magic for Spirit Magic in my RQPavis > campaign. Hey, these are really good. Well done. All the best, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Mar 8 19:56:12 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:56:12 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt In-Reply-To: <2206.1141761079@www096.gmx.net> Message-ID: <440E9C2C.22958.33492A6@localhost> On 7 Mar 2006 at 20:51, Mark Mesek wrote: > Is the playtest still going on, then? I assumed it was finished. > MongooseMatt indicated as much when he said the book was "due to go to > layout" (Jan 27th on RPGnet). 'Due when?' is a good question with Mongoose.. From Turloigh at gmx.net Wed Mar 8 20:31:44 2006 From: Turloigh at gmx.net (Mark Mesek) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:31:44 +0100 (MET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt References: <20060307224614.01EDE4DC491@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <28723.1141810304@www025.gmx.net> > BTW I'm surprised you're not amongst the version 1.5 playtesters. Back on > the > RQPT mailing list, I always found your comments about character generation > most useful. > > Cheers Thanks, Gianni! You're too kind. Greetings from Hamburg, Mark M. -- Bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten sparen: GMX SmartSurfer! Kostenlos downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Mar 8 20:39:46 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:39:46 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt Message-ID: >Is the playtest still going on, then? I assumed it was finished. >MongooseMatt indicated as much when he said the book was "due to go to >layout" (Jan 27th on RPGnet). Since when have Mongoose finished a book before layout, or indeed publication and distribution? :P And to be fair, given it is clear that this final version is NOT going to gain or loose chapters before publication, they can start the layout process before the main text is locked down. My only concern is that given how little effort Mongoose usually appear to put in to layout, the window for feedback from playtesting to be included is probably rather narrow... Cheers, Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Mar 8 22:25:45 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Vaio)) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:25:45 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Runequestpt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440EBF39.40403@zunder.org.uk> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >And to be fair, given it is clear that this final version is NOT going to >gain or loose chapters before publication, they can start the layout >process before the main text is locked down. My only concern is that given >how little effort Mongoose usually appear to put in to layout, the window >for feedback from playtesting to be included is probably rather narrow... > > Exactly my concern. There are also issues about this ruleset that need putting to bed before publication otherwise they'll have a flawed version unless they do a second edition, and frankly with a ruleset as old and well understood (by some people) as RQ, that's silly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060308/8f211cc6/attachment.vcf From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Mar 9 14:38:32 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:38:32 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers References: <440EBF39.40403@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <007701c6432b$005d7f60$dd407442@wizard> Steve Henderson, one of the rocks of sanity in a whirlpool of rules devising, died this morning of a massive stroke. He was 61 years old and leaves behind his wife, Gigi, and 10-year old son, Alexander. Steve has been my friend for 42 years and helped me through a lot of crises, including writing RQ 1 and RQ 2. You can see his name on the credits. He has been one of the pillars of DunDraCon for most of its life and it was his copy of D&D that we all copied and played with so many many years ago. I shall miss him terribly. Steve Perrin From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 18:58:27 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:58:27 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers In-Reply-To: <007701c6432b$005d7f60$dd407442@wizard> References: <440EBF39.40403@zunder.org.uk> <007701c6432b$005d7f60$dd407442@wizard> Message-ID: <440FE023.3080104@gmail.com> My condolences to you & his family, my friend. I remember him & his mace fondly. peace, my friend, Sven Stephen Perrin wrote: > Steve Henderson, one of the rocks of sanity in a whirlpool of rules > devising, died this morning of a massive stroke. He was 61 years old > and leaves behind his wife, Gigi, and 10-year old son, Alexander. > > Steve has been my friend for 42 years and helped me through a lot of > crises, including writing RQ 1 and RQ 2. You can see his name on the > credits. He has been one of the pillars of DunDraCon for most of its > life and it was his copy of D&D that we all copied and played with so > many many years ago. > > I shall miss him terribly. > > Steve Perrin > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Mar 9 19:37:53 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:37:53 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers Message-ID: >Steve Henderson, one of the rocks of sanity in a whirlpool of rules >devising, died this morning of a massive stroke. He was 61 years old and >leaves behind his wife, Gigi, and 10-year old son, Alexander. > >Steve has been my friend for 42 years and helped me through a lot of crises, >including writing RQ 1 and RQ 2. You can see his name on the credits. He has >been one of the pillars of DunDraCon for most of its life and it was his >copy of D&D that we all copied and played with so many many years ago. > >I shall miss him terribly. > >Steve Perrin Steve, that is tragic news. I never new him except through his work on RQ, but even that small part of his life reached far and wide and brought good cheer to many, so from this still spell bound (but no longer twelve years old) kid my sincerest condolences to all his family and friends. Best wishes, Nick Middleton From kruch7 at cox.net Thu Mar 9 21:12:35 2006 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 05:12:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers References: <440EBF39.40403@zunder.org.uk> <007701c6432b$005d7f60$dd407442@wizard> Message-ID: <00a701c64361$fcaa3660$6601a8c0@Arioch> I am sorry to here this, and offer my condolences ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Perrin" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:38 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers > Steve Henderson, one of the rocks of sanity in a whirlpool of rules > devising, died this morning of a massive stroke. He was 61 years old and > leaves behind his wife, Gigi, and 10-year old son, Alexander. > > Steve has been my friend for 42 years and helped me through a lot of > crises, including writing RQ 1 and RQ 2. You can see his name on the > credits. He has been one of the pillars of DunDraCon for most of its life > and it was his copy of D&D that we all copied and played with so many many > years ago. > > I shall miss him terribly. > > Steve Perrin > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Mar 10 03:12:03 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:12:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] We have lost one of the original Questers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060309161203.371.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> RQ 2 was what got me into RPG, as I couldn't stand the arbitrariness, illogic, and acres of charts in D&D. My own Mythworld was originally designed as a suggestion for RQ 3, and it was only Greg's disagreement over the amount of detail that caused it to become a separate game. I owe a tremendous debt to RuneQuest and still find Steve's books on that game a valued resource even though RQ and MW are even farther apart now. He was a tremendous asset to the whole RPG movement and will be missed by all of us. Paul Cardwell, Chair Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games (CAR-PGa) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 07:41:36 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:41:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] DBRP playtest Message-ID: Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest group? I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen looks VERY good. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060313/8b3abb29/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Tue Mar 14 07:50:51 2006 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:50:51 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:41:36 -0500 > From: "Peter Maranci" > Subject: [Rq-rules] DBRP playtest > To: RuneQuest-Rules > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest group? > I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen looks > VERY good. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of the week. At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV and MRQ should have been but never were* Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a gap** between supplements so I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. Alan * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous nonsense and the very real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton and Mark Mesek on this very list I wouldn't bet on it. ** about 10 years I would guess From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:12:07 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, alan richards wrote: > > Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of the week. > > At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV and MRQ should have been > but never were* > > Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a gap** between supplements so > I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. > > Alan > > * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous nonsense and the very > real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton and Mark Mesek on this > very list I wouldn't bet on it. > ** about 10 years I would guess > The more I read the playtest rules, the more I agree with you. Everything that I found disappointing in the Mongoose rules is made *right* here. Almost every design and editorial choice that I've read so far has been just what I would have done, or is at the least eminently sensible. And they seem to be using all the best RQ rules. When I saw that the most popular homebrew Dodge rule fix mechanism had been expanded to all skills, I actually cheered. So far, DBRP is impressing me a LOT. This really feels like the next step for RQ. The only possible objection I see at this point is that it's going to be *huge*. Lots of optional rules (and I like their idea of a campaign checklist to allow the GM to indicate which optional rules are being used). This playtest version isn't complete, and it's already 346 pages. Some sort of ultra-simplified "Lite" version at the beginning of the book (on the order of complexity of the original BRP, perhaps?) might be a good idea. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060314/e0389f6e/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:12:07 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, alan richards wrote: > > Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of the week. > > At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV and MRQ should have been > but never were* > > Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a gap** between supplements so > I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. > > Alan > > * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous nonsense and the very > real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton and Mark Mesek on this > very list I wouldn't bet on it. > ** about 10 years I would guess > The more I read the playtest rules, the more I agree with you. Everything that I found disappointing in the Mongoose rules is made *right* here. Almost every design and editorial choice that I've read so far has been just what I would have done, or is at the least eminently sensible. And they seem to be using all the best RQ rules. When I saw that the most popular homebrew Dodge rule fix mechanism had been expanded to all skills, I actually cheered. So far, DBRP is impressing me a LOT. This really feels like the next step for RQ. The only possible objection I see at this point is that it's going to be *huge*. Lots of optional rules (and I like their idea of a campaign checklist to allow the GM to indicate which optional rules are being used). This playtest version isn't complete, and it's already 346 pages. Some sort of ultra-simplified "Lite" version at the beginning of the book (on the order of complexity of the original BRP, perhaps?) might be a good idea. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060314/e0389f6e/attachment-0001.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:12:07 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, alan richards wrote: > > Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of the week. > > At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV and MRQ should have been > but never were* > > Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a gap** between supplements so > I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. > > Alan > > * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous nonsense and the very > real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton and Mark Mesek on this > very list I wouldn't bet on it. > ** about 10 years I would guess > The more I read the playtest rules, the more I agree with you. Everything that I found disappointing in the Mongoose rules is made *right* here. Almost every design and editorial choice that I've read so far has been just what I would have done, or is at the least eminently sensible. And they seem to be using all the best RQ rules. When I saw that the most popular homebrew Dodge rule fix mechanism had been expanded to all skills, I actually cheered. So far, DBRP is impressing me a LOT. This really feels like the next step for RQ. The only possible objection I see at this point is that it's going to be *huge*. Lots of optional rules (and I like their idea of a campaign checklist to allow the GM to indicate which optional rules are being used). This playtest version isn't complete, and it's already 346 pages. Some sort of ultra-simplified "Lite" version at the beginning of the book (on the order of complexity of the original BRP, perhaps?) might be a good idea. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060314/e0389f6e/attachment-0002.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:12:07 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060313204152.6A9AA50B829@mini.thinbits.net> <50a0ed550603131250k1fa001datd8026f91eb584dbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/06, alan richards wrote: > > Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of the week. > > At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV and MRQ should have been > but never were* > > Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a gap** between supplements so > I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. > > Alan > > * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous nonsense and the very > real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton and Mark Mesek on this > very list I wouldn't bet on it. > ** about 10 years I would guess > The more I read the playtest rules, the more I agree with you. Everything that I found disappointing in the Mongoose rules is made *right* here. Almost every design and editorial choice that I've read so far has been just what I would have done, or is at the least eminently sensible. And they seem to be using all the best RQ rules. When I saw that the most popular homebrew Dodge rule fix mechanism had been expanded to all skills, I actually cheered. So far, DBRP is impressing me a LOT. This really feels like the next step for RQ. The only possible objection I see at this point is that it's going to be *huge*. Lots of optional rules (and I like their idea of a campaign checklist to allow the GM to indicate which optional rules are being used). This playtest version isn't complete, and it's already 346 pages. Some sort of ultra-simplified "Lite" version at the beginning of the book (on the order of complexity of the original BRP, perhaps?) might be a good idea. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060314/e0389f6e/attachment-0003.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Mar 15 03:00:05 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:00:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Peter liked it so much... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060314160005.95642.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ...told us four times! :-) Sounds good though. Any ideas when it's supposed to be out? Cheers, Ash --- Peter Maranci wrote: > On 3/13/06, alan richards > wrote: > > > > Mr Maranci wins the prize for understatement of > the week. > > > > At first glance DBRP looks like being what RQIV > and MRQ should have been > > but never were* > > > > Plus of course being Chaosium there will be a > gap** between supplements so > > I won't bankrupt myself when it comes out. > > > > Alan > > > > * well OK MRQ might come around but given previous > nonsense and the very > > real concerns raised by Tom Zunder, Nick Middleton > and Mark Mesek on this > > very list I wouldn't bet on it. > > ** about 10 years I would guess > > > > The more I read the playtest rules, the more I agree > with you. Everything > that I found disappointing in the Mongoose rules is > made *right* here. > Almost every design and editorial choice that I've > read so far has been just > what I would have done, or is at the least eminently > sensible. And they seem > to be using all the best RQ rules. > > When I saw that the most popular homebrew Dodge rule > fix mechanism had been > expanded to all skills, I actually cheered. So far, > DBRP is impressing me a > LOT. This really feels like the next step for RQ. > > The only possible objection I see at this point is > that it's going to be > *huge*. Lots of optional rules (and I like their > idea of a campaign > checklist to allow the GM to indicate which optional > rules are being used). > This playtest version isn't complete, and it's > already 346 pages. > > Some sort of ultra-simplified "Lite" version at the > beginning of the book > (on the order of complexity of the original BRP, > perhaps?) might be a good > idea. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 09:40:57 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:40:57 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] DBRP playtest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0603141440v48abf2e8nec853c17d072005a@mail.gmail.com> How does one get added to the playtest group? I've been working on my scifi version of BRPS off and on for about a year as well as tweaking my house rules for my non-Glorantha RQIII campaign for about 3 years and would love to be able to contribute even it's in a grammar correction role (used to grade high school English papers). David Smart On 3/13/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest > group? I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen > looks VERY good. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060314/d663de27/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 21:31:12 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:31:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <20060314061502.250E250F2DF@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060315103112.55133.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest group? > I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen looks > VERY good. Yahoo seems to have fixed a bug that was stopping me replying to emails, so here goes ... Well, Google has let me down and there's no link on Chaosium's website, so I can't find any reference to it. I assume this is an invitation-only affair. If not, is there a link that will show me the goodies, or at least point me to how to sign up? See Ya Simon From Turloigh at gmx.net Wed Mar 15 21:44:46 2006 From: Turloigh at gmx.net (Turloigh) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:44:46 +0100 Subject: AW: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <20060315103112.55133.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <440D11190012E6CC@mfsv04.hansenet.de> (added by postmaster@post.hansenet.de) [/lurker mode] Simon, the author (Jason Durall) called for playtesters on the "brpsystem" Yahoo group. I can't believe you're not on that group... I'll ask him if I can give you his mail address. Or send me a message to 'turloigh at gmx.net', I'll forward it to him. Beware, though, the deadline is set at the end of March. Greetings, Mark M. -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] Im Auftrag von Simon Phipp Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. M?rz 2006 11:31 An: rq-rules at crashbox.com Betreff: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 Peter Maranci: > Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest group? > I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen looks > VERY good. Yahoo seems to have fixed a bug that was stopping me replying to emails, so here goes ... Well, Google has let me down and there's no link on Chaosium's website, so I can't find any reference to it. I assume this is an invitation-only affair. If not, is there a link that will show me the goodies, or at least point me to how to sign up? See Ya Simon _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From ncford at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 22:57:24 2006 From: ncford at gmail.com (Neil Ford) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:57:24 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <20060315103112.55133.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060314061502.250E250F2DF@mini.thinbits.net> <20060315103112.55133.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <655db9e10603150357n1b42cdebv80d6a4b5f37bcc56@mail.gmail.com> On 3/15/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Peter Maranci: > > Has anyone else been added to the Deluxe Basic Role-Playing playtest > group? > > I've only been able to skim the documents so far, but what I've seen > looks > > VERY good. > > Yahoo seems to have fixed a bug that was stopping me replying to emails, > so > here goes ... > > Well, Google has let me down and there's no link on Chaosium's website, so > I > can't find any reference to it. > > I assume this is an invitation-only affair. If not, is there a link that > will > show me the goodies, or at least point me to how to sign up? It is by invitation, but see this thread - http://tavern.zunder.org.uk/tav/viewtopic.php?t=643 - at the tavern for instructions on what you have to do. As has been said, we are on a tight schedule and the discussion group has already generated 229 messages in if first couple of days of operation. So it's an intense ride. Neil. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060315/f81ee65a/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 07:04:26 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:04:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Message-ID: Can anyone give me the full run-down on what has happened with Mongoose RQ? After encountering Greg's "pleasant" side, I ended up dropping out of that playtest altogether and lost all track of what was going on. I've heard that Steve Perrin has been working on it, but I don't know anything more. And I know that the Yahoo group has been shut down and replaced with an elite group of playtesters. But that's literally all that I know. I won't be working on the History of RQ article anytime soon - I'm still too annoyed - but it would be helpful to have the info for when I update it again. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060315/c3efeb4e/attachment.html From jellen at ameritech.net Thu Mar 16 07:09:43 2006 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:09:43 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? References: Message-ID: <027101c6486c$6febf3c0$3410fea9@home> Annoyed about what? --J ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: RuneQuest-Rules Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Can anyone give me the full run-down on what has happened with Mongoose RQ? After encountering Greg's "pleasant" side, I ended up dropping out of that playtest altogether and lost all track of what was going on. I've heard that Steve Perrin has been working on it, but I don't know anything more. And I know that the Yahoo group has been shut down and replaced with an elite group of playtesters. But that's literally all that I know. I won't be working on the History of RQ article anytime soon - I'm still too annoyed - but it would be helpful to have the info for when I update it again. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm 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/20060315/0469848b/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 07:17:14 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:17:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <027101c6486c$6febf3c0$3410fea9@home> References: <027101c6486c$6febf3c0$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: Nothing pleasant. The usual kind of net crap, basically; it just put me off of RQ for a while. Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a bit OT. But I really would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has got it. Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been going on. If email is better, I can be reached at the address below. On 3/15/06, J and/or Ellen wrote: > > > Annoyed about what? > > --J -- 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/ From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Mar 16 09:15:42 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:15:42 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] DBRP playtest Message-ID: <20060315221550.7374A51D8EF@mini.thinbits.net> Hi David > How does one get added to the playtest group? Send an e-mail to dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.com G. From patrice.bousquet at laposte.net Thu Mar 16 08:52:19 2006 From: patrice.bousquet at laposte.net (Patrice Bousquet) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:52:19 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Message-ID: <44188C93.2020207@laposte.net> Well, on this playtest group we tried 3 (or 4 ? ) sets of rules. here is my own point of view : I stopped to post on september, the time involved to read and reply to the posts becoming far too consuming. I think the list wasn't moderated, so everyone could post on roughly everything, throwing the usuals trolls encountered on each RQ ML. Some people also loosed the focus of the ML and send their own ruleset. Mongoose, on his side didn't gave any directives on theirs goal and what was expected from the RQPT ML. Between each new version, mongoose stayed mute and I think I wasn't alone to feel posting my playtests reports to noone. And finally, the Group suddenly disappeared, without any advice. As I understood, it was the first time this kind of public playtest was used, and so I wish Mongoose learned some things from this experience. My final (crude) word is I regret to have spent my time and my players time to nothing, and the few marks of interest showed by M. Sprange convinced me to stop , wait and see... Patrice (aka Borg le Chauve on RQPT group) From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Mar 16 09:19:56 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:19:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Message-ID: <20060315221957.6127951DA35@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Peter > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a bit OT. But I really > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has got it. > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been going on. We've received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. It's completely different from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I like it a lot, it has a RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've always preferred RQ2 to RQ3). The only problem is that feedback goes to Mongoose directly, there is no mailing list. So I cannot know if the other playtesters feel the way I do about some parts of the rules I still dislike (like the legendary abilities). G. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 16 09:36:47 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:36:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060315221957.6127951DA35@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060315223647.99237.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > Hi Peter > > > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a bit > OT. But I really > > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has > got it. > > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been going > on. > > We've received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. > It's completely different > from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I > like it a lot, it has a > RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've always > preferred RQ2 to RQ3). > The only problem is that feedback goes to Mongoose > directly, there is no > mailing list. So I cannot know if the other > playtesters feel the way I do > about some parts of the rules I still dislike (like > the legendary abilities). I concur with everything you've said. 1) It is a *much* better set of rules. 2) There is no playtester's group for feedback among ourselves. 3) The Legendary Abilities still make me wince, twitch and froth (just a little) at the mouth. All the best, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jellen at ameritech.net Thu Mar 16 09:43:23 2006 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:43:23 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? References: <20060315223647.99237.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <030601c64881$e7b38200$3410fea9@home> Why not do what you've already started: discuss the playtest here? It's a safe bet that most of the playtesters are already subscribed to this group anyway. If confidentiality is an issue, you can always launch a new Yahoo group just for the playtesters. But since you mentioned it: what are legendary abilities? --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lafayette" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? --- Gianni wrote: > Hi Peter > > > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a bit > OT. But I really > > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has > got it. > > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been going > on. > > We've received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. > It's completely different > from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I > like it a lot, it has a > RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've always > preferred RQ2 to RQ3). > The only problem is that feedback goes to Mongoose > directly, there is no > mailing list. So I cannot know if the other > playtesters feel the way I do > about some parts of the rules I still dislike (like > the legendary abilities). I concur with everything you've said. 1) It is a *much* better set of rules. 2) There is no playtester's group for feedback among ourselves. 3) The Legendary Abilities still make me wince, twitch and froth (just a little) at the mouth. All the best, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 16 10:46:59 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:46:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <030601c64881$e7b38200$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <20060315234659.84314.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Legendary Abilities are, as the name indicates, superheroic abilities. MRQ has a significant bias towards combat orientated abilities of this sort (e.g., Decapitating Swing). The are purchased with Hero Points which awarded at the end of adventures for heroic activity by the characters. They're munchkin gaming, imo. --- J and/or Ellen wrote: > Why not do what you've already started: discuss the > playtest here? It's a > safe bet that most of the playtesters are already > subscribed to this group > anyway. If confidentiality is an issue, you can > always launch a new Yahoo > group just for the playtesters. > > But since you mentioned it: what are legendary > abilities? > > --J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lev Lafayette" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:36 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > > > > > --- Gianni wrote: > > > Hi Peter > > > > > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a > bit > > OT. But I really > > > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has > > got it. > > > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been > going > > on. > > > > We've received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. > > It's completely different > > from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I > > like it a lot, it has a > > RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've > always > > preferred RQ2 to RQ3). > > The only problem is that feedback goes to Mongoose > > directly, there is no > > mailing list. So I cannot know if the other > > playtesters feel the way I do > > about some parts of the rules I still dislike > (like > > the legendary abilities). > > I concur with everything you've said. > > 1) It is a *much* better set of rules. > > 2) There is no playtester's group for feedback among > ourselves. > > 3) The Legendary Abilities still make me wince, > twitch > and froth (just a little) at the mouth. > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > Lev Lafayette > lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://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 mechashef at emailme.net.au Thu Mar 16 14:28:05 2006 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:28:05 +1100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <44188C93.2020207@laposte.net> Message-ID: <20060316032806.D1CB697C283@mail.velocitynet.com.au> I agree with Patrice and had similar experiences. Having worked with large government and private industry organisations I've seen how the playtest should have been conducted. My impression is that Mr Sprange was enthusiastic but lacked experience in coordinating large groups. For too long he let the group run wild without adequate control. I thank Mongoose for the experiment but suggest that if they do something similar in the future they invest in Project Management training. Mechashef -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Patrice Bousquet Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:52 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Well, on this playtest group we tried 3 (or 4 ? ) sets of rules. here is my own point of view : I stopped to post on september, the time involved to read and reply to the posts becoming far too consuming. I think the list wasn't moderated, so everyone could post on roughly everything, throwing the usuals trolls encountered on each RQ ML. Some people also loosed the focus of the ML and send their own ruleset. Mongoose, on his side didn't gave any directives on theirs goal and what was expected from the RQPT ML. Between each new version, mongoose stayed mute and I think I wasn't alone to feel posting my playtests reports to noone. And finally, the Group suddenly disappeared, without any advice. As I understood, it was the first time this kind of public playtest was used, and so I wish Mongoose learned some things from this experience. My final (crude) word is I regret to have spent my time and my players time to nothing, and the few marks of interest showed by M. Sprange convinced me to stop , wait and see... Patrice (aka Borg le Chauve on RQPT group) _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jellen at ameritech.net Thu Mar 16 16:17:03 2006 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:17:03 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? References: <20060315234659.84314.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501c648b8$e3627260$3410fea9@home> What kind of skill is Decapitating Swing?! I can see applying points toward such a refined talent as Riposte (RQIV), but Decapitating Swing? That's just silly. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lafayette" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Legendary Abilities are, as the name indicates, superheroic abilities. MRQ has a significant bias towards combat orientated abilities of this sort (e.g., Decapitating Swing). The are purchased with Hero Points which awarded at the end of adventures for heroic activity by the characters. They're munchkin gaming, imo. --- J and/or Ellen wrote: > Why not do what you've already started: discuss the > playtest here? It's a > safe bet that most of the playtesters are already > subscribed to this group > anyway. If confidentiality is an issue, you can > always launch a new Yahoo > group just for the playtesters. > > But since you mentioned it: what are legendary > abilities? > > --J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lev Lafayette" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:36 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > > > > > --- Gianni wrote: > > > Hi Peter > > > > > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a > bit > > OT. But I really > > > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone has > > got it. > > > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been > going > > on. > > > > We've received version 1.5 of the playtest rules. > > It's completely different > > from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I > > like it a lot, it has a > > RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've > always > > preferred RQ2 to RQ3). > > The only problem is that feedback goes to Mongoose > > directly, there is no > > mailing list. So I cannot know if the other > > playtesters feel the way I do > > about some parts of the rules I still dislike > (like > > the legendary abilities). > > I concur with everything you've said. > > 1) It is a *much* better set of rules. > > 2) There is no playtester's group for feedback among > ourselves. > > 3) The Legendary Abilities still make me wince, > twitch > and froth (just a little) at the mouth. > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > Lev Lafayette > lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://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 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From mechashef at emailme.net.au Thu Mar 16 16:33:20 2006 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:33:20 +1100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <003501c648b8$e3627260$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <20060316053330.BB9F597C125@mail.velocitynet.com.au> I agree and that is one of the reasons I went cold on the play test (aside from poor control of the group). I seemed to have significant creative differences with many of the more influential and prolific posters. That is fair enough, their opinion is just as valid but I just didn't like the way Mongoose was leading RuneQuest. I wish them all the best with D&DQuest, but I prefer RuneQuest (or even BRP). Mechashef -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of J and/or Ellen Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:17 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? What kind of skill is Decapitating Swing?! I can see applying points toward such a refined talent as Riposte (RQIV), but Decapitating Swing? That's just silly. fo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 16 16:42:23 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:42:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316053330.BB9F597C125@mail.velocitynet.com.au> Message-ID: <20060316054223.83061.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Legendary Abilities aside (and yes, they truly do suck), MRQ 1.5 is quite a good product so it is a little unfair to call it DnDQuest. Indeed, in many ways its more RuneQuest than ever before; especially the spell system (which isn't as Mr. Perrin's contribution, but it's a fair attempt). I must confess that I'm quite pleased that all my rantings that the game *must* be about questing for runes seem to have had some effect. Regards, Lev --- Mechashef wrote: > I agree and that is one of the reasons I went cold > on the play test (aside > from poor control of the group). > > I seemed to have significant creative differences > with many of the more > influential and prolific posters. > > That is fair enough, their opinion is just as valid > but I just didn't like > the way Mongoose was leading RuneQuest. > > I wish them all the best with D&DQuest, but I prefer > RuneQuest (or even > BRP). > > > Mechashef > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of J and/or Ellen > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:17 PM > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > > What kind of skill is Decapitating Swing?! I can see > applying points toward > such a refined talent as Riposte (RQIV), but > Decapitating Swing? That's just > > silly. > > fo/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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Mar 16 17:33:37 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:33:37 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? References: <20060316054223.83061.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001b01c648c3$9e9734d0$dd407442@wizard> The thing to keep in mind is that the "final" version was written by Kent Hite. Ken is a class act. He also knows RQ and was not about to tamper with a winner (approximately his own words when I talked to him at DunDraCon). Various things like Legendary Abilities were mandated, but essentially he kept it to RuneQuest. I have a copy of the latest version (thanks to You Know Who You Are for sending it to me because Mongoose never would have) but haven't looked at it. Apparently Ken took some of the idea of the runes having a direct effect on magic to heart, or at least used my opening paragraphs, so I am curious. I just don't have time. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lafayette" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:42 PM Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > Legendary Abilities aside (and yes, they truly do > suck), MRQ 1.5 is quite a good product so it is a > little unfair to call it DnDQuest. Indeed, in many > ways its more RuneQuest than ever before; especially > the spell system (which isn't as Mr. Perrin's > contribution, but it's a fair attempt). > > I must confess that I'm quite pleased that all my > rantings that the game *must* be about questing for > runes seem to have had some effect. > > Regards, > > > Lev > > --- Mechashef wrote: > >> I agree and that is one of the reasons I went cold >> on the play test (aside >> from poor control of the group). >> >> I seemed to have significant creative differences >> with many of the more >> influential and prolific posters. >> >> That is fair enough, their opinion is just as valid >> but I just didn't like >> the way Mongoose was leading RuneQuest. >> >> I wish them all the best with D&DQuest, but I prefer >> RuneQuest (or even >> BRP). >> >> >> Mechashef >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com >> [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] >> On Behalf Of J and/or Ellen >> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:17 PM >> To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. >> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? >> >> What kind of skill is Decapitating Swing?! I can see >> applying points toward >> such a refined talent as Riposte (RQIV), but >> Decapitating Swing? That's just >> >> silly. >> >> fo/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 > > __________________________________________________ > 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Mar 16 21:44:27 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:44:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060315234659.84314.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060316104427.50377.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Sounds like: Legendary Abilties = Epic Level feats for the DnD players. Cheers, Ash --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Legendary Abilities are, as the name indicates, > superheroic abilities. MRQ has a significant bias > towards combat orientated abilities of this sort > (e.g., Decapitating Swing). The are purchased with > Hero Points which awarded at the end of adventures > for > heroic activity by the characters. > > They're munchkin gaming, imo. > > > > --- J and/or Ellen wrote: > > > Why not do what you've already started: discuss > the > > playtest here? It's a > > safe bet that most of the playtesters are already > > subscribed to this group > > anyway. If confidentiality is an issue, you can > > always launch a new Yahoo > > group just for the playtesters. > > > > But since you mentioned it: what are legendary > > abilities? > > > > --J > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lev Lafayette" > > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > > > > > > > > > > --- Gianni wrote: > > > > > Hi Peter > > > > > > > Well, *still*, to be honest. Sorry, this is a > > bit > > > OT. But I really > > > > would like that Mongoose RQ info, if anyone > has > > > got it. > > > > Nothing proprietary; just, well, what's been > > going > > > on. > > > > > > We've received version 1.5 of the playtest > rules. > > > It's completely different > > > from the various 1.x incarnations. Personally, I > > > like it a lot, it has a > > > RQ2ish feel to it which makes me happy (I've > > always > > > preferred RQ2 to RQ3). > > > The only problem is that feedback goes to > Mongoose > > > directly, there is no > > > mailing list. So I cannot know if the other > > > playtesters feel the way I do > > > about some parts of the rules I still dislike > > (like > > > the legendary abilities). > > > > I concur with everything you've said. > > > > 1) It is a *much* better set of rules. > > > > 2) There is no playtester's group for feedback > among > > ourselves. > > > > 3) The Legendary Abilities still make me wince, > > twitch > > and froth (just a little) at the mouth. > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Lev > > > > > > Lev Lafayette > > lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > > http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://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 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Mar 16 22:02:02 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:02:02 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <001b01c648c3$9e9734d0$dd407442@wizard> Message-ID: <441945AA.2151.93A637C@localhost> I won't comment since I am playtesting and Mongoose deserve the time to edit and improve. Basically 80% done with some kinks, magic broken and needs resolving. From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Mar 16 22:02:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:02:04 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316053330.BB9F597C125@mail.velocitynet.com.au> References: <003501c648b8$e3627260$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <441945AC.15079.93A6B9A@localhost> Legendary Abilities suck for me too. They replicate effects which a character of that skill and power would probably achieve. Were it not for the ridiculous difficulty penalties in this ruleset. The MRQ game is more tactical and gritty in combat than recent BRP and frankly there is an audience for that. My mates and I liked that feel, even though we were all lite rules players these days. On 16 Mar 2006 at 16:33, Mechashef wrote: > I agree and that is one of the reasons I went cold on the play test (aside > from poor control of the group). > > I seemed to have significant creative differences with many of the more > influential and prolific posters. > > That is fair enough, their opinion is just as valid but I just didn't like > the way Mongoose was leading RuneQuest. > > I wish them all the best with D&DQuest, but I prefer RuneQuest (or even > BRP). > > > Mechashef > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of J and/or Ellen > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:17 PM > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? > > What kind of skill is Decapitating Swing?! I can see applying points toward > such a refined talent as Riposte (RQIV), but Decapitating Swing? That's just > > silly. > > fo/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Mar 16 23:39:52 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:39:52 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316104427.50377.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060315234659.84314.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44195C98.14432.993F29B@localhost> On 16 Mar 2006 at 10:44, Ashley Munday wrote: > Legendary Abilties = Epic Level feats for the DnD > players. Yup, collect the hero points, get the very Conan d20 type ability. Problem is, BRP can deliver the same results without them. DBRP's powers look a much more elegant solution BUT frankly, they're not going to break the game and some people will love them so why not? From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 00:29:16 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? Message-ID: *Stephen Perrin steve at perrinworlds.com wrote: >I have a copy of the latest version (thanks to You Know Who You Are for >sending it to me because Mongoose never would have) but haven't looked >at it. This confuses me - I thought you were working for Mongoose on MRQ. In any case, why on earth wouldn't they send you a copy? That seems remarkably foolish. >Apparently Ken took some of the idea of the runes having a direct effect >on magic to heart, or at least used my opening paragraphs... They're using your work but not giving you a copy? Even stranger. Are you at all involved with DBRP? Just wondering. I don't want to be accused of hyping DBRP again (*cough* Ashley *cough*) but so far what I've seen is a unified collection of all the most popular BRP rule iterations, including the RQ3 system. I haven't gotten to the "Powers" or science fiction sections yet (there's a lot to read), but the system as it stands so far can be matched almost exactly to RQ3 or Call of Cthulhu or (I assume) any other BRP-derived game, simply by chosing from optional rules. It seems to be a definitive BRP toolkit as much as anything else. The risk, I suspect, is that people who are new to the system might be confused by all the optional rules; that's why I've recommended that a "lite" system be placed at the beginning of the book. A sufficiently simplified version of the BRP core could be read in fifteen minutes by even a total newcomer to roleplaying and used with almost no preparation. Once they're hooked, they could get into the more complex rules later on. I have to admit that I've been playing with the idea of an ultra-simplified version in my head; it seems to me that there are some interesting possibilities there. For example, the characteristic set could be collapsed from seven down to three, with STR CON and SIZ merged into a single characteristic - call it Brawn, if you like - INT and DEX merged, and POW and APP merged. If EDU is being used, it would of course be merged into INT + DEX. Of course you could even boil it down to two characteristics: Physical = STR CON SIZ and APP Mental = INT DEX and POW ...but that's probably TOO simple. Although I believe it would work. Of course I don't expect that this would actually be used in DBRP, which is why I'm not suggesting it there. -- 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/ From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Mar 17 02:50:42 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:50:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060316155042.89551.qmail@web86107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Peter said: "I don't want to be accused of hyping DBRP again (*cough* Ashley *cough*)..." Did I? Ooops, sorry, obviously something I said in the past came out wrong! Ash From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 03:08:37 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060316160837.79019.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Peter, I think messing with the attributes would be messing with the integrity of the system. The attibutes a system uses defines the flavour of that system. The tri-stat system feels much different from RQ, which feels different than the old Role-master system. So having a different attribute set for the "lite" version would not be representative of, or an accurate portrayal of the deluxe system, and would probably make transition to the deluxe version more difficult. Why re-invent the wheel anyway? The "lite" version already exists. It is the 11 page Basic Roleplaying System booklet. Can't get much more simple than that. I am chomping at the bit for the Deluxe BRP book. Can't wait. I would love to see the playtest version, if anyone would be so generous to email me a copy. Greg --- Peter Maranci wrote: > *Stephen Perrin steve at perrinworlds.com wrote: > >I have a copy of the latest version (thanks to You > Know Who You Are for > >sending it to me because Mongoose never would have) > but haven't looked > >at it. > > This confuses me - I thought you were working for > Mongoose on MRQ. In > any case, why on earth wouldn't they send you a > copy? That seems > remarkably foolish. > > >Apparently Ken took some of the idea of the runes > having a direct effect > >on magic to heart, or at least used my opening > paragraphs... > > They're using your work but not giving you a copy? > Even stranger. > > Are you at all involved with DBRP? Just wondering. > > I don't want to be accused of hyping DBRP again > (*cough* Ashley > *cough*) but so far what I've seen is a unified > collection of all the > most popular BRP rule iterations, including the RQ3 > system. I haven't > gotten to the "Powers" or science fiction sections > yet (there's a lot > to read), but the system as it stands so far can be > matched almost > exactly to RQ3 or Call of Cthulhu or (I assume) any > other BRP-derived > game, simply by chosing from optional rules. > > It seems to be a definitive BRP toolkit as much as > anything else. The > risk, I suspect, is that people who are new to the > system might be > confused by all the optional rules; that's why I've > recommended that a > "lite" system be placed at the beginning of the > book. A sufficiently > simplified version of the BRP core could be read in > fifteen minutes by > even a total newcomer to roleplaying and used with > almost no > preparation. Once they're hooked, they could get > into the more complex > rules later on. > > I have to admit that I've been playing with the idea > of an > ultra-simplified version in my head; it seems to me > that there are > some interesting possibilities there. For example, > the characteristic > set could be collapsed from seven down to three, > with STR CON and SIZ > merged into a single characteristic - call it Brawn, > if you like - INT > and DEX merged, and POW and APP merged. If EDU is > being used, it would > of course be merged into INT + DEX. > > Of course you could even boil it down to two > characteristics: > > Physical = STR CON SIZ and APP > Mental = INT DEX and POW > > ...but that's probably TOO simple. Although I > believe it would work. > > Of course I don't expect that this would actually be > used in DBRP, > which is why I'm not suggesting it there. > -- > 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 > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 03:26:52 2006 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:26:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316155042.89551.qmail@web86107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060316162652.25576.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> I believe he's refering to the "so excited he posted four times" comment, which was very funny, by the way. --- Ashley Munday wrote: > Peter said: > > "I don't want to be accused of hyping DBRP again > (*cough* Ashley *cough*)..." > > Did I? Ooops, sorry, obviously something I said in > the > past came out wrong! > > Ash > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Mar 17 03:45:52 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:45:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange Message-ID: <20060316164552.23083.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> An interesting question just came up in one of my games. A character lost a leg, nothing new here, but the leg is totally gone not just severed. The party is in the middle of the desert with no access to either Regenerate or Regrow Limb spells. The groups sorcerer had a bright idea of casting Shapechange on the Stumpy to change him to a trollkin. so the question becomes would the trollkin body have two legs? What if he is turned into a four legged animal? What if he is turned into a scorpionman? Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ncford at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 04:46:09 2006 From: ncford at gmail.com (Neil Ford) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:46:09 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316160837.79019.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060316160837.79019.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <655db9e10603160946o40cc1cdfg720a049f32985ad3@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/06, grogthing wrote: > > > > I would love to see the playtest version, if anyone > would be so generous to email me a copy. > > Greg All the playtesters are under very strict instructions not to pass on copies to anyone who isn't in the playtest group. We've been given an opportunity by Chaosium to help shape the final product and I really hope no-one would be so daft as to screw that up. If you'd like to assist in the playtest, email dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand ask to be added to the group. Neil. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060316/7169e873/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 04:50:23 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:50:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <655db9e10603160946o40cc1cdfg720a049f32985ad3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060316160837.79019.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <655db9e10603160946o40cc1cdfg720a049f32985ad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Last I knew, Jason (co-author of DBRP) was on this list as well. Although given the volume of traffic on the DBRP Yahoo group, I have to wonder if he'd have time to keep up here as well. :D -- 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/ From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 05:51:03 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:51:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <655db9e10603160946o40cc1cdfg720a049f32985ad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060316185103.35949.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ahh, I see, thanks. Greg --- Neil Ford wrote: > On 3/16/06, grogthing wrote: > > > > > > > > I would love to see the playtest version, if > anyone > > would be so generous to email me a copy. > > > > Greg > > > > All the playtesters are under very strict > instructions not to pass on copies > to anyone who isn't in the playtest group. We've > been given an opportunity > by Chaosium to help shape the final product and I > really hope no-one would > be so daft as to screw that up. > > If you'd like to assist in the playtest, email > dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand ask to be added to the > group. > > Neil. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 06:20:48 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:20:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316185103.35949.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060316192048.7667.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hmmm, I tried sending an email here: dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand But it bounced back as unknown by the yahoo server. Greg --- grogthing wrote: > Ahh, I see, thanks. > > Greg > > > --- Neil Ford wrote: > > > On 3/16/06, grogthing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I would love to see the playtest version, if > > anyone > > > would be so generous to email me a copy. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > All the playtesters are under very strict > > instructions not to pass on copies > > to anyone who isn't in the playtest group. We've > > been given an opportunity > > by Chaosium to help shape the final product and I > > really hope no-one would > > be so daft as to screw that up. > > > > If you'd like to assist in the playtest, email > > dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand ask to be added to > the > > group. > > > > Neil. > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal > hostility against every > form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas > Jefferson > > "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there > are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my > pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson > > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be > purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid > it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may > take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me > death!" - Patrick Henry > > "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon > devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive > of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider > god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ncford at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 06:29:55 2006 From: ncford at gmail.com (Neil Ford) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:29:55 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <20060316192048.7667.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060316185103.35949.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060316192048.7667.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <655db9e10603161129s1c666879ib97f5e0e13be8059@mail.gmail.com> On 3/16/06, grogthing wrote: > > Hmmm, I tried sending an email here: > > dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand > > But it bounced back as unknown by the yahoo server. > > Greg Just checked, definitely listed as dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.com on the front page. Alternatively check out the BRP forum at the Tavern, Jason's invite message is there. Neil. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060316/62d294ff/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 06:41:01 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ: What happened? In-Reply-To: <655db9e10603161129s1c666879ib97f5e0e13be8059@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060316194101.75378.qmail@web32811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I see what happened. Instead of the address ending in ".com" it was listed as ".comand". I will try again. Thanks, Greg --- Neil Ford wrote: > On 3/16/06, grogthing wrote: > > > > Hmmm, I tried sending an email here: > > > > dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.comand > > > > But it bounced back as unknown by the yahoo > server. > > > > Greg > > > Just checked, definitely listed as > dbrp-owner at yahoogroups.com on the front > page. > > Alternatively check out the BRP forum at the Tavern, > Jason's invite message > is there. > > Neil. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 06:47:19 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:47:19 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060316164552.23083.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060316164552.23083.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0603161147n20a1b12bs6c9b463820c834c6@mail.gmail.com> In my opinion, the new shape will also reflect the limb loss. The effect of the lost limb would be based on the capabilities of the new shape. A griffin shape would be able to fly but not run very well while a scorpion may just be slowed a little. A trollkin with one leg would have to hop about just like any other normally two-legged creature that has lost a leg. There has been a loss off mass which, IMO, must be reflected in the new shape and maintaining the general effect seems to me to be the simplest way of gaming it. David On 3/16/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > An interesting question just came up in one of my > games. > > A character lost a leg, nothing new here, but the leg > is totally gone not just severed. The party is in the > middle of the desert with no access to either > Regenerate or Regrow Limb spells. > > The groups sorcerer had a bright idea of casting > Shapechange on the Stumpy to change him to a trollkin. > so the question becomes would the trollkin body have > two legs? What if he is turned into a four legged > animal? What if he is turned into a scorpionman? > > Leon > > __________________________________________________ > 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/20060316/1ccce29b/attachment.html From mechashef at emailme.net.au Fri Mar 17 07:29:58 2006 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:29:58 +1100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0603161147n20a1b12bs6c9b463820c834c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060316203000.8AB7997C10F@mail.velocitynet.com.au> I could see three options: 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he changes to a shape with (say) 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so if he changed to a shape with 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs (legs). 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their Enc. Thus they have lost 20% of their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% of their mass in the new shape. Option 1 is the simplest and probably the nicest to the player. 2 or 3 may be more ?realistic? On 3/16/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: An interesting question just came up in one of my games. A character lost a leg, nothing new here, but the leg is totally gone not just severed. The party is in the middle of the desert with no access to either Regenerate or Regrow Limb spells. The groups sorcerer had a bright idea of casting Shapechange on the Stumpy to change him to a trollkin. so the question becomes would the trollkin body have two legs? What if he is turned into a four legged animal? What if he is turned into a scorpionman? Leon __________________________________________________ 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/20060317/f5f6f56e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 13:02:03 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:02:03 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060316203000.8AB7997C10F@mail.velocitynet.com.au> References: <1c92296e0603161147n20a1b12bs6c9b463820c834c6@mail.gmail.com> <20060316203000.8AB7997C10F@mail.velocitynet.com.au> Message-ID: <1c92296e0603161802g744c9ee7xd44846e5895c3573@mail.gmail.com> I like option 2 best. It should be easy to calculate and it still incorporates a penalty for the player instead of allowing the player to wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But then again if the GM _wants_ the player to be able to wiggle out of the effects because it will improve gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of both worlds. David On 3/16/06, Mechashef wrote: > > I could see three options: > > > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he changes to a shape with (say) > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. > > > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so if he changed to a shape with > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs (legs). > > > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their Enc. Thus they have lost 20% of > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% of their mass in the new shape. > > > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the nicest to the player. > > > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060316/4dac636e/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 13:48:45 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0603161802g744c9ee7xd44846e5895c3573@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060317024845.28584.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I would say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of course the size difference would be just enough to make most of his armor useless. Leon --- David Smart wrote: > I like option 2 best. It should be easy to calculate > and it still > incorporates a penalty for the player instead of > allowing the player to > wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But then > again if the GM _wants_ the > player to be able to wiggle out of the effects > because it will improve > gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of both > worlds. > > David > > > On 3/16/06, Mechashef > wrote: > > > > I could see three options: > > > > > > > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he > changes to a shape with (say) > > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. > > > > > > > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so if he > changed to a shape with > > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs (legs). > > > > > > > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their Enc. > Thus they have lost 20% of > > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% of > their mass in the new shape. > > > > > > > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the nicest > to the player. > > > > > > > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From darthvogel at hotmail.com Fri Mar 17 14:31:55 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:31:55 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060317024845.28584.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ attribute. The leg is a %'age of SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. As far as teh shapechage, orginally i thought that it transmuted X SIZ into something else; but after reviewing the descritption, that is not the intent. So I agree that if a former Biped was shapechanged into another Biped species, the limb would still be missing. As far as other creatures, I think a propotional penalty should be used. The man lost half his walking capability, so would the spider (i.e. no legs on teh left side, or 4 stubs). I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an unfortunate complication; but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a result; he still wears SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg portion. Nothing above the waist is going to change size and neither is the other leg. You can argue that that doesn't fit the system...but in this case, the system doesn't fit the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section of the character sheet. The real question is; could an extended duration "Preserve Item" be cast on the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? My description does not limit it to inanimate objects. He could also cast a long term "Fade" and preserve the guy perfectly until they could return with a regenerate capability...assuming these spells are available. A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell reattach a limb is the limb is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm not sure the description of Treat Wounds precludes this? Fred >From: Leon Kirshtein >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0800 (PST) > >I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I would >say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of >course the size difference would be just enough to >make most of his armor useless. > >Leon > >--- David Smart wrote: > > > I like option 2 best. It should be easy to calculate > > and it still > > incorporates a penalty for the player instead of > > allowing the player to > > wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But then > > again if the GM _wants_ the > > player to be able to wiggle out of the effects > > because it will improve > > gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of both > > worlds. > > > > David > > > > > > On 3/16/06, Mechashef > > wrote: > > > > > > I could see three options: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he > > changes to a shape with (say) > > > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so if he > > changed to a shape with > > > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs (legs). > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their Enc. > > Thus they have lost 20% of > > > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% of > > their mass in the new shape. > > > > > > > > > > > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the nicest > > to the player. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > >__________________________________________________ >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 darthvogel at hotmail.com Fri Mar 17 14:39:24 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:39:24 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After having thought about the Treat Wounds portion of my statment, I think i have figured something out. Treat Wounds accellerates natural healing. If you severed a limb completly, it would be cut off from blood supply. Without having major arteries sewn back together to allow blood flow in the leg, the normal healing process could not take place, and therefore, my premise of splinting the severed limb back to the body would not work. Fred >From: "Fred Vogel" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:31:55 -0600 > >This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ attribute. The leg is a %'age of >SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. > >As far as teh shapechage, orginally i thought that it transmuted X SIZ into >something else; but after reviewing the descritption, that is not the >intent. So I agree that if a former Biped was shapechanged into another >Biped species, the limb would still be missing. As far as other creatures, >I think a propotional penalty should be used. The man lost half his >walking capability, so would the spider (i.e. no legs on teh left side, or >4 stubs). > >I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an unfortunate complication; >but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a result; he still wears >SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg portion. Nothing above the >waist is going to change size and neither is the other leg. You can argue >that that doesn't fit the system...but in this case, the system doesn't fit >the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section of the character sheet. > >The real question is; could an extended duration "Preserve Item" be cast on >the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? My description does >not limit it to inanimate objects. He could also cast a long term "Fade" >and preserve the guy perfectly until they could return with a regenerate >capability...assuming these spells are available. > >A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell reattach a limb is the limb >is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm not sure the description >of Treat Wounds precludes this? > >Fred > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange >>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0800 (PST) >> >>I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I would >>say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of >>course the size difference would be just enough to >>make most of his armor useless. >> >>Leon >> >>--- David Smart wrote: >> >> > I like option 2 best. It should be easy to calculate >> > and it still >> > incorporates a penalty for the player instead of >> > allowing the player to >> > wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But then >> > again if the GM _wants_ the >> > player to be able to wiggle out of the effects >> > because it will improve >> > gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of both >> > worlds. >> > >> > David >> > >> > >> > On 3/16/06, Mechashef >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > I could see three options: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he >> > changes to a shape with (say) >> > > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so if he >> > changed to a shape with >> > > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs (legs). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their Enc. >> > Thus they have lost 20% of >> > > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% of >> > their mass in the new shape. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the nicest >> > to the player. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >>protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >> >>__________________________________________________ >>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 From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 23:47:06 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060317124706.54831.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you guys are pretty tough on your players. It sounds like someone came up with a very creative way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it. Reading the Shapechange spell, it says it changes one species, biologically into another species, determined when the spell is learned. The spell takes the biological material of one species, and magically turns it into the required biological stuff to make up the the complete other species. If that specieis has more limbs than a human, than the biological / genetic changes happen to create those limbs. The person is going through a complete genetic bilogical change, recreating them into something else. They have to pick a specific species to change into, and can only change into that species. It is the nature of the spell. Unless when the spell was learned, they chose to learn "turn into a 4 legged spider", I would say they always turn into an 8 legged spider. it's like the spell takes the human biological material, treats it all as unformed stem cells, then regrows the stem cells into the new form. I would allow it. good player thinking. Greg --- Fred Vogel wrote: > After having thought about the Treat Wounds portion > of my statment, I think > i have figured something out. Treat Wounds > accellerates natural healing. > If you severed a limb completly, it would be cut off > from blood supply. > Without having major arteries sewn back together to > allow blood flow in the > leg, the normal healing process could not take > place, and therefore, my > premise of splinting the severed limb back to the > body would not work. > > Fred > > > >From: "Fred Vogel" > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:31:55 -0600 > > > >This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ > attribute. The leg is a %'age of > >SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. > > > >As far as teh shapechage, orginally i thought that > it transmuted X SIZ into > >something else; but after reviewing the > descritption, that is not the > >intent. So I agree that if a former Biped was > shapechanged into another > >Biped species, the limb would still be missing. As > far as other creatures, > >I think a propotional penalty should be used. The > man lost half his > >walking capability, so would the spider (i.e. no > legs on teh left side, or > >4 stubs). > > > >I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an > unfortunate complication; > >but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a > result; he still wears > >SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg > portion. Nothing above the > >waist is going to change size and neither is the > other leg. You can argue > >that that doesn't fit the system...but in this > case, the system doesn't fit > >the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section > of the character sheet. > > > >The real question is; could an extended duration > "Preserve Item" be cast on > >the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? > My description does > >not limit it to inanimate objects. He could also > cast a long term "Fade" > >and preserve the guy perfectly until they could > return with a regenerate > >capability...assuming these spells are available. > > > >A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell > reattach a limb is the limb > >is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm > not sure the description > >of Treat Wounds precludes this? > > > >Fred > > > > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein > >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > >>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0800 (PST) > >> > >>I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I > would > >>say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of > >>course the size difference would be just enough to > >>make most of his armor useless. > >> > >>Leon > >> > >>--- David Smart wrote: > >> > >> > I like option 2 best. It should be easy to > calculate > >> > and it still > >> > incorporates a penalty for the player instead > of > >> > allowing the player to > >> > wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But > then > >> > again if the GM _wants_ the > >> > player to be able to wiggle out of the effects > >> > because it will improve > >> > gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of > both > >> > worlds. > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> > > >> > On 3/16/06, Mechashef > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I could see three options: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he > >> > changes to a shape with (say) > >> > > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so > if he > >> > changed to a shape with > >> > > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them ? 2 limbs > (legs). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their > Enc. > >> > Thus they have lost 20% of > >> > > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% > of > >> > their mass in the new shape. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the > nicest > >> > to the player. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" > >> > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>Do You Yahoo!? > >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > >>protection around > >>http://mail.yahoo.com > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>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 > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Sat Mar 18 01:39:30 2006 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:39:30 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange Message-ID: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B01923339@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> I am with you on this :) However, and to prevent hole :), the end of the spell is a "revert back to original". Think of it as a restore: When the spell start, a backup of the original model is made, then it is transformed into the new model. When the spells end, it does go through the transformation to restore the saved model. So in our case, when returning to the original form, the leg will still be missing. Regards Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De?: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de grogthing Envoy??: vendredi 17 mars 2006 13:47 ??: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Objet?: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you guys are pretty tough on your players. It sounds like someone came up with a very creative way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it. Reading the Shapechange spell, it says it changes one species, biologically into another species, determined when the spell is learned. The spell takes the biological material of one species, and magically turns it into the required biological stuff to make up the the complete other species. If that specieis has more limbs than a human, than the biological / genetic changes happen to create those limbs. The person is going through a complete genetic bilogical change, recreating them into something else. They have to pick a specific species to change into, and can only change into that species. It is the nature of the spell. Unless when the spell was learned, they chose to learn "turn into a 4 legged spider", I would say they always turn into an 8 legged spider. it's like the spell takes the human biological material, treats it all as unformed stem cells, then regrows the stem cells into the new form. I would allow it. good player thinking. Greg --- Fred Vogel wrote: > After having thought about the Treat Wounds portion > of my statment, I think > i have figured something out. Treat Wounds > accellerates natural healing. > If you severed a limb completly, it would be cut off > from blood supply. > Without having major arteries sewn back together to > allow blood flow in the > leg, the normal healing process could not take > place, and therefore, my > premise of splinting the severed limb back to the > body would not work. > > Fred > > > >From: "Fred Vogel" > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:31:55 -0600 > > > >This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ > attribute. The leg is a %'age of > >SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. > > > >As far as teh shapechage, orginally i thought that > it transmuted X SIZ into > >something else; but after reviewing the > descritption, that is not the > >intent. So I agree that if a former Biped was > shapechanged into another > >Biped species, the limb would still be missing. As > far as other creatures, > >I think a propotional penalty should be used. The > man lost half his > >walking capability, so would the spider (i.e. no > legs on teh left side, or > >4 stubs). > > > >I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an > unfortunate complication; > >but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a > result; he still wears > >SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg > portion. Nothing above the > >waist is going to change size and neither is the > other leg. You can argue > >that that doesn't fit the system...but in this > case, the system doesn't fit > >the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section > of the character sheet. > > > >The real question is; could an extended duration > "Preserve Item" be cast on > >the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? > My description does > >not limit it to inanimate objects. He could also > cast a long term "Fade" > >and preserve the guy perfectly until they could > return with a regenerate > >capability...assuming these spells are available. > > > >A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell > reattach a limb is the limb > >is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm > not sure the description > >of Treat Wounds precludes this? > > > >Fred > > > > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein > >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > >>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0800 (PST) > >> > >>I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I > would > >>say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of > >>course the size difference would be just enough to > >>make most of his armor useless. > >> > >>Leon > >> > >>--- David Smart wrote: > >> > >> > I like option 2 best. It should be easy to > calculate > >> > and it still > >> > incorporates a penalty for the player instead > of > >> > allowing the player to > >> > wiggle out of the effects of the wound. But > then > >> > again if the GM _wants_ the > >> > player to be able to wiggle out of the effects > >> > because it will improve > >> > gameplay, option 1 does sound the like best of > both > >> > worlds. > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> > > >> > On 3/16/06, Mechashef > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I could see three options: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 1) The character has lost one leg, so if he > >> > changes to a shape with (say) > >> > > 6 legs he would lose 1 leg. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2) The character has lost ? of his limbs so > if he > >> > changed to a shape with > >> > > 8 limbs he would lose ? of them - 2 limbs > (legs). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 3) In a human, a leg is with 20% of their > Enc. > >> > Thus they have lost 20% of > >> > > their mass. Remove enough limbs to make 20% > of > >> > their mass in the new shape. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Option 1 is the simplest and probably the > nicest > >> > to the player. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2 or 3 may be more "realistic" > >> > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>Do You Yahoo!? > >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > >>protection around > >>http://mail.yahoo.com > >> > >>__________________________________________________ > >>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 > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Mar 18 02:46:20 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B01923339@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com > References: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B01923339@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> Message-ID: <28918.65.220.101.126.1142610380.squirrel@crashbox.com> I have to agree. The shapechange is magic and changes you into whatever the target spell is regardless of current dysfunction. It would also make for a great story. A sorcerer has a device that maintains a permanent shapechange on it. They destroy the device and find a version of the wizard that is missing his left arm, leg and part of his face that he lost in a lab explosion. He uses permanent shapechange to have a normal form. But hey, that's me. In my gaming I do more interesting 'what-ifs' than Glorantha and RQ encourage. -Andrew > > I am with you on this :) > > However, and to prevent hole :), the end of the spell is a "revert back to > original". > Think of it as a restore: > When the spell start, a backup of the original model is made, then it is > transformed into the new model. > When the spells end, it does go through the transformation to restore the > saved model. > So in our case, when returning to the original form, the leg will still be > missing. > > Regards > Pascal > -----Message d'origine----- > De?: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > De la part de grogthing > Envoy??: vendredi 17 mars 2006 13:47 > ??: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Objet?: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > > Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you guys > are pretty tough on your players. > > It sounds like someone came up with a very creative > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it. > > Reading the Shapechange spell, it says it changes one > species, biologically into another species, determined > when the spell is learned. > The spell takes the biological material of one > species, and magically turns it into the required > biological stuff to make up the the complete other > species. > > If that specieis has more limbs than a human, than the > biological / genetic changes happen to create those > limbs. > > The person is going through a complete genetic > bilogical change, recreating them into something else. > They have to pick a specific species to change into, > and can only change into that species. > > It is the nature of the spell. Unless when the spell > was learned, they chose to learn "turn into a 4 legged > spider", I would say they always turn into an 8 legged > spider. it's like the spell takes the human biological > material, treats it all as unformed stem cells, then > regrows the stem cells into the new form. > > I would allow it. good player thinking. > > Greg From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 02:49:34 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:49:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP In-Reply-To: <20060317144001.DADBB52D6AE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060317154934.51333.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Cor, nearly 10 digests in one go. Peter asked about whether Steve Perrin was involved in the MRQ design and also about the Mongoose Playtest. I joined the playtest for V1.4, which looks to have been the best time otherwise I'd have gotten annoyed with the tampering and non-runequesty rules changes proposed. >From the previous emails in the playtyest archives, it looked to me as though everyone who had their own ideas about RPG rules suggested them to the group. V1.4 was reasonably good but had massive holes in it that made some areas, such as combat, unplayable. Steve Perrin was aksed to provide a new Magic System, based on Runes and Questing for them (RuneQuest geddit?). They were interesting, but had a number of things that made them, in my opinion, not compatible with Gloranthan cults. However, there was then a very public falling out between Matt Sprange and Steve Perrin, mainly due to accidentally sending private emails to a public group, then replying to said emails. Whilst this was all terrible, a crying shame and so on, to an outsider it was very funny (sorry Steve). Either as a result of this, or because of the statements in the emails, Steve Perrin does not seem to have been included in any further development. Despite Mongoose promising to show V1.5 to the group, they sat back for several months until the group had descended into irrelevant discussions, then the group was deleted completely with no explanation. There were some later explanations on various sites, with some interesting comments that showed how much Mongoose had listened to the playtest group (apparently not at all). There is now a closed playtest that is using V1.5 and has invited members of the original playtest group. So, we'll have to wait and see what happens. Needless to say, I'll be shelling out my pennies to buy both RQM and DBRP when they come out. I'll also have to buy both sets of supplements, which is a pain especially if they cover similar areas. >From looking at both sets of rules, DBRP looks to be most compatible with previous versions of RQ (although I haven't seen RQM1,5) but even that is a bit shaky. Certainly, RQ3 is closer to RQ2 than DBRP is to either RQ2/3 and certainly, a lot closer than RQM is to RQ2/3. DBRP has done what Mongoose should have done - have a set of rules with various optional rules. In some ways this is similar to RQ2 which had a set of optional rules at the back. However, some of those optional rules are game specific (20 pages of sanity rules, for instane). But, having a game system that caters for Fantasy/Sci Fi/SuperHero/Horror gaming means four times the number of rules and might make it very bloated. Questworld might do it better, as the HQ rules system is tailormade for having different abilities using the same basic rules system. So, it can answer questions about "Can I evade the Super Energy Blast using my Flying Very fast skill?" with a single contest. Anyway, those are my thought on the whole RQM debacle. I hope they bring a good game out which is as good as RQ2 and RQ3 were, as I am a bif RQ fan. If they don't, then DBRP looks a good second best. Obviously, these are my own personal thoughts and opinions and probably bear no relation to the facts. I'm also not particularly interested in having any slanging matches over them, as they are just my own thoughts. See Ya Simon From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 02:55:27 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <28918.65.220.101.126.1142610380.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <20060317155527.11619.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mythworld (an increasingly distant cousin of RQ) does not have shapechange except as a defining feature of lycanthropes. However, a severed limb can be reattached with three consecutive First Aid rolls (one per round) and Healing 6 spell, all within ten rounds of the loss. If the limb is missing (not available to reattach) or the reattachment process is not completed in the alotted time, it is lost forever. Regrow is possible, but in 23 years of playing Mythworld, I have yet to encounter a character, PC or NPC, who had that particular high magic spell. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 02:58:45 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:58:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <28918.65.220.101.126.1142610380.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <20060317155845.92048.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Or how about the town is plagued by a muderous werewolf. The players have to investigate. It ends up being the bitter old evil crippled ex-priest who no one expected. Greg --- Andrew Mellinger wrote: > I have to agree. > > The shapechange is magic and changes you into > whatever the target spell > is regardless of current dysfunction. > > It would also make for a great story. A sorcerer > has a device that > maintains a permanent shapechange on it. They > destroy the device and find > a version of the wizard that is missing his left > arm, leg and part of his > face that he lost in a lab explosion. He uses > permanent shapechange to > have a normal form. > > But hey, that's me. In my gaming I do more > interesting 'what-ifs' than > Glorantha and RQ encourage. > > -Andrew > > > > > > I am with you on this :) > > > > However, and to prevent hole :), the end of the > spell is a "revert back to > > original". > > Think of it as a restore: > > When the spell start, a backup of the original > model is made, then it is > > transformed into the new model. > > When the spells end, it does go through the > transformation to restore the > > saved model. > > So in our case, when returning to the original > form, the leg will still be > > missing. > > > > Regards > > Pascal > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De?: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > > De la part de grogthing > > Envoy??: vendredi 17 mars 2006 13:47 > > ??: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > Objet?: Re: [Rq-rules] Shapechange > > > > Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you > guys > > are pretty tough on your players. > > > > It sounds like someone came up with a very > creative > > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use > it. > > > > Reading the Shapechange spell, it says it changes > one > > species, biologically into another species, > determined > > when the spell is learned. > > The spell takes the biological material of one > > species, and magically turns it into the required > > biological stuff to make up the the complete other > > species. > > > > If that specieis has more limbs than a human, than > the > > biological / genetic changes happen to create > those > > limbs. > > > > The person is going through a complete genetic > > bilogical change, recreating them into something > else. > > They have to pick a specific species to change > into, > > and can only change into that species. > > > > It is the nature of the spell. Unless when the > spell > > was learned, they chose to learn "turn into a 4 > legged > > spider", I would say they always turn into an 8 > legged > > spider. it's like the spell takes the human > biological > > material, treats it all as unformed stem cells, > then > > regrows the stem cells into the new form. > > > > I would allow it. good player thinking. > > > > Greg > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 03:23:43 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:23:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060317144001.DADBB52D6AE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060317162343.84796.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All Regarding the idea of Shepechanging stump human into trollkin, I would say that you'd get a stumpy trollkin. As a supporting argument, please watch the Disney cartoon The Sword in the Stone (probably) where Merlin has a shapechanging contest with Madam Min. Madam Min has an eyepatch and all the things she changes into also have an eyepatch. Proof positive, if ever there was one. If you want to get around having only one leg, shapechange to something that has no legs, a snake or a slug, for example. That way you could move around without a problem. As a general thing, I would say that if the new shape generally corresponded to the old one (same number of limbs etc) then you'd lose the corresponding limb. If the new shape had more limbs, then you'd still lose a limb, if it had fewer then the GM should make a decision. Of course, you could change into a three-legged human, a Jakeite perhaps, so you'd then end up with 2 legs. But how many people have Shapechange Human to Jakeite? As to long-term effects, I wouldn't decrease his SIZ, especially if he gets a wooden leg. He would still have the same HPs as the leg could be fully healed but still be off. Leon Kirshtein: > I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I would > say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of > course the size difference would be just enough to > make most of his armor useless. Well, each arm is worth 3/12, each leg/abdomen/head 4/12, and a chest about 5/12, so a leg is worth 4/(3+3+4+4+4+5) or 4/234/23 or 17%. Fred Vogel: > This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ attribute. The leg is a %'age of > SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. But he is still the same size, with or without a leg, in my opinion. It won't affect his reach, his Hit Points or the damage he does, so why change it? > I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an unfortunate complication; > but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a result; he still wears > SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg portion. Nothing above the > waist is going to change size and neither is the other leg. You can argue > that that doesn't fit the system...but in this case, the system doesn't fit > the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section of the character sheet. We always played that you could fit into a suit of armour one SIZ point either way, or in RQ3 you could use the Small/Medium/Large/XLarge categories and fitted into any armour in your category. > The real question is; could an extended duration "Preserve Item" be cast on > the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? My description does > not > limit it to inanimate objects. He could also cast a long term "Fade" and > preserve the guy perfectly until they could return with a regenerate > capability...assuming these spells are available. The problem with regenerate is that it has a time limit on its effectiveness. After a certain time, the lost limb cannot be regenerated. If you have access to Suspend Animation or Statis spells, then they could be used, in the same way that Healing Trance accelerates healing, Stasis spells could be used to freeze the person. > A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell reattach a limb is the limb > is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm not sure the description > of > Treat Wounds precludes this? Well, I always saw Treat Wounds and Heling as being of similar power levels, so they could put a recently severed limb back on, but not a long-time severed limb. The moral to the tale is to have enough healing to reattach a severed limb. But, as the said limb has been lost, it's just tough. Perhaps the moral should be not to lose the limb in the first place. As a matter of interest, how did it come off? I could do with a laugh. > >> > > Only five chevrons? You can do better than that, surely. Snip, snip, snip. Greg: > Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you guys > are pretty tough on your players. Not really, being tough would be telling the player that his leg has gone, then laughing about it and making jokes about it for the next three of four sessions. I have played characters who have lost limbs and other body parts on a permanent basis. It either adds to the roleplaying opportunities, or encourages you to go out and replace it in some way. Either get a substitute or HeroQuest to get a new limb. > It sounds like someone came up with a very creative > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it. Maybe, but you should at least let them moan about it for a couple of hours first. > I would allow it. good player thinking. Yes, but where will it end? It's the thin end of the wedge, it really is. They'll be thinking of other things and then they'll think for themselves. No, better to keep them as mindless automatons. > > >> > > I knew someone could beat five, I really did. Pascal: > I am with you on this :) > > However, and to prevent hole :), the end of the spell is a "revert back to > original". > Think of it as a restore: > When the spell start, a backup of the original model is made, then it is > transformed into the new model. > When the spells end, it does go through the transformation to restore the > saved model. > So in our case, when returning to the original form, the leg will still be > missing. Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned into a trollkin, he loses another leg? When he changes back, does he have no legs or one leg? It seems as though to avoid limb loss, all you need to do is to Shapechange to another species, hack away with no regard, thenm change back to get your limbs back. See Ya Simon From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 03:37:34 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:37:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060317162343.84796.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060317163734.68370.qmail@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hmmm sounds like the werewolfs of movie history. Werewolf get shot up, stabbed, or otherwise molested. When he changes back to human, no harm done. Shapechange can be allowed to be a real fun somewhat dangerous spell simulating lycanthropy. Greg --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned > into a trollkin, he loses > another leg? When he changes back, does he have no > legs or one leg? It seems > as though to avoid limb loss, all you need to do is > to Shapechange to another > species, hack away with no regard, thenm change back > to get your limbs back. > === message truncated === "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 04:13:52 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:13:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060317163743.2019152E7C1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060317171352.58428.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Greg: > Hmmm sounds like the werewolfs of movie history. > > Werewolf get shot up, stabbed, or otherwise molested. > When he changes back to human, no harm done. Depends on the movie. Howling has a werewolf who gets his paw cut off, when he changes back he is missing a hand. The Werewolf series (from the 80s and excellent) had a one-eyed sailor who changed into a one-eyed wolf. Modern werewolf movies almost all retain injuries in both forms. > Shapechange can be allowed to be a real fun somewhat > dangerous spell simulating lycanthropy. Of course it can. But it does raise questions. What happens if you lose a magically-added limb, such as if a human changed into a dragon or wind child? When you change back, are you injured? I would say no. What happens if you loose a corresponding limb? I would say the limb stays lost when you change back. Anyway, a shapechanger using a spell to become a werewolf would probably annoy proper werewolves. See Ya Simon From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Mar 18 04:33:13 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:33:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060317162343.84796.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060317144001.DADBB52D6AE@mini.thinbits.net> <20060317162343.84796.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43608.65.220.101.126.1142616793.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Hiya All > > > Regarding the idea of Shepechanging stump human into trollkin, I would say > that you'd get a stumpy trollkin. > > As a supporting argument, please watch the Disney cartoon The Sword in the > Stone (probably) where Merlin has a shapechanging contest with Madam Min. > Madam Min has an eyepatch and all the things she changes into also have an > eyepatch. Proof positive, if ever there was one. I think they had different reasons for doing this than what we are discussing. Most TV shows and movies that do this sort of stuff want the viewer to be able to identify the shapechanged thing. "Ooooh, that's the villian." or whatever. > If you want to get around having only one leg, shapechange to something > that > has no legs, a snake or a slug, for example. That way you could move > around > without a problem. Just to play devil's advocate. What element is the magic keying off when the shapechange works that creates the loss of limb? If the spell is keying off the fact that the source is not whole, then then when transforming into *anything* there should also be a loss. So I would argue that if one adjudicates that changing to trollkin that such trollkin would have lost limbs, that the snail or slug also have some dysfunction in it's foot. I personally use that Shapechange turns you into a new version of whatever you learn the spell for. It is magic after all. If it can create limbs, eyes, parts that the source creature doesn't have, it can create the limbs as needed. Sure, the relflection in the new creature to the old is a nice affectation, but be careful with that too. However, I would say then that beneficial non-standard attributes should also move over. So if a person were stronger than average, had better eyesight, etc. If this is the case, then I would expect the spell to be 'Transform Nature' or some such. Just my 2 cents. From devinc at aol.com Sat Mar 18 04:44:45 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:44:45 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B01923339@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> References: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B01923339@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> Message-ID: <8C818019CCBF9B7-1BCC-8419@FWM-R08.sysops.aol.com> <> Keep in mind that what is creative the first time becomes de rigeur thereafter. As a GM I constantly get players inventing ways to fly through loopholes and asking to be rewarded because of their creativity. The problem is that while I'd love to pat them on the head and give them a cookie that one time, once you allow it, you are stuck with it for the rest of that campaign and, presumably, all other campaigns thereafter. Meaning 2 years from now when the tactic is entirely un-creative, you are still allowing it. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060317/866fa10b/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Mar 18 05:56:03 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:56:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <8C818019CCBF9B7-1BCC-8419@FWM-R08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060317185604.41304.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorcerers/Shamans/Mages are powerful and scary individuals. I don't have problem with interpreting shapechange this way. You have a party with no sorcerers and a guy looses a leg, pity for them. You have a sorcerer who can cast Shapechange/Wolf you still have a fight capable party member, or at least someone who can walk out of the desert under their own power. Such are the possibilities and benefits of a magical world. Unless I have designed a plot requiring a disabled/crippled player character (which I think would be a bad plan unless the player wanted to play a disabled character) I am going to be pretty lenient on allowing it to be fixed, or let the player make a new character. I guess the whole discussion of powerful or inventive player tricks has come up before. I am generally on the side of "if the players figure a way to do something, cool, good for them". I am just here to have fun through creative expression and to hopefully provide an interesting arena for them to have fun in. I (hopefully) provide enough challenge to keep them interested, but I am not their nemesis (although I do play one in the game). Anything they figure out how to do, if I think it is interesting, I go with it, and adopt the idea into my game. Which means they will see NPC's doing the same interesting stuff. I don't see it as me against them, because I am playing God, and God always wins. If I really didn't want something to work someway - it won't. Even spells as written in the book are just guidelines. I allow modified versions of existing spells, new spells. I am the rules of nature, I can decree that magic stops working one day. What an interesting adventure as your magic using characters go into panic! Greg --- devinc at aol.com wrote: > < guys > are pretty tough on your players. > > It sounds like someone came up with a very creative > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use > it.>> > > Keep in mind that what is creative the first time > becomes de rigeur thereafter. > > As a GM I constantly get players inventing ways to > fly through loopholes and asking to be rewarded > because of their creativity. The problem is that > while I'd love to pat them on the head and give them > a cookie that one time, once you allow it, you are > stuck with it for the rest of that campaign and, > presumably, all other campaigns thereafter. Meaning > 2 years from now when the tactic is entirely > un-creative, you are still allowing it. > > Devin > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Sat Mar 18 21:06:05 2006 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:06:05 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange Message-ID: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B0194BDA3@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> Simon wrotes : Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned into a trollkin, he loses another leg? When he changes back, does he have no legs or one leg? Well, as I said before, the magic involved in the spell saves a backup of the form the target has the moment the spell is cast. When the spell ends, it revert the target back to that saved form. It seems as though to avoid limb loss, all you need to do is to Shapechange to another species, hack away with no regard, then change back to get your limbs back. Well yes, but think that this spells have a cost (half size of the original) which will limit the capacities of the sorcerer to cast other spells (not all players have a presence of 50+). -----Message d'origine----- De?: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Simon Phipp Envoy??: vendredi 17 mars 2006 17:24 ??: rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet?: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange Hiya All Regarding the idea of Shepechanging stump human into trollkin, I would say that you'd get a stumpy trollkin. As a supporting argument, please watch the Disney cartoon The Sword in the Stone (probably) where Merlin has a shapechanging contest with Madam Min. Madam Min has an eyepatch and all the things she changes into also have an eyepatch. Proof positive, if ever there was one. If you want to get around having only one leg, shapechange to something that has no legs, a snake or a slug, for example. That way you could move around without a problem. As a general thing, I would say that if the new shape generally corresponded to the old one (same number of limbs etc) then you'd lose the corresponding limb. If the new shape had more limbs, then you'd still lose a limb, if it had fewer then the GM should make a decision. Of course, you could change into a three-legged human, a Jakeite perhaps, so you'd then end up with 2 legs. But how many people have Shapechange Human to Jakeite? As to long-term effects, I wouldn't decrease his SIZ, especially if he gets a wooden leg. He would still have the same HPs as the leg could be fully healed but still be off. Leon Kirshtein: > I am inclined to go with option 3. Although I would > say the body mass lost would be more like 10%. Of > course the size difference would be just enough to > make most of his armor useless. Well, each arm is worth 3/12, each leg/abdomen/head 4/12, and a chest about 5/12, so a leg is worth 4/(3+3+4+4+4+5) or 4/234/23 or 17%. Fred Vogel: > This is how I see it. A person has a SIZ attribute. The leg is a %'age of > SIZ. You should mark that stat down either way. But he is still the same size, with or without a leg, in my opinion. It won't affect his reach, his Hit Points or the damage he does, so why change it? > I don't agree with the armor comment. This is an unfortunate complication; > but if he were a SIZ 10 and changed to a SIZ 9 as a result; he still wears > SIZ 10 armor. He just has to widow the leg portion. Nothing above the > waist is going to change size and neither is the other leg. You can argue > that that doesn't fit the system...but in this case, the system doesn't fit > the circumstances. Gives use for the notes section of the character sheet. We always played that you could fit into a suit of armour one SIZ point either way, or in RQ3 you could use the Small/Medium/Large/XLarge categories and fitted into any armour in your category. > The real question is; could an extended duration "Preserve Item" be cast on > the stump and keep it able to be regenerated later? My description does > not > limit it to inanimate objects. He could also cast a long term "Fade" and > preserve the guy perfectly until they could return with a regenerate > capability...assuming these spells are available. The problem with regenerate is that it has a time limit on its effectiveness. After a certain time, the lost limb cannot be regenerated. If you have access to Suspend Animation or Statis spells, then they could be used, in the same way that Healing Trance accelerates healing, Stasis spells could be used to freeze the person. > A final question is, can a "Treat Wounds" spell reattach a limb is the limb > is still present and spinted onto the body. I'm not sure the description > of > Treat Wounds precludes this? Well, I always saw Treat Wounds and Heling as being of similar power levels, so they could put a recently severed limb back on, but not a long-time severed limb. The moral to the tale is to have enough healing to reattach a severed limb. But, as the said limb has been lost, it's just tough. Perhaps the moral should be not to lose the limb in the first place. As a matter of interest, how did it come off? I could do with a laugh. > >> > > Only five chevrons? You can do better than that, surely. Snip, snip, snip. Greg: > Wow. Listening to all the responses, I think you guys > are pretty tough on your players. Not really, being tough would be telling the player that his leg has gone, then laughing about it and making jokes about it for the next three of four sessions. I have played characters who have lost limbs and other body parts on a permanent basis. It either adds to the roleplaying opportunities, or encourages you to go out and replace it in some way. Either get a substitute or HeroQuest to get a new limb. > It sounds like someone came up with a very creative > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it. Maybe, but you should at least let them moan about it for a couple of hours first. > I would allow it. good player thinking. Yes, but where will it end? It's the thin end of the wedge, it really is. They'll be thinking of other things and then they'll think for themselves. No, better to keep them as mindless automatons. > > >> > > I knew someone could beat five, I really did. Pascal: > I am with you on this :) > > However, and to prevent hole :), the end of the spell is a "revert back to > original". > Think of it as a restore: > When the spell start, a backup of the original model is made, then it is > transformed into the new model. > When the spells end, it does go through the transformation to restore the > saved model. > So in our case, when returning to the original form, the leg will still be > missing. Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned into a trollkin, he loses another leg? When he changes back, does he have no legs or one leg? It seems as though to avoid limb loss, all you need to do is to Shapechange to another species, hack away with no regard, thenm change back to get your limbs back. See Ya Simon _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Sun Mar 19 04:01:24 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:01:24 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP Message-ID: <20060318170127.78229536E87@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all-- From: Simon Phipp > DBRP has done what Mongoose should have done - have a set of rules with > various optional rules. There is a huge difference between them, though: DBRP is heading towards 800+ pages, whereas RQM should be around 150 pages. In terms of players, DBRP will probably cater to core rolegamers who want to explore several, different worlds, whereas RQM will target people interested in fast-paced heroic fantasy. In terms of GM's, those who like to create their own worlds will get DBRP, those who like ready-to-use supplements will get RQM. All IMHO, based on the playtest rules sets I've received. Gianni From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Mar 19 05:12:33 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:12:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <72C0E8BE176C7E4DA728EBA864FFAA0B0194BDA3@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> Message-ID: <20060318181233.62704.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Simon wrotes : > Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned > into a trollkin, he loses > another leg? When he changes back, does he have no > legs or one leg? Yes, but everytime this happens there is a 10 to 20% SIZ loss. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 20 22:15:46 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060318170135.91ACD536EC2@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060320111547.84549.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All OK, regarding shapechanging generally, and not just the Shapechange (Species) to (Species) spell, here are some thought experiments. Imagine the following scenario. A werewolf changes into a wolf and fights another, rival, werewolf who bites off his paw and swallows it. The werewolf is now minus a paw but transforms back into a man. Does he get a new foot or is he missing the appropriate foot? Now, he changes back into wolf form. Is he still missing his paw or does he get it back? Which is more powerful, a Shapechange Human to Wolf spell or the Telmori/Wolf Hsunchen/Werewolf _ability_ to change into a wolf? If the ability is more powerful, then we would expect spells to follow the rules of the ability, at least for the issue of losing limbs. If the spell is more powerful then it may have its own rules. Imagine a similar scenario, where a Dragon-Hsunchen Weredragon (they exist) transforms into a dragon and fights another dragon who bites off his wing. Now, he transforms back into human form. Obviously, he hasn't got a wing in human form, so he can't lose anything. When he transforms into dragon form, is the wing still missing or does he get it back? If he gets it back, this seems a very, very powerful ability - regenerate all damage immediately. Andrew Mellinger: > > As a supporting argument, please watch the Disney cartoon The Sword in > the > > Stone (probably) where Merlin has a shapechanging contest with Madam Min. > > Madam Min has an eyepatch and all the things she changes into also have > an > > eyepatch. Proof positive, if ever there was one. > > I think they had different reasons for doing this than what we are > discussing. Most TV shows and movies that do this sort of stuff want > the viewer to be able to identify the shapechanged thing. "Ooooh, that's > the villian." or whatever. In case anyone had any doubts, I was half-joking with this example. Only half, though. > Sure, the relflection in the new creature to the old is a nice > affectation, but be careful with that too. However, I would say then > that beneficial non-standard attributes should also move over. So if a > person were stronger than average, had better eyesight, etc. Why should beneficial things move over but detrimental ones not do so? If I played a human with a third eye in the back of my head that made me immune to suprise attacks and I transformed into a trollkin, would this carry over? How about a third leg or an extra finger? I would say that all those would carry over, as would missing limbs. Devin: > < are pretty tough on your players. > > It sounds like someone came up with a very creative > way to overcome a difficulty. I would let them use it.>> > > Keep in mind that what is creative the first time becomes de rigeur > thereafter. Hear, hear. > As a GM I constantly get players inventing ways to fly through loopholes > and asking to be rewarded because of their creativity. The problem is that > while I'd love to pat them on the head and give them a cookie that one > time, once you allow it, you are stuck with it for the rest of that > campaign and, presumably, all other campaigns thereafter. Meaning 2 years > from now when the tactic is entirely un-creative, you are still allowing > it. Also, these things set a precedent and players are very, very fond of saying "but you allowed so-and-so and this is just the same". As a GM, you have to be very careful about what you allow as these decisions can come back later on and plague you. I've got no problems in rewarding inventive players or in allowing imaginative interpretations of the game - in fact I positively encourage it. However, they have to be placed in context and thought through properly, otherwise you are not doing your job as a GM. One of the responsibilities of a GM is to make sure that you campaign is consistent and fair. Greg: > Sorcerers/Shamans/Mages are powerful and scary > individuals. Agreed. So are priests. > I don't have problem with interpreting shapechange > this way. > > You have a party with no sorcerers and a guy looses a > leg, pity for them. Yes, pity them but life is hard. In RQ, in particular, the combat system is designed so that people can very easily lose limbs - an average person with loses a limb on 6-8 points of damage in RQ3, 9-10 in RQ2, both easily achievable by a typical adventurer with a broadsword. > You have a sorcerer who can cast Shapechange/Wolf you > still have a fight capable party member, or at least > someone who can walk out of the desert under their own > power. Such are the possibilities and benefits of a > magical world. Now, Shapechange Wolf would be OK because wolves and dogs can move around on three legs without a huge problem. Changing to a humanoid shape means they have to hop. > Unless I have designed a plot requiring a > disabled/crippled player character (which I think > would be a bad plan unless the player wanted to play a > disabled character) I am going to be pretty lenient on > allowing it to be fixed, or let the player make a new > character. Now, this is more like it - "I am going to be pretty lenient on allowing it to be fixed" - the solution here is to allow the character to struggle on one leg for a while until you reach a healer, then allow the leg to be regenerated, despite what the rules say. Say the healer had a magical ability to regrow limbs past the normal time limit. Alternatively, let then go on a HeroQuest and meet a Healer God or Hero who can regrow the limb. Oh look, that's another scenario or two generated from the problem. > I guess the whole discussion of powerful or inventive > player tricks has come up before. > > I am generally on the side of "if the players figure a > way to do something, cool, good for them". Within reason and as long as it doesn't blow holes in the game. > I am just here to have fun through creative expression > and to hopefully provide an interesting arena for them > to have fun in. If the loss of a limb is so devastating that it ruins the game for the player, then give him a break and let him get the limb back. But, these things can be good roleplaying opportunities. I played a character who had his tongue cut out by a fellow PC (he had died and was being taken back for Resurrection) but the tongue could not be regrown. Instead, he learned Mindspeech and Sword Speech (not a Humakti, but could still learn it) and he became annoying in other ways. > I (hopefully) provide enough challenge to keep them > interested, but I am not their nemesis (although I do > play one in the game). > > Anything they figure out how to do, if I think it is > interesting, I go with it, and adopt the idea into my > game. Which means they will see NPC's doing the same > interesting stuff. > > I don't see it as me against them, because I am > playing God, and God always wins. Well, that goes without saying. Roleplaying Games are NOT about the GM beating the players, despite anything I may have said previously. It is about setting a realistic and fun game where players can explore their creativity and have fun. However, having said that, there must be an element of risk, otherwise the game gets boring very quickly. People must be able to die, lose limbs, be captured, lose magic items and be cursed. Not all of the time, not every session, but it must be possible. There isn't always a nice, easy way around some things. > If I really didn't want something to work someway - it > won't. Even spells as written in the book are just > guidelines. I allow modified versions of existing > spells, new spells. I am the rules of nature, I can > decree that magic stops working one day. What an > interesting adventure as your magic using characters > go into panic! Of course, you are the GM and you can have House Rules and rules variants. Pascal: > Simon wrotes : >> Ah, but what happens if, after he has been turned into a trollkin, he loses >> another leg? When he changes back, does he have no legs or one leg? > > Well, as I said before, the magic involved in the spell saves a backup of > the form the target has the moment the spell is cast. > When the spell ends, it revert the target back to that saved form. So, following this through, I shapechange into a trollkin and have two arms chopped off, I have 17 HP normally, so I have 4HPs in each arm, so it doesn't kill me but reduces me to 1 HP. The spell is dispelled and I now have both arms attached. What are my HPs? Do I still have 1 HP or 17HPs? >> It seems as though to avoid limb loss, all you need to do is to Shapechange >> to another species, hack away with no regard, then change back to get your >> limbs back. > > Well yes, but think that this spells have a cost (half size of the > original) which will limit the capacities of the sorcerer to cast other > spells (not all players have a presence of 50+). Presumably this is using Sandy Petersen's Sorcery, which I am not that familiar with. The same principle should apply to Divine Magic (Become Trollkin) or shapechange abilities. OK, "trollkin" is not the best example, but there are Divine Magic spells that transform into other creatures. Oh, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected. Never mind. See Ya Simon From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 14:24:35 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:24:35 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060320111547.84549.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060318170135.91ACD536EC2@mini.thinbits.net> <20060320111547.84549.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0603201924n2a44b12s671d1cf2c119b7de@mail.gmail.com> On 3/20/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Imagine the following scenario. A werewolf changes into a wolf and fights > another, rival, werewolf who bites off his paw and swallows it. The > werewolf > is now minus a paw but transforms back into a man. Does he get a new foot > or > is he missing the appropriate foot? Now, he changes back into wolf form. > Is > he still missing his paw or does he get it back? IMO, the missing appendage is still missing regardless of the shape. Imagine a similar scenario, where a Dragon-Hsunchen Weredragon (they exist) > transforms into a dragon and fights another dragon who bites off his wing. > Now, he transforms back into human form. Obviously, he hasn't got a wing > in > human form, so he can't lose anything. When he transforms into dragon > form, > is the wing still missing or does he get it back? If he gets it back, this > seems a very, very powerful ability - regenerate all damage immediately. For this example, I'd rule that the shoulder would be damaged to the point of being crippled. The arm would still exist but be useless until the damage is healed. Transforming back into a dragon would result in a working leg but a missing wing. > I've got no problems in rewarding inventive players or in allowing > imaginative interpretations of the game - in fact I positively encourage > it. > However, they have to be placed in context and thought through properly, > otherwise you are not doing your job as a GM. One of the responsibilities > of > a GM is to make sure that you campaign is consistent and fair. Exactly. And making a campaign consistent (even if not fair) tends to allow players to figure ways out of nasty situations or avoid them in the first place. My players have learned that there's always a way out of a situation I generate for them; they just have to find it or come up with one of their own. Which they often do, much to my surprise and enjoyment. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060320/ab5fabee/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 21 20:32:56 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:32:56 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060320111547.84549.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't like the RQ-3 shapechange-spells at all, and have altered them all together. What I do like, is the Hunchen-shape-change/totem-animal-connection, and the Telmori curse. What I've done is to change the divine spells, and I've let my houserules be heavily inspired by the shapechangingrules of Werewolf in World of Darkness. So what is a 1pt. divine spell in RQ3 is a "turn from human to near-man-form"-divine 1pt. spell in my houserules. What is a 2pt. divine spell in RQ3 is a "turn from human to animal-form"-divine 2pt. spell in my houserules. What is a 3pt. divine spell in RQ3 is a "turn from human to ultimate fight-form"-divine 3pt. spell in my houserules. What is a 4 pt. divine spell in RQ3 is a "turn congregation into totem-animal-form"-divine 4 pt. spell in my houserules (that can only be pulled off by a fully fledged shaman after a hefty ritual) From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 21 20:40:10 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0603201924n2a44b12s671d1cf2c119b7de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Regarding what limbs are lost/injured etc. I allso let myself be inspired by Werewolf in WoD. If you loose HP in Lion form (where you have more hit points than as a human), i let you have lost a percentage of total HP in that location that is similar to your lion form. If you loose a limb as a lion, you've still lost the limb in homid. If you loose 4 out of 5 HP in homid in your limb, then turn into a lion, you now have 1/5 of the lion shape limb hp, and if that was 10, you now have 2 HP left. If you then loose 2 HP, and return back to homid, you have 0 HP in that location. (so it could be a Munchkin-tactical advantage to turn into a bigger form if you're short on HP in order to try to save the day in a desperate fight with my houserules. It would allso be smarter to fight in animal-shape, and heal in homid (as the homid HP usually are less than the animal-forms you fight in. Say a Werebear (berserk) have 12 hp in its hind leg, fight and loose 9 hp in a fight, he should turn to his homid form to recover (say he's got 4 hp in his hind leg as a human), as he only have to heal 3 hp, as 3/12 = 1/4. From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 07:17:44 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:17:44 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0603201924n2a44b12s671d1cf2c119b7de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0603231217s7c984debv7f6080c40deb976c@mail.gmail.com> I'd rule that the 'shapechange' changes the shape of the character, but doesn't affect FUNCTION. If an originally-bipedal character is missing a leg limb, and must be prone, I'd rule that ANYTHING that charcter shapechanged into would still be that dysfunctioned, since the basic function is impaired regardless of number of legs (little hard to describe how that works for someone shapechanged into a Fachan or a snake, however). Shapechanging a character into a bird might allow them to fly (since that is purely a skeletal/musculature/body weight issue, and they would be totally unfamiliar with it = hilarity ensues), but shapechanging them into dragon doesn't MAKE them a dragon with all of a magical creatures capabilities. My $0.02. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060323/9b847ac3/attachment.html