From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 00:52:14 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:52:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <44F6E9E0.4050909@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20060831145214.38066.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Nope, he can actually do something. It's there in black and white. Well, what passes for black and white in RPGs these days. Cheers, Ash --- Stephen Posey wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: > > I think you're being overly cynical - it's a well > > known fact that Steven Hawking can act before > Jackie > > Chan in a fist fight by virtue of his superior > > intellect. > > Or, at least, he can DECIDE what to do faster. > > Actually DOING it is a somewhat different matter. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From slposey at concentric.net Fri Sep 1 00:58:14 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:58:14 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831145214.38066.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060831145214.38066.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F6F906.7060304@concentric.net> Ashley Munday wrote: > Nope, he can actually do something. It's there in > black and white. Well, what passes for black and white > in RPGs these days. Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was to point out the dubious nature of using INT for this determination. Clearly someone might be able to determine what they SHOULD do, but (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. So INT seems to me an unrealistic choice for actual initiative/strike rank determination. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 01:26:41 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:26:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <44F6F906.7060304@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20060831152641.97609.qmail@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Sorry, My irony detector was malfunctioning! :-) It comes of being a so called IT professional. This INT initiative rule looks like it was inspired by C&S 3rd edition - they did something similar. The difference being here was that C&S 3rd edition took an incredibly complicated game, simplified it and made it a lot cleaner to play. MongQuest on the other hand just looks rushed and overly complicated. Cheers, Ash --- Stephen Posey wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: > > Nope, he can actually do something. It's there in > > black and white. Well, what passes for black and > white > > in RPGs these days. > > Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was to > point out the > dubious nature of using INT for this determination. > > Clearly someone might be able to determine what they > SHOULD do, > but (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. So INT > seems to me > an unrealistic choice for actual initiative/strike > rank > determination. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 03:07:40 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831152641.97609.qmail@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <44F6F906.7060304@concentric.net> <20060831152641.97609.qmail@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: So far it sounds as if the general consensus here on the list viz MRQ is somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive, then? ->Peter On 8/31/06, Ashley Munday wrote: > Sorry, > > My irony detector was malfunctioning! :-) It comes of > being a so called IT professional. > > This INT initiative rule looks like it was inspired by > C&S 3rd edition - they did something similar. > > The difference being here was that C&S 3rd edition > took an incredibly complicated game, simplified it and > made it a lot cleaner to play. MongQuest on the other > hand just looks rushed and overly complicated. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Stephen Posey wrote: > > > Ashley Munday wrote: > > > Nope, he can actually do something. It's there in > > > black and white. Well, what passes for black and > > white > > > in RPGs these days. > > > > Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was to > > point out the > > dubious nature of using INT for this determination. > > > > Clearly someone might be able to determine what they > > SHOULD do, > > but (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. So INT > > seems to me > > an unrealistic choice for actual initiative/strike > > rank > > determination. > > > > Stephen Posey > > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060831/75b0a9f8/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 03:48:41 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060831174841.76462.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My opinion differs somewhat. Probably from having less of a bias from actual RQ playing experience. I am a game collector and self syled game designer. While I am also a player, I have many more games in my collection, than I have ever actually had the time to play. I have Elfquest, Elric!, Strombringer 5th, Call Of Chthulhu 5th & 6th, Runequest 3rd, Basic Rolplaying Sytem, Magic World, Supers World, Future World and the new Mongoose Runquest. Have read them all, but only played a little Elric! so far. The mongoose product does look a little rushed from an errata needing standpoint. System wise it a sound (mostly) basic % system that, that I would easily preferr over D&D. It is still obviously BRP/RQ based and derived, though some details have changed. It has its flaws, every game even the ones listed above, has things I would change (if I was the designer). While I doubt I can talk my gaming group into scouring ebay for out of print copies of Elric! (which I think is better overall and would preferr playing), I probabaly can talk them into buying a copy of the new Mongoose RQ, and as it is all still % based I can still easily use or convert almost any of my chaosium and avalon hill material for use. YMMV gregory --- Peter Maranci wrote: > So far it sounds as if the general consensus here on > the list viz MRQ is > somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive, then? > > ->Peter > > On 8/31/06, Ashley Munday > wrote: > > > Sorry, > > > > My irony detector was malfunctioning! :-) It comes > of > > being a so called IT professional. > > > > This INT initiative rule looks like it was > inspired by > > C&S 3rd edition - they did something similar. > > > > The difference being here was that C&S 3rd edition > > took an incredibly complicated game, simplified it > and > > made it a lot cleaner to play. MongQuest on the > other > > hand just looks rushed and overly complicated. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > > Ashley Munday wrote: > > > > Nope, he can actually do something. It's there > in > > > > black and white. Well, what passes for black > and > > > white > > > > in RPGs these days. > > > > > > Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was > to > > > point out the > > > dubious nature of using INT for this > determination. > > > > > > Clearly someone might be able to determine what > they > > > SHOULD do, > > > but (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. So > INT > > > seems to me > > > an unrealistic choice for actual > initiative/strike > > > rank > > > determination. > > > > > > Stephen Posey > > > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: > http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Sep 1 03:52:21 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:52:21 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: References: <20060831152641.97609.qmail@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F72FE5.17305.1032DF9C@tom.zunder.org.uk> Peter Maranci said on 31 Aug 2006; > > So far it sounds as if the general consensus here on the list viz MRQ > is somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive, then? Well now it's out, I can come off the fence and say what I think.. C, Fair, could have done better. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 04:53:32 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD Message-ID: <20060831185332.62308.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> For me the most important part is that is close enough the previous RQ rules, that any published material can be easily converted. Overall, it looks ok. They could have done worse and there is always better. I am not happy with the Rune (Spirit) Magic, but I can certainly use RQ3 rules in that regard. Grade: B+ Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Peter Maranci said on 31 Aug 2006; > > > > > So far it sounds as if the general consensus here on the list viz MRQ > > is somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive, then? > > Well now it's out, I can come off the fence and say what I think.. > > C, Fair, could have done better. > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 05:22:03 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:22:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060831192203.99868.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I'd give it a D. It doesn't fix anything that was wrong with RQ III and actually complicates the system. Instead of trying to converge the various bits of the mechanics it tugs them further apart. Cheers, Ash --- Peter Maranci wrote: > So far it sounds as if the general consensus here on > the list viz MRQ is > somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive, then? > > ->Peter > > On 8/31/06, Ashley Munday > wrote: > > > Sorry, > > > > My irony detector was malfunctioning! :-) It comes > of > > being a so called IT professional. > > > > This INT initiative rule looks like it was > inspired by > > C&S 3rd edition - they did something similar. > > > > The difference being here was that C&S 3rd edition > > took an incredibly complicated game, simplified it > and > > made it a lot cleaner to play. MongQuest on the > other > > hand just looks rushed and overly complicated. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > > Ashley Munday wrote: > > > > Nope, he can actually do something. It's there > in > > > > black and white. Well, what passes for black > and > > > white > > > > in RPGs these days. > > > > > > Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was > to > > > point out the > > > dubious nature of using INT for this > determination. > > > > > > Clearly someone might be able to determine what > they > > > SHOULD do, > > > but (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. So > INT > > > seems to me > > > an unrealistic choice for actual > initiative/strike > > > rank > > > determination. > > > > > > Stephen Posey > > > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: > http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From slposey at concentric.net Fri Sep 1 06:02:44 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:02:44 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831174841.76462.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060831174841.76462.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F74064.3090609@concentric.net> grogthing wrote: > My opinion differs somewhat. Probably from having less > of a bias from actual RQ playing experience. > > I am a game collector and self syled game designer. > > While I am also a player, I have many more games in my > collection, than I have ever actually had the time to > play. Dang, sounds like we're birds of a feather, I lost count a while ago of how many RPG systems I have and have only actually played a handful of them. > I have Elfquest, Elric!, Strombringer 5th, Call Of > Chthulhu 5th & 6th, Runequest 3rd, Basic Rolplaying > Sytem, Magic World, Supers World, Future World and the > new Mongoose Runquest. Ditto on the BRP related stuff, 'cept for Mongoose RQ. On the BRP-based shelf I've also got Stormbringer 1-4, Hawkmoon, the French language Hawkmoon Nouvelle Edition, the Boxed SuperWorld set, Ringworld, Other Suns, RQ 1, 2, and the aborted RQ:AIG. > Have read them all, but only played a little Elric! so > far. I have played RQ, Stormbringer, & CoC. > The mongoose product does look a little rushed from an > errata needing standpoint. System wise it a sound > (mostly) basic % system that, that I would easily > preferr over D&D. It is still obviously BRP/RQ based > and derived, though some details have changed. It has > its flaws, every game even the ones listed above, has > things I would change (if I was the designer). My experience of Mongoose is that they tend to get ahead of themselves and have to rush. The first edition core book for the Conan RPG was VERY typo ridden and a couple of rules issues should have become apparent if they'd actually been playtested thoroughly. > While I doubt I can talk my gaming group into scouring > ebay for out of print copies of Elric! (which I think > is better overall and would preferr playing), I > probabaly can talk them into buying a copy of the new > Mongoose RQ, and as it is all still % based I can > still easily use or convert almost any of my chaosium > and avalon hill material for use. Understood, it's tough when the system you prefer is OOP. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 06:14:22 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:14:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608311314s114a7df8pa21291bbc1d39eb9@mail.gmail.com> Fatigue and Encumberance - every game I've played we've either used that game's fatigue rules (and hated the tedious bookkeeping) or ignored them entirely, only at some point to snigger that the GM's let us get away with lugging around 2 suits of armor, 500 arrows, and 15,000 coins of various denominations. I like the RQ3 system theoretically, but it too ends up taking too much pointless detail time. Tracking penalties by 1% is too granular. Here's something I've been toying with, but I've got a couple of bugs I'm hoping people can help me iron out (or trash my idea altogether - no problem there). I freely acknowledge that the kernel of this may be someone else's idea I saw/read/heard about somewhere, sometime. My apologies to whomever. You can tell from my extensive 'options' listed that it's only an idea-in-progress, and I will have to aggressively pare down my idea(s) if I want to stick to the goal of playability. "NEW FATIGUE/ENCUMBERANCE RULES" [stuff in brackets is optional] Your "load" is what you have on you in lbs (or for the metric, KG x 2). Worn armor counts as weight in lbs /2. [Personally I'm inclined to say it's /2 if flexible armor only - rigid plates are full value, and head armor is always full weight.] Any time a player rolls a "0" on any %die, for any reason, they check against fatigue. Rolled 00? That's 2 checks. [I'd also be inclined to say that everyone who rolls initiative for a combat, at the end of that combat, checks once just from the adrenaline stress.]["0 on any die" might be too frequent, what's that, 19% chance? Maybe just "0" on the 1s die - ie 10, 20, 30, 40....00.] Roll 1d20+(load/10). If you exceed your STR [or SIZ? Average of the two?], you're tired. As a GM, every time a player gets tired, I'd hand them a poker chip as a marker. Thenceforward, for each poker chip, that player's character is 10% penalty on every skill chance for anything. [I'd even say -10% damage, since it's easy math.][I use a d20 initiative system, so I'd also apply a 2pt initiative penalty.][Go in reverse INT order for statement of intent? For the purposes of this, his/her INT is INT minus current poker chips.] Long term fatigue: walk/hike all day, you're going to be tired. Check against fatigue per 1 hour hiking, or per 2 hours on a road/mount, per 3 hours if mounted & traveling by road, per 4 hours by carriage/wagon? Extra checks if it's hot? If your characters don't have enough food/water? RECOVERY: For every hour you rest, you get to dispose of 1 chip. For each hour of sleep, 2 chips. [Personally, my players LIKE to roll dice, so I might instead say that to dispose of a chip, roll d20 <=CON. 1 die for every hour of rest, 2 dice for every hour of sleep, 3 dice for every hour of GOOD, totally comfortable sleep] The basic system, if you strip away all my exceptions, is pretty darn simple. And with the long term fatigue rule you remove the "Rurik just hiked 5 hours with 80 lbs on his back, but when he enters combat he drops his pack and now is unencumbered/unfatigued." Comments/Criticisms? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060831/dc411981/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 1 09:54:39 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608310640w1c8e8de0mb94e1ff08ccc343d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060831235439.99484.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > > And the APs for weapons....2AP for a GLAIVE? (same > as a dagger).....? > (JarJar Binks voice) Wha...!?!? Oh yes, I was coming to that... > Not to mention the damage bonus for high STR goes > from 1d12 to 2d6...I'm > always jarred by a callous disregard for probability > curves. *shudder* > or anywhere near it...let's not subject MRQ to the > harsh sterile light of > the pathology table, while RQ2/3 rests > sanctimoniously in our rose-colored > memory. This is true enough; RQ2 and RQ3 both had big problems (heck, this list probably wouldn't exist if they didn't). However after twenty-two years since the publication of RQ3, one would think, just for a moment, that game design would have improved, that faulty rules could be recognised quickly and so forth. > I think it's a good effort at producing an RQ that > is somewhat simpler. Am > I going to play it? Nah, I like my house rules as > they are. Do I think it > may draw people to the RQ system? On this point I think we will disagree. I don't see why anyone would give up D&D v3.5 to play this. Perhaps the supplements will be better. All the best, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 1 15:11:10 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review Message-ID: <20060901051110.12839.qmail@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Feel free to condemn, criticise, praise or circulate. Mongoose RuneQuest SRD: A Long and Detailed Review Introduction. My introduction to RuneQuest was in 1981 as the first role playing game I participated in. I have long considered it to one of the most superior games available. I participated significantly in the new Mongoose edition of the game, given that it has been over twenty years since an edition was published. The playtest group was not always the best experience; at one stage months went by without any communication from Mongoose. Rules changes appeared to be written at random, with little consideration of the comments by testers or the basic principles of design. Nevertheless, I persisted and was included in the final playtest reserved for the "hardcore" and "inner circle" of testers (their words). I was a little surprised to discover that I was not listed as a playtester when the introductory PDFs were released. Matthew Sprange, listed as author and designer, promised to fix this prior to the game going to printers. I have not actually seen the print version of the game due to the tyranny of distance (I'm in Australia), so I do not know whether Mr. Sprange carried out his committment. I hope he did, not that this changes my review one way or another. I have no idea what's actually in the final print version rules, apart from what I've read in reviews. I have had, however, an opportunity in the last twenty four hours to read the SRD which shows some significant changes to the final playtest version. Chapter One. Creating an Adventurer. Characters have seven characteristics (STR, CON, DEX, SIZ, INT, POW, CHA) which is very RuneQuest. Although not mentioned in the SRD, like all other version of BRP we can assume these are generated on 3d6, or 2d6+6 for INT and SIZ. We read: "All characters and creatures have seven Characteristics." Really? Like Spirits? Forsooth, the empty set! Attributes are derived from characteristics. These include Combat Actions, Damage Modifier, Hit Points, Magic Points and Strike Rank. Combat Actions max out at 19 DEX for four combat actions; so DEX 19 and DEX 190 give the same number of combat actions. Damage modifer (STR + SIZ) max out at 200. But Hit Points (SIZ + CON) keep on going and going and going. A simple editorial change (like the word "etc") would have fixed this. Also the damage bonus is contrary to the laws of probability; the damage bonus *decreases* from 1d12 to 2d6 at the 60 STR+SIZ breakpoint. Finally, Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... INT. As one commentator dryly remarked: "it's a well known fact that Steven Hawking can act before Jackie Chan in a fist fight by virtue of his superior intellect." Basic skills are based on characteristics, which is lot quicker than earlier editions, and varies not only in characteristic value, but the number of characteristics used. For example all close combat is based on STR+DEX, except unarmed which is STR, but range is DEX only. This means on average that the base chance using ranged weapons or unarmed fighters will have half the ability of close combat fighters, a problem prevalent throughout; some skills are based on two characteristics, some on one and some on 10+char and some on 10+char - (another) char (usually SIZ). Munchkim gamers; pick those skills with two positive modifiers. "Cultural" background (barbarian, peasant, townsman and noble) gives previous experience. Apparently "peasant" and "noble" are "cultures" in their own right, a significant retardation from the more sociologically accurate RuneQuest III. Munchkin gamers; there is no reason why anyone shouldn't pick Noble. They get more advanced skill choices and much more money, although strangely everyone gets the same level in starting language. So much for eloquotion and grammar school. Professions (Alchemist, Bard, Diplomat, Farmer, Lord, Mercenary, Merchant, Scholar etc) give you roughly 50% in basic skills. No "women's work" of course. Some give a little less, but some advanced skill options or magic instead (at a rate of 10% per loss in basic skills). Everyone starts with an additional 100 skill points. Everyone is aged between 18 and 30. Everyone has a movement rate of 4m. Everyone has 2 Hero Points. Apart from RQ suddently getting an attack of political correctness (remember when RQ characters started in their mid-teens with their "Coming of Age" ceremony?), the idea that an 18 year old having the same degree of skill as a 30 year old is just ridiculous. Chapter Two. Skills. Skill tests are determined by rolling under your rating on d100 with modifications according to difficulty and haste. A critical success occurs if you roll under 10% of your skill and a fumble occurs on a roll of 00. Opposed tests are designed so there is always a victor. If both fail, whoever rolls the lowest wins. But if both succeed, whoever rolls the highest wins. Not only is it contrary to common sense that multiple participants can fail or succeed simulataneously, the changing of the resolution mechanic is annoying and will confusing to novices. The mechanic used to resolve opposed skill rolls with characters having greater than 100% is to keep dividing until both characters have a rating below 100%. This results in serious statistical problems, which is an issue given the fact that the improvement system will result in characters with their skills over 100% in a short period of gaming. Again, the laws of probability are not a strong point in this game. Munchkin gamers; try to get your skills high, but not above 100% as you're chance of success in opposed rolls will be reduced. Skill descriptions are brief at best; examples of difficulty are usually not provided. There are twenty basic skills, fourteen advanced skills, 16 melee skills and 4 ranged weapons skills, and one magic skill (runecasting); this does not include specialisations, such as languages, lores or runecasting, which is actually thirty-five different skills. Melee and ranged weapon skills are basic skills. Advanced skills are usually an elaboration on a basic skill (e.g., First Aid is basic, Healing is advanced) or a deep specialisation (e.g., Lore (World) is basic, Lore (Theology) is advanced). Some interesting elements; having a language skill of 80% or higher indicates literacy. Presumably a starting character, with 50%, knows how to write their name at best. First Aid and Healing skill use goes into some detail, specifying how it deals with degrees of wounds (minor, serious, major) and disease, poison etc. Finally, as a necessary break from the detail of earlier editions of RQ, weapon attacks and parries are no longer separate skills. Parts of this chapter (e.g., the critical mechanism, the detail for healing skills) were quite neat. The basic and advanced skill system is a fine idea and reasonably implemented. The opposed tests mechanics are annoying. The lack of examples of difficulty is frustrating; a leaf could have been taken out of Rolemaster Companion II, for example, to see how a percentile system can provide detail on degrees of difficulty. Chapter Three. Combat. Roll a dice and add your strike rank modifier every round. A round is 5 seconds, with a number of actions equal to your CA attribute and an equal number of reactions (dodge, parry, dive, free attack). Surprise reduces your SR by 10 and you cannot apply reactions until your SR is reached. Take 1st action, resolve according to SR, take 2nd action, resolve accordintg to SR etc. Reactions may be applied any time, but only once per "trigger event". Actions include Aim, Cast Spell, Ready Weapon, Flurry, Change Stance - the usual. Roll d100 to hit, opponent rolls d100 to dodge or parry, roll damage, check for knockback, roll for location, subtract armor, apply damage. Easy really! Some of the CAs haven't been thought through. Disarming actions are based entirely on skill; the STR of the attacker or the defender plays no role (although you do get a +20% bonus if your using a two handed weapon). It's also very easy; succeed in your attack, have a quick contest of skill and if you win that, "bye, bye weapon...." Damn, I wish I used that maneuver more often when I took swordfighting lessons. The CA "Charge" is another example and was cited as a broken rule numerous times on the playtest group. No matter how fast you are, or whatever SIZ/STR you are, if you can move a minimum of 5 m you can charge doing an extra 1d4 damage. Whether you're a wounded sylph or a enraged bison, or even the Crimson Bat, your charge bonus will be 1d4. The parry and dodge rules are heavily biased towards the attacker. If you fail an attack roll, and a defender dodges or parries and they fail that roll, you still hit them. For munchkin gamers: If you have a low skill in parry or dodge - do nothing! You are *less* likely to be hit. Wounds are classified as either minor (location at zero hit points), serious (-1 or more), or major (greater than original hit points). A major wound disables a location and may cause death if the wound is on the head, chest or abdomen. Missing two arms? "Most Skills based on STR or DEX are impossible, though some (such as Athletics and Dodge) only suffer a -30% penalty." You suffer on Dodge because your arms are incapacitated? How about two legs? "Most Skills that rely upon physical mobility are impossible, though some (such as Dodge and Stealth) only suffer a -30% penalty" My brain hurts. You lose *both* your legs and you only suffer a -30% to dodge? With regards to Knockback: "If a character is knocked back into a wall or other solid object, he must make a Dodge Skill test or suffer 1D4 damage to a random hit location as they slam into the obstruction." This is regardless of whether you were knocked back 1 metre (for receiving greater than your SIZ in damage) or 10 meters for receiving your SIZ + 50 points of damage. I'm learning to love MRQ physics. It's better than "Toon". Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'. Enough said. Next chapter. Chapter Four. Magic In the playtest group, I spent more than several weeks haranguing my fellows with the line "This game is RuneQuest - it is *about* questing for Runes". Steve Perrin, bless his cotton white socks, came to the rescue with a work which actually linked magic to runic affiliations. Sprange publically dumped all over it, and Perrin, justifiably miffed, left the playtest group. Nevertheless the core concepts remained. Go figure. Now for the rules. Within the third sentence I want to throttle someone. "Characters will automatically regain Magic Points equal to their POW every 10 hours. They will regain this amount in 5 hours if they are fully resting." Magic Points used to represent how much magic you could use *per day*. In RQII you regained 1/4 every six hours. Nice and simple; RQ III made it 1/24th every hour, but noone used that to my knowledge - too much "crunch". But this Mongoose edition increases MP by almost two and a half times and up to... almost six times. "Take my Disruptions!" *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* etc. The new magic system does capture some sense of the title of the game. You find runes, you integrate them, you lose a point of POW and you gain a Runecasting skill appropriate to the rune at the base level (POW+CHA) and a runic power. That's a nice touch, and would be even nicer if they included, again as the playtest group recommended, rune integration into things like "coming of age" or "cult initiation" ceremonies. There is no bonuses gained by integrating multiple copies of the same rune, so presumably the implicit objective of the game is collect as many as you can. Unlike earlier editions of RuneQuest, most people do not have spells. One you have one or more runes you can learn "rune magic", which uses the same sort of spells as "Battle Magic" did in RQ II and "Spririt Magic" did in RQ III. Rune magic spells vary according to magnitude, with different magnitude levels taking a different period of time to learn; one day per level of magnitude. This is, of course, independent of INT or POW or anything sensible like that. "Progressive" spells may be learnt and cast at different levels of magnitude without limit. Bladesharp 10, giving +10 damage and +50% to weapon skill, will take ten days to learn if you have the Metal rune and have learnt it's predecessors. More feed for munchkins. The runes are a physical focus, and in order to cast a spell the caster must physically hold the runes, which rips any sense of "symbolic power" out of the game. Once a spell is cast, either successfully or not (check runecasting skill), magic points are depleted. Targets may then attempt a Resist test to prevent the effects of a spell. Compared to other editions of RuneQuest, the capacity to cast magic is significantly increased through rapid recovery of magic points, but the ability to cast magic is reduced, as is the chance of success (cast test, plus opponents resist test). The integration of runes is very nice, although elder gamers will recognise the concept dating back to Swordbearer. As for the Runes themselves with the spells given there is a certain bias. Most Runes are only useful for one spell, however disorder is good for five and metal, motion and beast for four each. Tied to the Detect subgroup of spells, Truth has a variable number. Make sure, munchkins, that you pick up these. Having one or zero spells listed for Dragon, DragonNewt and Chaos doesn't trouble me so much as these are rather foreign beings and one can assume will be part of referree plots. However, Shadow is a different Rune to Darkness, and "Dragon" is different to "DragonNewt" for no particularly good reason. The one spell listed for Chaos is Skybolt - which is a lightning bolt from the sky spell. Glorantha fans will be horrified; "All hail Orlanth master of Chaos!" Oh well, I guess storms are chaotic after all. Chapter Five: Adventuring and Chapter Six: Equipment The chapter opens with a movement table which gives different rates with distance and time. The human move (no modification for DEX or stride, remember), gives a running speed of 96 metres per minute. "Sprinting" (an Athletics test at -20%) will increase the distance that one runs in one minute from 96m to 120m. Sensible modifications are given for terrain and weather, albeit without examples. The tables for illumination, darkness and perception are very useful and elegant, as are the Fatigue level, effects and recovery rules, although it would have been trivial to add that characters may engage in "Light" activity for CON hours before suffering from effects of fatigue, rather than the suggestion that characters engaged in such activity, never suffer. Exposure, starvation and thirst rules are particularly nasty, as damage resulting from the latter two cannot be healed either naturally or by magic. Actually, to be perfectly honest aren't any rules on Exposure despite the heading. The comments on Healing are brief with more complete rules provided in the actual skill descriptions. The Encumbrance rules are perhaps too simple; there is only two levels - no encumbrance (less than STR+SIZ) or overloaded (less than 2 times STR + SIZ). Falling does a d6 of damage per five metres to a random location with each d6 rolled separately. Wear some armour and a character can largely forget about falling damage. The rules for suffocation, fire, heat, freezing, poisons and disease are all quite reasonable, albeit with the annoying opposed test mechanic used in the latter two instances. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the armour and hit points of inaminate objects. Chapter Six is simply an equipment list; it could have easily been combined with Five. Currency is five lead bits to one copper, ten coppers to a silver and twenty silvers to a gold, which accords with early editions of RQ. The close combat and ranged weapon lists is are mostly fine. The Armour Points of Pole Arms are far too low; if you succesfully parry a dagger with glaive you are likely to still receive damage. The "notoriously difficult" to parry flails cause a rather modest -10% modifier. Long Bows are probably the most frightening weapon in the game, with the same damage (2d8 plus impale), but much quicker reload, lower encumbrance and greater range than the heavy crossbow. Missing of course is the great ease of use for the crossbow versus the months of training required for the longbow. Armour reduces damage according to AP, costs ENC, and carries a skill penalty. It follows RQ II rather than III in terms of the degree of protection (i.e., plate is back to 6, rather than 8). Characters with SIZ less than 5 will have cost and ENC or amour halved and those greater than 21 will have cost and ENC doubled. Clearly the concept is fine but the implementation lacking in graduation. The rest of the equipment lists are fine, with no obvious problems with the inclusion of slaves a nice touch of realism. The food and lodging prices are quite acceptable. The chapter concludes with magic items, specifically crystals and potions. Crystals can either store magic points, enhance spells or power. They are very expensive, with costs measured in gold rather than silver or copper. The somewhat cheaper potions either act as antidotes to poisons, healing or to replinish magic points. Chapter Seven: Improving Adventurers and Chapter Eight: Cults Per story (equivalent to a D&D scenario or module), a character should receives between one and five improvement rolls, and zero and four Hero Points. For a skill to improve a d100 roll at the end of the story greater than the existing skill rating increases the skill by 1d4+1 percent. If the roll is equal to or less than the skill percentage, the increase is 1 percent. Further, skills may be practised (one day per 10% currently in the skill) or researched (which gives a +10% bonus to the improvement roll). Mentors can increase the skill improvement gain. New advanced skills can be learned at their base level at a cost of two improvement rolls. Characteristics can be improved with a cost of three improvement rolls and a successful d100 greater than the existing value, with the exception of SIZ. By themselves, improvement rolls to skills would result in progression at a snail's pace. Combined with practise, research and mentoring, the rate of improvement increases substantially, indeed too quickly. Even if a character failed all their skill improvement rolls, a worst case scenario, they would still improve from 70% to 100% in under nine months of practise! Rather than "days", "weeks" may have been a better time frame - resulting in just over four and a half years using the same example. Hero Points may be used to purchase "Legendary Abilities". These are cinematic skills such as "Born to the Saddle" which allow a person to use their Ride skill rather than Dodge in combat. Given the Riding skill requisite for this ability is 90%, you can imagine what it'll be like. Whilst contrary to previous editions of RuneQuest (which gave "legendary abilities" at high levels of cult-specific divine magic), these are not all entirely combat orientated. Runelord and Runepriest are listed as "Legendary Abilities", with the former costing two points more (12 to 10). The advantages are not specified and are presumably cult-specific. One example cult is given in chapter 8 of the SRD, "The Brotherhood of Mithras". Example worshippers, cult skills, duties, spells and special benefits are provided. There is no mention of the old RuneQuest approach of "History of the Cult", "Reason for Continued Existence" or, strangely, any mention of the benefits of being a Runelord or Runepriest. Divine Intervention is also described; character's may appeal for Divine Intervention once per month with a d100 less than or equal to the character's POW and with the loss of POW equal to the roll if the Intervention request succeeds. Again, there is no evident benefit from being a Runepriest or lord. Chapter Nine: Creatures Creatures with a random INT are capable of self-determination; creatures with a fixed INT are not considered sentient. Creatures may also have traits, such as Breathe Flame, Dark Sight, Excellent Swimmer and so forth. Oddly, "Flying" is not a trait although some creatures are quite capable of it. The creature list in the SRD is a mere 18 beasties, mostly of the carnivorous natural variety (lions, wolves) or monsters (manticores, griffins, dragons) and some humanoid species (e.g., great trolls). Yes, our dear friends the bipedal sentient Ducks are included. Notably absent are mainstays such as ghosts, various chaos creatures (broos, scorpian men, gorps) and ogres. The latter is particularly strange as in the first edition of the playtest they were a player character option! The application of the fixed INT rule seems wildly inappropriate in some cases; the brown bear, the griffin, the horse, the lion, and the manticore are all creatures incapable of "logical thought and self-determination". It would have been much better to apply the fixed INT rule like in RQ III where fixed INT represented a creature governed by instinct. Conclusion Despite great enthusiasm over a new edition of RuneQuest, the actual product itself must be evaluated as it is written. To be blunt, it simply cannot be recommended. Character abilities are full of unjustifiable limitations. The base skill level is a nice simplification, but with an unbalanced implementation. The combat system, especially the parry and dodge rules and the charge and disarm combat actions and damage effects, is completely broken and beyond repair. The new magic system, whilst a great concept, is poorly implemented; it both unbalanced and lacking the superb sense of wonder generated in earlier editions. A local gaming store, having kept many copies of RQ III in shrink wrap over years and has been selling this stock (the Deluxe Rule Book, Dorastor and River of Cradles in one pack) for a mere $20 AUD. In recent weeks, I have bought *seven* copies, to add to the four copies I already own - that's how much I like RuneQuest. Heck, I'll probably buy their remaining stock. OK, so I'm starting a new campaign as well. But the point is, I can't see myself buying a new copy of MRQ (at $45 AUD) in preference. Which is a damn *painful* thing to write, having spent months and months working on the playtest and coaxing the designer to (a) pay attention to what the RQ community wants and (b) pay attention to the basic principles of game design. Not to mention wanting, so very badly, to write up ElfPack and DwarfPack. Maybe I'll do these for HeroQuest instead... Lev Lafayette. September 01, 2006 http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/0609mrq.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 17:45:09 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:45:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608311314s114a7df8pa21291bbc1d39eb9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060901074509.95409.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> One way I've found of speeding up RQ III style fatigue was to only assess fatigue at the end of each minute of play. Another thing you could do is just wing it: Instead of all the tedious mucking about is stick your finger in the air and say: "You've been forced marching all day, that's 8 FP off the lot of you until you get some sleep." Finally if it's getting in the way of play, just bin a fatigue system. Most of the games I play these days (apart from RQ) don't have one and they work alright. Cheers, Ash PS: Any form of stackable chips that can be piled up in heaps of 5 or 10 to make for easy subtraction is a good way of simplifying the bookeeping as well. --- Styopa wrote: > Fatigue and Encumberance - every game I've played > we've either used that > game's fatigue rules (and hated the tedious > bookkeeping) or ignored them > entirely, only at some point to snigger that the > GM's let us get away with > lugging around 2 suits of armor, 500 arrows, and > 15,000 coins of various > denominations. > > I like the RQ3 system theoretically, but it too ends > up taking too much > pointless detail time. Tracking penalties by 1% is > too granular. > > Here's something I've been toying with, but I've got > a couple of bugs I'm > hoping people can help me iron out (or trash my idea > altogether - no problem > there). I freely acknowledge that the kernel of > this may be someone else's > idea I saw/read/heard about somewhere, sometime. My > apologies to whomever. > You can tell from my extensive 'options' listed that > it's only an > idea-in-progress, and I will have to aggressively > pare down my idea(s) if I > want to stick to the goal of playability. > > "NEW FATIGUE/ENCUMBERANCE RULES" [stuff in brackets > is optional] > Your "load" is what you have on you in lbs (or for > the metric, KG x 2). > Worn armor counts as weight in lbs /2. [Personally > I'm inclined to say it's > /2 if flexible armor only - rigid plates are full > value, and head armor is > always full weight.] > > Any time a player rolls a "0" on any %die, for any > reason, they check > against fatigue. Rolled 00? That's 2 checks. [I'd > also be inclined to say > that everyone who rolls initiative for a combat, at > the end of that combat, > checks once just from the adrenaline stress.]["0 on > any die" might be too > frequent, what's that, 19% chance? Maybe just "0" > on the 1s die - ie 10, > 20, 30, 40....00.] > > Roll 1d20+(load/10). If you exceed your STR [or > SIZ? Average of the two?], > you're tired. As a GM, every time a player > gets tired, I'd hand them a poker chip as a marker. > > Thenceforward, for each poker chip, that player's > character is 10% penalty > on every skill chance for anything. [I'd even say > -10% damage, since it's > easy math.][I use a d20 initiative system, so I'd > also apply a 2pt > initiative penalty.][Go in reverse INT order for > statement of intent? For > the purposes of this, his/her INT is INT minus > current poker chips.] > > Long term fatigue: walk/hike all day, you're going > to be tired. Check > against fatigue per 1 hour hiking, or per 2 hours on > a road/mount, per 3 > hours if mounted & traveling by road, per 4 hours by > carriage/wagon? Extra > checks if it's hot? If your characters don't have > enough food/water? > > RECOVERY: > For every hour you rest, you get to dispose of 1 > chip. For each hour of > sleep, 2 chips. [Personally, my players LIKE to roll > dice, so I might > instead say that to dispose of a chip, roll d20 > <=CON. 1 die for every hour > of rest, 2 dice for every hour of sleep, 3 dice for > every hour of GOOD, > totally comfortable sleep] > > The basic system, if you strip away all my > exceptions, is pretty darn > simple. And with the long term fatigue rule you > remove the "Rurik just > hiked 5 hours with 80 lbs on his back, but when he > enters combat he drops > his pack and now is unencumbered/unfatigued." > > Comments/Criticisms? > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From darthvogel at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 18:09:58 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:09:58 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: <20060901051110.12839.qmail@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these discussions are about rules, background, execution, or of value, productive or constructive. Rather they are all about bitching about how Mongoose screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this person or insulted that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of that and I don?t know why any of you do either. It?s only a F---ing book for crying out loud. I'm going to boil my feelings into the following points: 1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their stuff. All your framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, ect are unchanged unless you find something in the new stuff you like and want to incorporate. 2) No one gives a damn what you think about the licensing/legal stuff...fans don't matter here only the lawyers and business people get a whack at that. If you are developing and don't like, go negotiate something with the publisher you can both live with; otherwise, how your feels, understand, and input about this makes no differece in the whole world. Likewise, your speculation about how it will affect things in the gaming business is equally unimpactful. 3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and can do whatever that want without anyone on this board's permission. Vote with your wallet. If you like buy, if you don't like then don't buy but stop whining like a 2 year old who didn't get their candy. 4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. If its that important to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing and do it your way, and then you can listen to every one bitch at you for not doing it their way. 5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an intense focus on someone publishing a set of guidelines (rules). Rather than discussing rules, implementation, backgrounds, and gaming; this board is throwing a gigantic temper tantrum. Get over it and let?s get back to what this board is supposed to be about. 6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, and I don't care it you like them or not. I'm not trying to start a flame war I'm just tired of Mongoose being the prevailing topic and I'm pointing that out while wondering what the result of all this discussing is supposed to yield. Fred From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Sep 1 18:41:03 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:41:03 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: <20060901074509.95409.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > >One way I've found of speeding up RQ III style fatigue >was to only assess fatigue at the end of each minute >of play. > >Another thing you could do is just wing it: Instead of >all the tedious mucking about is stick your finger in >the air and say: "You've been forced marching all day, >that's 8 FP off the lot of you until you get some >sleep." > >Finally if it's getting in the way of play, just bin a >fatigue system. Most of the games I play these days >(apart from RQ) don't have one and they work alright. > One of the reasons I like the concept (if not all the detail) of the RQIV:AiG fatigue system) is that it's easy to use in the same way the D&D 3e fatigue system works (yes it has one, yes it works): rather than tracking some notional quantity, it simple defines "states" or "conditions", and gives rules mechanics for assessing which one an PC will be in, and what might trigger a transition from one to another. What I'm interested in is knowing whether the PC's are Fresh, Fatigued, Exhausted etc and finding that out / determining it quickly and simply but in a fashion that seems plausible and "fair" to all involved. So Stamina rolls (CON x N) as a threshold mechanism (fail and you transition to a worse state of fatigue, succeed and you don't), with the difficulty of those Stamina rolls being related to the PC's current state of fatigue and load seems both elegant, "plausible" and easy to use. Yes, as ever, the devil's in the details (who calls for rolls, when and so on) - but I've found in this case it's more of a small imp, to be honest. I (and others) suggested something similar in the MRQ playtest - and from what I've seen they've implemented something on these lines. I've also suggested a variant, more closely built off the ENC rules in RQII, to Jason for DBRP, as an optional alternative to the RQIII fatigue point system. Cheers, Nick Middleton From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 18:55:15 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:55:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060901085515.80474.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Funny, looks like most of the post you're replying to is about rules - how they're different from what the previous standard was (i.e. RQIII). You said: "I don't give a shit about any of that and I don?t know why any of you do either. It?s only a F---ing book for crying out loud." And this is just an eff-you-see-kaying mailing list, so why are you getting upset? Bring up a topic that interests you or read a list that covers what you want to see. Ash --- Fred Vogel wrote: > > I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these > discussions are about > rules, background, execution, or of value, > productive or constructive. > Rather they are all about bitching about how > Mongoose screwed this up or how > Mongoose slighted this person or insulted that. > Whatever. I don't give a > shit about any of that and I don?t know why any of > you do either. It?s only > a F---ing book for crying out loud. > > I'm going to boil my feelings into the following > points: > > 1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their > stuff. All your > framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, ect > are unchanged unless > you find something in the new stuff you like and > want to incorporate. > > 2) No one gives a damn what you think about the > licensing/legal stuff...fans > don't matter here only the lawyers and business > people get a whack at that. > If you are developing and don't like, go negotiate > something with the > publisher you can both live with; otherwise, how > your feels, understand, and > input about this makes no differece in the whole > world. Likewise, your > speculation about how it will affect things in the > gaming business is > equally unimpactful. > > 3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and can > do whatever that want > without anyone on this board's permission. Vote > with your wallet. If you > like buy, if you don't like then don't buy but stop > whining like a 2 year > old who didn't get their candy. > > 4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. > If its that important > to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing and do it > your way, and then you > can listen to every one bitch at you for not doing > it their way. > > 5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an > intense focus on someone > publishing a set of guidelines (rules). Rather than > discussing rules, > implementation, backgrounds, and gaming; this board > is throwing a gigantic > temper tantrum. Get over it and let?s get back to > what this board is > supposed to be about. > > 6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, and > I don't care it you like > them or not. I'm not trying to start a flame war > I'm just tired of Mongoose > being the prevailing topic and I'm pointing that out > while wondering what > the result of all this discussing is supposed to > yield. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 19:23:08 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:23:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060901051122.7EC7DB652B1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060901092308.70527.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > For me the most important part is that is close enough > the previous RQ rules, that any published material can > be easily converted. My thoughts exactly. There will be new supplements for Second Age Glorantha, which will please people like me, for other worlds and for generic settings. This can only be a good thing. It looks as though they might please the Gloranthaphiles and Gloranthaphobes, which is quite a trick if they can get away with it. > Overall, it looks ok. They could have done worse and > there is always better. Absolutely, it isn;t as bad as I thought it might be. > I am not happy with the Rune (Spirit) Magic, but I can > certainly use RQ3 rules in that regard. Well, yes, but the new supplements might fix the magic system or introduce better ones. We'll have to wait and see. > Grade: B+ Yup, that's about right. Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/60682d78/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 22:11:26 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:11:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/595f29ed/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 22:51:46 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:51:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good grief. I hope I won't get flamed for discussing DBRP here when/if that ever comes out. But if a change of subject is THAT desperately needed...I'm thinking of updating my RQ site. It's been four months after all. I'll be added some sort of "What the hell is going on with RuneQuest?" bit to the front page, just because SO many people seem to be confused about MRQ, but I'd like to add some new game content as well. A long time ago I worked up a rough system of charms for RQ, small items that add to skill rolls. I'd like to develop that some more and post it on my site. Is anyone going to object if I throw it open to the list to discuss? Speak now, or forever hold your peace! :D Oh, and for the record: I'm very interested in this whole MRQ thing, and I enjoy reading about it here. But I'm not a Gloranthaphile; I'm a Staffordphobe. I AM disgruntled, though. :D ->Peter On 9/1/06, Roger Benham wrote: > > Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a giant dummy spitting > exercise for disgruntled and disappointed Gloranthaphiles for now... can't > we discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor am I ever likely to > (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play) so lets get back on track..? Please? > > ------------------------------ > From: *"Fred Vogel" * > Reply-To: *"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." * > To: *rq-rules at crashbox.com* > Subject: *RE: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review* > Date: *Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:09:58 -0500* > > > > > >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these discussions are > >about rules, background, execution, or of value, productive or > >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching about how Mongoose > >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this person or insulted > >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of that and I don't > >know why any of you do either. It's only a F---ing book for crying > >out loud. > > > >I'm going to boil my feelings into the following points: > > > >1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their stuff. All > >your framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, ect are > >unchanged unless you find something in the new stuff you like and > >want to incorporate. > > > >2) No one gives a damn what you think about the licensing/legal > >stuff...fans don't matter here only the lawyers and business people > >get a whack at that. If you are developing and don't like, go > >negotiate something with the publisher you can both live with; > >otherwise, how your feels, understand, and input about this makes no > >differece in the whole world. Likewise, your speculation about how > >it will affect things in the gaming business is equally unimpactful. > > > >3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and can do whatever that > >want without anyone on this board's permission. Vote with your > >wallet. If you like buy, if you don't like then don't buy but stop > >whining like a 2 year old who didn't get their candy. > > > >4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. If its that > >important to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing and do it your > >way, and then you can listen to every one bitch at you for not doing > >it their way. > > > >5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an intense focus on > >someone publishing a set of guidelines (rules). Rather than > >discussing rules, implementation, backgrounds, and gaming; this > >board is throwing a gigantic temper tantrum. Get over it and let's > >get back to what this board is supposed to be about. > > > >6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, and I don't care it > >you like them or not. I'm not trying to start a flame war I'm just > >tired of Mongoose being the prevailing topic and I'm pointing that > >out while wondering what the result of all this discussing is > >supposed to yield. > > > >Fred > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > ------------------------------ > Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to deal with junk e-mail > here! > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/c72f22df/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 23:09:43 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:09:43 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609010609l6dd56947o26b8e8aa28315b74@mail.gmail.com> Anyone else find it ironic that someone spends 8 paragraphs bitching that this list spends too much time on whinging and too little time on rules? How Ouroboran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/8de80b2c/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Fri Sep 1 23:21:26 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:21:26 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060901092308.70527.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060901092308.70527.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F833D6.40100@brinkdata.se> Having read the MRQ SRD, it's fair to say that I won't buy the book. That being said there are a few tidbits that I will transform for my own game, free attacks being one. But then I use Stormbringer (SB) as my BRP baseline game these days. In fact, after reading the MRQ SRD, I felt that there were more of a SB feeling to the game than RQ II/III. For example: SB uses DEX as strike ranks (counting down); SB has treated parries and dodges as reactions right from the start (and that's why the free attack rule fits in nicely), but in SB the characters skill is modified by -30% per every parry or dodge; the character generation process is similar to the one used up to SB 4th ed (I prefer the current one - a percentile point pool). There are oddities of course. The initiative system has been mentioned, the notion of that a failed attack hits if the opponent chooses to react and then fails is - to put it mildly - odd. The weapon damage values are strange (IMO), they are as a rule quite a bit lower than in other BRP games. This will have the result that the damage bonus becomes a, IMHO, disproportionally large part of the total damage done. The armour values are at RQ II levels, but those values where very setting specific. Bronze age armour doesn't cover as much of the body as middle-age type armour does. I have seen the book and it does not appeal to me at all (visually speaking) and it seems to men like Mongoose have made the wrong choices (from my POW) on almost all deviation points from RQ. So in my book this game get a C. /Peter Brink From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Fri Sep 1 23:26:12 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:26:12 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <44F833D6.40100@brinkdata.se> References: <20060901092308.70527.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> <44F833D6.40100@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <44F834F4.2080104@brinkdata.se> Peter Brink skrev: > > I have seen the book and it does not appeal to me at all (visually > speaking) and it seems to men like Mongoose have made the wrong choices ^^^^^^^^ > (from my POW) on almost all deviation points from RQ. So in my book this > game get a C. > Oouch - what an ugly typo... Sorry... It should have read: " I have seen the book and it does not appeal to me at all (visually speaking) and it seems like Mongoose have made the wrong choices (from my POW) on almost all deviation points from RQ." /Peter From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 23:46:44 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: References: <20060901074509.95409.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> And, not surprisingly, I use a system similar to Nick's. I say "not surprisingly" because I searched the Web some years back and found the following. I believe it's from Nick's site and it has worked well for me ever since. Bravo, Nick! And thank you! David FATIGUE STATES and PENALTIES Normal: The character is not fatigued. Tired: 10% penalty to all percentile rolls made by the character and +1 to DEX SR. Weary: 20% penalty to all percentile rolls made by the character and +2 to DEX SR. Exhausted: Halve character's skills, assess a further 20% penalty to all percentile rolls made by the character, and +4 to DEX SR. Incapacitated: Character must pass a CONx1 roll to act at all. If successful, actions are treated as if Exhausted. Otherwise, the character can do nothing. Regardless of fatigue penalties, a roll of 01 will remain a critical and a modified roll of 100+ will be a fumble. Example: a mercenary with 100% Shortsword skill becomes Tired while fighting a dwarf bouncer. He rolls an attack of 02, normally a critical, but it is modified to be a 07, resulting in a special instead. Had he rolled 01, the result would have been a critical. If he were Weary and rolled a 91, normally a hit, it would be modified to 101, and treated as a fumble. If he became Exhausted, his Shortsword skill would be reduced to 50% and a roll of 05, normally a special, would be modified to a 25, resulting in a normal hit. SHORT-TERM FATIGUE LOSS: After every 5 rounds of extreme exertion, characters must make a fatigue roll, based on the below table, to avoid fatigue loss. A failed fatigue roll means the character drops one fatigue state and suffers the associated penalties. Total ENC <= Fatigue Roll ------------ ------------------ STRx1 CONx5 STRx2 CONx4 STRx3 CONx3 STRx4 CONx2 STRx5 CONx1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/66c56a89/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 1 23:57:51 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:57:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060901135751.72443.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Nick, I toyed with the idea of using a fatigue roll system but never really got the RQIVAiG system to work. The advantages are it doesn't take a lot of bookeeping. Shame about the rest of it! Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > > >One way I've found of speeding up RQ III style > fatigue > >was to only assess fatigue at the end of each > minute > >of play. > > > >Another thing you could do is just wing it: Instead > of > >all the tedious mucking about is stick your finger > in > >the air and say: "You've been forced marching all > day, > >that's 8 FP off the lot of you until you get some > >sleep." > > > >Finally if it's getting in the way of play, just > bin a > >fatigue system. Most of the games I play these days > >(apart from RQ) don't have one and they work > alright. > > > > One of the reasons I like the concept (if not all > the detail) of the > RQIV:AiG fatigue system) is that it's easy to use in > the same way the D&D > 3e fatigue system works (yes it has one, yes it > works): rather than > tracking some notional quantity, it simple defines > "states" or > "conditions", and gives rules mechanics for > assessing which one an PC will > be in, and what might trigger a transition from one > to another. > > What I'm interested in is knowing whether the PC's > are Fresh, Fatigued, > Exhausted etc and finding that out / determining it > quickly and simply but > in a fashion that seems plausible and "fair" to all > involved. So Stamina > rolls (CON x N) as a threshold mechanism (fail and > you transition to a > worse state of fatigue, succeed and you don't), with > the difficulty of > those Stamina rolls being related to the PC's > current state of fatigue and > load seems both elegant, "plausible" and easy to > use. Yes, as ever, the > devil's in the details (who calls for rolls, when > and so on) - but I've > found in this case it's more of a small imp, to be > honest. > > I (and others) suggested something similar in the > MRQ playtest - and from > what I've seen they've implemented something on > these lines. I've also > suggested a variant, more closely built off the ENC > rules in RQII, to Jason > for DBRP, as an optional alternative to the RQIII > fatigue point system. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Sep 1 23:59:45 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:59:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: David (and list), >And, not surprisingly, I use a system similar to Nick's. I say "not surprisingly" because >I searched the Web some years back and found the following. I believe it's from Nick's site and it has worked well for me ever since. Bravo, Nick! >And thank you! Honesty compels me to fess up that, err, wasn't me! I have never had a web site, and whilst I recognise the broad details (so may well have been influenced by this at some point) it wasn't the system I had specifically in mind. But it does look good, and I like the idea of fatigue slowing a character in combat (increasing SR) - that chimes very strongly with my steel weapon combat experience... Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:09:20 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:09:20 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Nick's point reminds me of what I've always considered one of the strongest points in favor of RuneQuest: that it was designed by people based on their real SCA combat experiences. I suppose basing it on REAL combat experience might lead to an even better system, but I imagine that Steve Perrin might object to being forced to battle for his life with a sword and shield in an area somewhere. :D ->Peter On 9/1/06, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > David (and list), > > >And, not surprisingly, I use a system similar to Nick's. I say "not > surprisingly" because > >I searched the Web some years back and found the following. I believe > it's > from Nick's site and it has worked well for me ever since. Bravo, Nick! > >And thank you! > > Honesty compels me to fess up that, err, wasn't me! > > I have never had a web site, and whilst I recognise the broad details (so > may well have been influenced by this at some point) it wasn't the system > I > had specifically in mind. > > But it does look good, and I like the idea of fatigue slowing a character > in combat (increasing SR) - that chimes very strongly with my steel weapon > combat experience... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/79f8b464/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 00:27:24 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:27:24 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609010727o4bcc55aco27f9db193c9aea4b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/1/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I suppose basing it on REAL combat experience might lead to an even better > system, but I imagine that Steve Perrin might object to being forced to > battle for his life with a sword and shield in an area somewhere. :D > The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/d96e07b1/attachment.html From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 00:36:00 2006 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 07:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060901143600.98601.qmail@web54205.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Oh, and for the record: I'm very interested in this > whole MRQ thing, and I > enjoy reading about it here. I enjoy reading about it here, as well. I think it is on-topic for this list since Mongoose is publishing something that claims to be "Runequest" and this is a list for the discussion of Runequest. Why would any independent publisher use the Mongoose SRD? It seems to me that someone could publish a fully compatable product without using the Mongoose SRD. All they'd have to do is re-write the rules. Afterall, one can't copyright a rulesystem just the words used to describe it... For the record, I've been reading through the SRD and I don't care for it. I'll wait for DBRP to come out. Cheers, John The political parties and men savagely scrambling for power will scorn me as hopelessly out of tune with our time. I cheerfully admit the charge. I find comfort in the assurance that their hysteria lacks enduring quality. Their hosanna is but of the hour. Man's yearning for liberation from all authority and power will never be soothed by their cracked song. Man's quest for freedom from every shackle is eternal. It must and will go on. --- Emma Goldman Gypsy Punk Revolution: http://www.gogolbordello.com/ They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 2 00:53:53 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 07:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060901145353.52995.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Fred Vogel wrote: > It?s only > a F---ing book for crying out loud. It's only the the edition published for since *1984* "for crying out loud". > 1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their > stuff. All your > framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, ect > are unchanged unless > you find something in the new stuff you like and > want to incorporate. Hey, I hadn't thought of that. > 4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. > If its that important > to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing and do it > your way, and then you > can listen to every one bitch at you for not doing > it their way. If you don't think rules can be improved go play original edition D&D and leave us alone. > 5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an > intense focus on someone > publishing a set of guidelines (rules). Yeah, that's the purpose of the list, sorry, "board". > Rather than > discussing rules, This has to be a troll - and I must say it's a damn good one. "Discussion of Runequest rules" is the name of the "board". > implementation, backgrounds, and gaming; this board > is throwing a gigantic > temper tantrum. Get over it and let?s get back to > what this board is > supposed to be about. Yes. Runequest rules. You're on the wrong "board". > I'm not trying to start a flame war That's the harshest thing you've written. > I'm just tired of Mongoose > being the prevailing topic and I'm pointing that out > while wondering what > the result of all this discussing is supposed to > yield. About discussing Runequest rules? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 2 01:04:54 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060901150454.77328.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Roger, Just for the record, the first time I played RQ set in Glorantha was last year. That is, twenty years after my first RQ game. I am far from being a disgruntled Gloranthaphile. My review had very little to do with with Glorantha per se, rather how the MRQ fell far short of a workable game in a more generic sense. The fact of the matter is that we *have* to discuss RQIV, even if we don't like it - even if it is to say - "No, RQ I, II and II were better". Indeed, the onus is really on us, as people who *know* RQ to say this. Perhaps RQ IV will fall into the sidelines after a few months and we'll go back to discussing RQ II and III rules systems. For the time being, given that it has just been released, it is inevitable that there will be discussion on RQ IV. If anything having a detailed review in the ifrst instance pre-empted a lot of discussion. Regards, Lev --- Roger Benham wrote: --------------------------------- Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a giant dummy spitting exercise for disgruntled and disappointed Gloranthaphiles for now... can't we discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor am I ever likely to (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play) so lets get back on track..? Please? --------------------------------- From: "Fred Vogel" Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:09:58 -0500 > >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these discussions are >about rules, background, execution, or of value, productive or >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching about how Mongoose >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this person or insulted >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of that and I don?t >know why any of you do either. It?s only a F---ing book for crying >out loud. > >I'm going to boil my feelings into the following points: > >1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their stuff. All >your framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, ect are >unchanged unless you find something in the new stuff you like and >want to incorporate. > >2) No one gives a damn what you think about the licensing/legal >stuff...fans don't matter here only the lawyers and business people >get a whack at that. If you are developing and don't like, go >negotiate something with the publisher you can both live with; >otherwise, how your feels, understand, and input about this makes no >differece in the whole world. Likewise, your speculation about how >it will affect things in the gaming business is equally unimpactful. > >3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and can do whatever that >want without anyone on this board's permission. Vote with your >wallet. If you like buy, if you don't like then don't buy but stop >whining like a 2 year old who didn't get their candy. > >4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. If its that >important to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing and do it your >way, and then you can listen to every one bitch at you for not doing >it their way. > >5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an intense focus on >someone publishing a set of guidelines (rules). Rather than >discussing rules, implementation, backgrounds, and gaming; this >board is throwing a gigantic temper tantrum. Get over it and let?s >get back to what this board is supposed to be about. > >6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, and I don't care it >you like them or not. I'm not trying to start a flame war I'm just >tired of Mongoose being the prevailing topic and I'm pointing that >out while wondering what the result of all this discussing is >supposed to yield. > >Fred > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to deal with junk e-mail here! > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 01:32:48 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:32:48 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: <20060901150454.77328.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060901150454.77328.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lev, I forgot to say: I really want to thank you for that detailed review. I found it HIGHLY interesting and helpful. Say, how do they deal with Dodging in MRQ? ->Peter On 9/1/06, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Roger, > > Just for the record, the first time I played RQ set in > Glorantha was last year. That is, twenty years after > my first RQ game. I am far from being a disgruntled > Gloranthaphile. > > My review had very little to do with with Glorantha > per se, rather how the MRQ fell far short of a > workable game in a more generic sense. > > The fact of the matter is that we *have* to discuss > RQIV, even if we don't like it - even if it is to say > - "No, RQ I, II and II were better". Indeed, the onus > is really on us, as people who *know* RQ to say this. > > Perhaps RQ IV will fall into the sidelines after a few > months and we'll go back to discussing RQ II and III > rules systems. For the time being, given that it has > just been released, it is inevitable that there will > be discussion on RQ IV. > > If anything having a detailed review in the ifrst > instance pre-empted a lot of discussion. > > Regards, > > > > Lev > > > > --- Roger Benham wrote: > > > --------------------------------- > > Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a giant > dummy spitting exercise for disgruntled and > disappointed Gloranthaphiles for now... can't we > discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor > am I ever likely to (Its on Glorantha, which I don't > play) so lets get back on track..? Please? > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > From: "Fred Vogel" > Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and > Detailed Review > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:09:58 -0500 > > > >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these > discussions are > >about rules, background, execution, or of value, > productive or > >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching > about how Mongoose > >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this person > or insulted > >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of > that and I don't > >know why any of you do either. It's only a F---ing > book for crying > >out loud. > > > >I'm going to boil my feelings into the following > points: > > > >1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released their > stuff. All > >your framework, backgrounds, characters, house rules, > ect are > >unchanged unless you find something in the new stuff > you like and > >want to incorporate. > > > >2) No one gives a damn what you think about the > licensing/legal > >stuff...fans don't matter here only the lawyers and > business people > >get a whack at that. If you are developing and don't > like, go > >negotiate something with the publisher you can both > live with; > >otherwise, how your feels, understand, and input > about this makes no > >differece in the whole world. Likewise, your > speculation about how > >it will affect things in the gaming business is > equally unimpactful. > > > >3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and can > do whatever that > >want without anyone on this board's permission. Vote > with your > >wallet. If you like buy, if you don't like then > don't buy but stop > >whining like a 2 year old who didn't get their candy. > > > >4) No one is going to make you the perfect product. > If its that > >important to you, buy the rights to the stupid thing > and do it your > >way, and then you can listen to every one bitch at > you for not doing > >it their way. > > > >5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an > intense focus on > >someone publishing a set of guidelines (rules). > Rather than > >discussing rules, implementation, backgrounds, and > gaming; this > >board is throwing a gigantic temper tantrum. Get > over it and let's > >get back to what this board is supposed to be about. > > > >6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, and I > don't care it > >you like them or not. I'm not trying to start a > flame war I'm just > >tired of Mongoose being the prevailing topic and I'm > pointing that > >out while wondering what the result of all this > discussing is > >supposed to yield. > > > >Fred > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > --------------------------------- > Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to deal > with junk e-mail here! > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/6cb2782a/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Sat Sep 2 03:29:41 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:29:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608310640w1c8e8de0mb94e1ff08ccc343d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060901172941.16552.qmail@web27706.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Styopa a ?crit : Indeed. Actually another great broken part of the combat is dodges and parries. Now in the normal world, if you swing your sword at someone and you miss, that's it - you've missed. But in MRQ, if your target fails their dodge or parry - you hit! It's worse than that. If I swing a 2H sword, miss my attack, and you do *nothing* = I simply miss. If I swing the same sword, miss my attack, and you SUCCEED with parry with a dagger = I may damage you if my damage is high enough and your AP low enough (failed attack vs. successful parry = parry with 2x the APs). With 2APs vs 2d8 damage, one might even say it's likely. There has been a discussion on this precise matter on mongoose's forum, and the official answer is that you announce your parry after the attack roll. In other words, if the attack roll miss, you don't make a parry roll. So why is there such a line in the table ? Officially it is in case where forthcoming supplements include ways to force a target to parry. Yes, it is a strange way to justify a mistake... --------------------------------- 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/20060901/ed5a7fd0/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 03:40:41 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:40:41 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44F87099.5010308@gmail.com> I was on that team of original playtesters & contributers (ask Steve) & it was shortly after I got back from very real fighting for my life with steel (admittedly not sword & board though I did use a sword/machete on occasion) as well as lead in 'Nam. So there was real life experience that Steve drew upon as well as SCA experience. takk, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > Nick's point reminds me of what I've always considered one of the > strongest points in favor of RuneQuest: that it was designed by people > based on their real SCA combat experiences. > > I suppose basing it on REAL combat experience might lead to an even > better system, but I imagine that Steve Perrin might object to being > forced to battle for his life with a sword and shield in an area > somewhere. :D > > ->Peter > > On 9/1/06, *Nick.Middleton at invensys.com > * > wrote: > > > David (and list), > > >And, not surprisingly, I use a system similar to Nick's. I say "not > surprisingly" because > >I searched the Web some years back and found the following. I > believe it's > from Nick's site and it has worked well for me ever since. Bravo, > Nick! > >And thank you! > > Honesty compels me to fess up that, err, wasn't me! > > I have never had a web site, and whilst I recognise the broad > details (so > may well have been influenced by this at some point) it wasn't the > system I > had specifically in mind. > > But it does look good, and I like the idea of fatigue slowing a > character > in combat (increasing SR) - that chimes very strongly with my > steel weapon > combat experience... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060901/120b9ad9/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 2 20:11:47 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 03:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060901172941.16552.qmail@web27706.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060902101147.75442.qmail@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > Styopa a ?crit : > Indeed. Actually another great broken part of the > combat is dodges and parries. > > Now in the normal world, if you swing your sword at > someone and you miss, that's it - you've missed. But > in MRQ, if your target fails their dodge or parry - > you hit! > > > It's worse than that. > If I swing a 2H sword, miss my attack, and you do > *nothing* = I simply miss. > If I swing the same sword, miss my attack, and you > SUCCEED with parry with a dagger = I may damage you > if my damage is high enough and your AP low enough > (failed attack vs. successful parry = parry with 2x > the APs). With 2APs vs 2d8 damage, one might even > say it's likely. > > There has been a discussion on this precise matter > on mongoose's forum, and the official answer is that > you announce your parry after the attack roll. In > other words, if the attack roll miss, you don't make > a parry roll. > See, I would say it would make sense if a person *fumbled* their parry or dodge that they were hit, or at least glanced, by a missed blow. You can imagine the chaos and foolishness involved, but such things aren't uncommon in swordfights. > So why is there such a line in the table ? > Officially it is in case where forthcoming > supplements include ways to force a target to parry. > Yes, it is a strange way to justify a mistake... Nice dodge. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 2 20:51:52 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 03:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and Detailed Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060902105152.97579.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Peter. I have been informed that there's a couple of improvements in the main rulebook such as age/experience differences and cult status and apparently Mongoose have disowned the rule which suggests that a failed dodge leads to a hit on a missed blow. To explain the table is a bit tricky; download the SRD and have a look on chapter 3. The new spell point regeneration speed will cause problems I reckon... --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Lev, I forgot to say: I really want to thank you for > that detailed review. I > found it HIGHLY interesting and helpful. > > Say, how do they deal with Dodging in MRQ? > > ->Peter > > On 9/1/06, Lev Lafayette > wrote: > > > > > Roger, > > > > Just for the record, the first time I played RQ > set in > > Glorantha was last year. That is, twenty years > after > > my first RQ game. I am far from being a > disgruntled > > Gloranthaphile. > > > > My review had very little to do with with > Glorantha > > per se, rather how the MRQ fell far short of a > > workable game in a more generic sense. > > > > The fact of the matter is that we *have* to > discuss > > RQIV, even if we don't like it - even if it is to > say > > - "No, RQ I, II and II were better". Indeed, the > onus > > is really on us, as people who *know* RQ to say > this. > > > > Perhaps RQ IV will fall into the sidelines after a > few > > months and we'll go back to discussing RQ II and > III > > rules systems. For the time being, given that it > has > > just been released, it is inevitable that there > will > > be discussion on RQ IV. > > > > If anything having a detailed review in the ifrst > > instance pre-empted a lot of discussion. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Lev > > > > > > > > --- Roger Benham wrote: > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a > giant > > dummy spitting exercise for disgruntled and > > disappointed Gloranthaphiles for now... can't we > > discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing MRQ, > nor > > am I ever likely to (Its on Glorantha, which I > don't > > play) so lets get back on track..? Please? > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > From: "Fred Vogel" > > Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD: A Long and > > Detailed Review > > Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:09:58 -0500 > > > > > >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of > these > > discussions are > > >about rules, background, execution, or of value, > > productive or > > >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching > > about how Mongoose > > >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this > person > > or insulted > > >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of > > that and I don't > > >know why any of you do either. It's only a > F---ing > > book for crying > > >out loud. > > > > > >I'm going to boil my feelings into the following > > points: > > > > > >1) Nothing has changed since mongoose released > their > > stuff. All > > >your framework, backgrounds, characters, house > rules, > > ect are > > >unchanged unless you find something in the new > stuff > > you like and > > >want to incorporate. > > > > > >2) No one gives a damn what you think about the > > licensing/legal > > >stuff...fans don't matter here only the lawyers > and > > business people > > >get a whack at that. If you are developing and > don't > > like, go > > >negotiate something with the publisher you can > both > > live with; > > >otherwise, how your feels, understand, and input > > about this makes no > > >differece in the whole world. Likewise, your > > speculation about how > > >it will affect things in the gaming business is > > equally unimpactful. > > > > > >3) Mongoose bought whatever rights they did and > can > > do whatever that > > >want without anyone on this board's permission. > Vote > > with your > > >wallet. If you like buy, if you don't like then > > don't buy but stop > > >whining like a 2 year old who didn't get their > candy. > > > > > >4) No one is going to make you the perfect > product. > > If its that > > >important to you, buy the rights to the stupid > thing > > and do it your > > >way, and then you can listen to every one bitch > at > > you for not doing > > >it their way. > > > > > >5) This board has been completely hi-jacked by an > > intense focus on > > >someone publishing a set of guidelines (rules). > > Rather than > > >discussing rules, implementation, backgrounds, > and > > gaming; this > > >board is throwing a gigantic temper tantrum. Get > > over it and let's > > >get back to what this board is supposed to be > about. > > > > > >6) These are my opinions, I am expressing them, > and I > > don't care it > > >you like them or not. I'm not trying to start a > > flame war I'm just > > >tired of Mongoose being the prevailing topic and > I'm > > pointing that > > >out while wondering what the result of all this > > discussing is > > >supposed to yield. > > > > > >Fred > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >RQ-Rules mailing list > > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Fed up with spam in your inbox? Find out how to > deal > > with junk e-mail here! > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: > http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 2 22:01:59 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060901092308.70527.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060902120159.77498.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Leon Kirshtein: > > > For me the most important part is that is close > enough > > the previous RQ rules, that any published material > can > > be easily converted. > > My thoughts exactly. Ah, on that we differ. IMO it is sufficiently different that conversion won't be so easy. For example, how do we deal with the differences in skills? Changing spirit magic to rune magic seems relatively painless, even if it is a *big* conceptual shift, but what about divine magic and sorcery? Perhaps an interesting task for this list will be producing a conversion paper, rather like the RQ II to RQ III conversion papers. > There will be new supplements > for Second Age Glorantha, which will please people > like me, for other worlds and for generic settings. Yes, Second Age Glorantha is a big plus, no doubt about it - however that could just as easily be done with RQIII or HeroQuest. > > Grade: B+ > > Yup, that's about right. Well, based on the SRD only I'm giving it a C- at this stage. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 03:28:39 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:28:39 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! Message-ID: I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll get lucky. Here's the concept: The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of the Glittering Pav..." The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. But of course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead for some time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060902/cf9afef8/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 03:53:41 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060902175341.92526.qmail@web31205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the > tomb by the zombies for (it > turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll > ask the party to escort > him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he > may reward them. But of > course once they get there, he finds that he has > been presumed dead for some > time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of > his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a > zombie. He can't believe > that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is > vague, but to him it > was just a few weeks at most, surely. What did he eat during this time? His state could be explained by a strange diet of mushrooms and such. These mushrooms may also have preserved him. He may have slept for weeks or months at a time (hence he is not sure as to the amount of time that passed) > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the > agents of his cousin, or > perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? > Is this whole thing > going to take too long for a single five- or > six-hour session? Any > suggestions would be very welcome! Depends on how many zombies you throw, the cambat itself may take 4 or 5 hours. Plus there is a cahnce the players may want to check out some of the other tombs and/or crypts. I say you would be lucky to get him back to town. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 04:02:08 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060902120159.77498.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060902180208.36551.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > can be easily converted. > > > > My thoughts exactly. > > Ah, on that we differ. IMO it is sufficiently > different that conversion won't be so easy. For > example, how do we deal with the differences in > skills? Skills have percentages and maybe different names, but still work the same. > Changing spirit magic to rune magic seems > relatively painless, even if it is a *big* > conceptual > shift, but what about divine magic and sorcery? Divine magic seems the same to me, we shall see more when they publish more cults writte ups. As to sorcery, it can be used as is or converted to whatever version you are using right now. I do not see it as a big deal. > Perhaps an interesting task for this list will be > producing a conversion paper, rather like the RQ II > to RQ III conversion papers. Only if this list actually agrees on a single set of rules as a base point, like RQ3. I view that as unlikely, since most people here use some sort of fussion of the existing rules. > > There will be new supplements > > for Second Age Glorantha, which will please people > > like me, for other worlds and for generic > settings. Exactly. > Yes, Second Age Glorantha is a big plus, no doubt > about it - however that could just as easily be done > with RQIII or HeroQuest. Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far as I am concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above RQ Slayers. > > > Grade: B+ > > > > Yup, that's about right. > > Well, based on the SRD only I'm giving it a C- at > this stage. Somehow I get the impression that you are taking it a bit personally. Its only a game. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Sun Sep 3 03:56:05 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:56:05 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DFA3B24-3AAC-11DB-9476-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I find myself wondering about the pathology of zombism (is that a word?). How does one become a zombie? How long does it take? How did he survive 17 years of zombie captivity? What did he eat? Here's a possible approach. Agents of his cousin arranged for him to be trapped by zombies, but expected that he would never return. They did not know that he had an enchanted gold coin that would protect him from zombism, or that he wore an amulet that could put him into a stasis if he fell asleep under certain sorts of dangerous conditions. The cousin's plan was to have him eaten by the zombies, but as a somewhat resourceful adventurer, he managed to get himself into the pit where the zombies couldn't get him. Out of immediate danger and exhausted, he figured he could afford to take a short nap, not realizing how long he would sleep. The zombies never came close enough to wake him, but since he was still stuck in a pit with almost no food or water, the enchanted amulet kept him in stasis so he wouldn't starve. He woke up once or twice, for a few hours, taking the opportunity to write a message on a piece of cloth he had with him, then going back to sleep. One day, by chance, a curious seagull landed in the pit, and he woke up. Still trapped in the pit, he figured his only chance was to send some sort of message. Not knowing the purpose of the gold coin his father had entrusted him with, he decided to use it to send a message. He caught the gull and sent the message, and eventually fell asleep again. His amulet kept him in stasis as he slept (another three or four years), but without the coin he gradually began to be afflicted with early stage zombism. Yet thanks to the amulet, he still has his own memories and personality, and thanks to the pit, he hasn't been eaten or fully zombized. Is there a cure for zombism? Yes, but only if you catch it in the early stages. Fortunately, the noble is only in stage 1, and the presence of the gold coin (assuming it is returned to him) will prevent further advancement of the condition. But to fully cure it calls for a ritual involving a potion which requires a rare ingredient for which some adventurers will need to go on a long quest... On 2-Sep-06, at 11:28 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work > something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I > don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll > get lucky. > > Here's the concept: > > The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will > be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a > pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the > following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: > > "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for > whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of > the Glittering Pav..." > > The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some > unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. > > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what > was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've > fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find > the author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, > but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies > for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the > party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he > may reward them. But of course once they get there, he finds that he > has been presumed dead for some time, and that a distant cousin is now > the master of his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't > believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, > but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his > cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is > this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour > session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: > http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From IQuinn at surewest.net Sun Sep 3 07:04:20 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:04:20 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c6ced3$5cae83c0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Another direction to take it would be that the cousin outright poisoned the noble, thought him dead and buried him in the royal graveyard. The graveyard itself or something in the vicinity could be the cause of the raising dead. The very same basilisk poison (or whatever) that killed the noble actually slowed the decay into the zombiehood. He got out the plea for help and then retreated to the family tomb as he tried to piece together how he got there. The homecoming is tricky because the cousin would obviously be stricken by the haunting sight of the noble and would likely declare him an abomination and have him and the party seized. Apart from the cousin, after that much time has passed and the noble's funeral was mourned throughout the land it's not likely his people will embrace his return. Better to have them stop at an Inn on the return home and discover the new state of affairs. The noble could see himself in the mirror and make the realization that there's no going back. He may even be relieved to be free of the burden. Either way he can make good on the promise of reward by taking the adventures to one of his mountain cabins where he has a hidden stash of money. At the now overgrown shack they do indeed find the promised reward (and another encounter if pacing slow) along with some proof of the cousin's plot (delivered scroll left unopened). If game time is running out the party could part ways with the noble and leave him to his final act of vengeance or if so inclined they could help obtain a similar batch of poison and help get it poured down the dear cousin's throat. Food for thought anyway. =) Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:29 AM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll get lucky. Here's the concept: The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of the Glittering Pav..." The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. But of course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead for some time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060902/665249d5/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 07:14:19 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:14:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44F9F42B.7070004@gmail.com> Well, perhaps in his need to survive he took too eating human. In a similar manner to ingesting prions (Mad Cow Disease) & other diseases caused by eating primate flesh he has become maddened & they have had a preserving property. He has also gone somewhat mad & will have a preference for human flesh. Interestingly enough it is thought that the desperation eating corpses of corpses due to crop failure & starvation during the early middle ages may have given rise to legends of vampires, ogres, & the like. You could then postulate that this enforced diet (probably caused by his cousin's betrayal) has caused him to become an ogre or vampire as well as causing him to go mad. Thus the party rescues him (first sub adventure), overthrows the cousin to "restore the rightful heir" (another sub-adventure) then realizes they have put a monster on the throne. Do they then for the final part of the adventure try to overthrow him, escape from him hunting them, or what. takk Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work > something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I > don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll > get lucky. > > Here's the concept: > > The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will > be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a > pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the > following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: > > "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for > whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of > the Glittering Pav..." > > The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some > unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. > > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what > was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've > fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find > the author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, > but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies > for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the > party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he > may reward them. But of course once they get there, he finds that he > has been presumed dead for some time, and that a distant cousin is now > the master of his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't > believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, > but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his > cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is > this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour > session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060902/78fee694/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Sep 3 08:42:28 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 23:42:28 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] non Gloranthan MRQ adventures at RPG Now Message-ID: <000601c6cee1$13f42a50$21688456@sickboy> http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=426 I can't make any comment as I haven't actually purchsed.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060902/a7b1f49a/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 3 09:39:29 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060902180208.36551.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060902233929.7677.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > --- Lev Lafayette > wrote: > > > > can be easily converted. > > > > > > My thoughts exactly. > > > > Ah, on that we differ. IMO it is sufficiently > > different that conversion won't be so easy. For > > example, how do we deal with the differences in > > skills? > > Skills have percentages and maybe different names, > but > still work the same. Basic and advanced skills? RQ III First Aid converts to what? > > Changing spirit magic to rune magic seems > > relatively painless, even if it is a *big* > > conceptual > > shift, but what about divine magic and sorcery? > > Divine magic seems the same to me, we shall see more > when they publish more cults writte ups. As to > sorcery, it can be used as is or converted to > whatever > version you are using right now. I do not see it as > a > big deal. You have a RQ III character who has divine magic or sorcery. You convert them to RQ IV - what magic do they use? What you seem to be saying is that you continue to use the RQ III rules until a supplement comes out. Which isn't a conversion at all, but rather a hybrid. A RQ 3.5 if you like. > > > Perhaps an interesting task for this list will be > > producing a conversion paper, rather like the RQ > II > > to RQ III conversion papers. > > Only if this list actually agrees on a single set of > rules as a base point, like RQ3. I view that as > unlikely, since most people here use some sort of > fussion of the existing rules. Well, I would say that RQ3 rules "as they are writ", would be the way to go. > > > There will be new supplements > > > for Second Age Glorantha, which will please > people > > > like me, for other worlds and for generic > > settings. > > Exactly. > > > Yes, Second Age Glorantha is a big plus, no doubt > > about it - however that could just as easily be > done > > with RQIII or HeroQuest. > > Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far as I > am > concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above RQ > Slayers. Which wasn't too bad a game from all accounts - not that I've looked at in detail. > > > > Grade: B+ > > > > > > Yup, that's about right. > > > > Well, based on the SRD only I'm giving it a C- at > > this stage. > > Somehow I get the impression that you are taking it > a > bit personally. Its only a game. > Not at all. There are sufficient broken and poor rules in the SRD to justify the C- grade as I have elaborated. By what I've been told about the rule book itself (age and experience, cult write-ups), and Mongoose disowning some of the sillier rules (dodge and parry results) I could imagine it moving up to a C+/B- grade... Mind you, I am a harsh marker. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 3 12:48:40 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 19:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060902233929.7677.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060903024840.39108.qmail@web31204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > still work the same. > > Basic and advanced skills? RQ III First Aid converts > to what? > > You have a RQ III character who has divine magic or > sorcery. You convert them to RQ IV - what magic do > they use? You are missunderstanding, I am not converting to MRQ, but from. > Well, I would say that RQ3 rules "as they are writ", > would be the way to go. Unlikely as few people on this list actually use them as written. > > Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far as > I > > am > > concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above RQ > > Slayers. > > Which wasn't too bad a game from all accounts - not > that I've looked at in detail. I have seen it, and no, it was horrible. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Sun Sep 3 21:02:01 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom_Zunder?=) Date: 3 Sep 2006 11:02:01 +0000 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[Rq-rules]_HELP!_Quick_scenario_ideas_needed!?= Message-ID: <20060903100119.2C06DB7AFB6@mini.thinbits.net> The story is more important than the fight so avoid a long combat. ---- Sent using a Sony Ericsson mobile phone From rog_benham at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 20:56:13 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:56:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <44F9F42B.7070004@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/554aa2ce/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Sun Sep 3 22:34:31 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 08:34:31 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! Message-ID: <3c7.7544a3e.322c25d7@aol.com> Peter Maranci wrote: > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what was > apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've fought > their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the author > of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can speak and > acts as if he's NOT a zombie. > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for (it > turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to escort > him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. But of > course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead for some > time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't believe > that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to him it > was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > So...now what? Option 1: Downplay the looks like a zombie part -- have his skin be pale, his touch cold, etc., but not necessarily zombie-looking. Change the 17 years to 170, so that his return to his kin reveals his undead nature in a more shocking manner. Maybe play on the pathos/tragedy of a decent man who discovers he's a monster? Option 2: It's not the original nobleman at all, but a lich/vampire/whatnot that is trying to usurp the "cousin's" domain. Do the PCs unwittingly free it? How is it to be stopped? Option 2a: Nobleman/zombie is an evil necromancer imprisoned by his family in cave for 17 years; tries to trick PCs into releasing him. Michael Hoxie (who's seen too many bad horror movies...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/6327128f/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 23:16:06 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:16:06 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I want to think EVERYONE for the ideas, and I hope this isn't too annoying, but overnight the scenario developed in my mind and changed a good bit. The whole zombie element is now something of a sideline; still there, but relatively minor (I could follow it up later with a full-on quest). My notes are still a mess, or I'd throw them up online somewhere right now; I can run the scenario from them, but they're not something I'd put up publicly yet. That said, the main scenario is taking place in a small natural cave complex in a canyon. The caves were used long ago by a noble family as a mausoleum. I'm picking found items from my website to fill most of the rooms (along with a few monsters), but there's one room that I'd like to have some sort of puzzle in it...something different. The tombs themselves have a pair of magical guardians who can be deactivated by properly using a talisman that the party will have (which will itself be a bit of a puzzle), but my thought is that the room *before* that one would be an additional protection for the tomb - some sort of puzzle, preferably NOT a riddle (those have been done to death, don't you think?). I may just have to toss in more found items. I also have a side-room with a ghost. I'd like to come up with some interesting motivation or hook for the ghost. Any suggestions will be ENORMOUSLY appreciated, and if I use them I'll certainly credit you when I write the adventure up and put it on my site. Hmm. I'm no artist, but here's the incredibly simplistic map I just drew of the complex: http://www.runequest.org/Map01.jpg Please don't laugh at my artistic skills, which are in the negative ten percent range. :( Incidentally, I don't know if this makes a difference, but one of the players is relatively new to roleplaying, and I want to keep things from getting *too* complicated for her. Thanks for any help! ->Peter On 9/2/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work something > original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I don't know how many > people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll get lucky. > > Here's the concept: > > The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will be > travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a pierced > gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the following words, > apparently written in mold or dirt: > > "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for whoever > saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of the Glittering > Pav..." > > The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some > unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. > > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what was > apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've fought > their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the author > of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can speak and > acts as if he's NOT a zombie. > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for > (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to > escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. > But of course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead > for some time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't believe > that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to him it > was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his cousin, or > perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is this whole thing > going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour session? Any > suggestions would be very welcome! > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/9e6b6ae4/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sun Sep 3 23:57:49 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 09:57:49 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c6cf60$f286d310$0201a8c0@laptop2> Why not a different method of opening the door? For instance, the door could have a hidden small hole in the center of the door and only opens by pulling. Only by pushing something on a string through the hole that will catch on the other side and allow for a bit of pulling will the door open? -- Joe _____ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:16 AM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! I want to think EVERYONE for the ideas, and I hope this isn't too annoying, but overnight the scenario developed in my mind and changed a good bit. The whole zombie element is now something of a sideline; still there, but relatively minor (I could follow it up later with a full-on quest). My notes are still a mess, or I'd throw them up online somewhere right now; I can run the scenario from them, but they're not something I'd put up publicly yet. That said, the main scenario is taking place in a small natural cave complex in a canyon. The caves were used long ago by a noble family as a mausoleum. I'm picking found items from my website to fill most of the rooms (along with a few monsters), but there's one room that I'd like to have some sort of puzzle in it...something different. The tombs themselves have a pair of magical guardians who can be deactivated by properly using a talisman that the party will have (which will itself be a bit of a puzzle), but my thought is that the room *before* that one would be an additional protection for the tomb - some sort of puzzle, preferably NOT a riddle (those have been done to death, don't you think?). I may just have to toss in more found items. I also have a side-room with a ghost. I'd like to come up with some interesting motivation or hook for the ghost. Any suggestions will be ENORMOUSLY appreciated, and if I use them I'll certainly credit you when I write the adventure up and put it on my site. Hmm. I'm no artist, but here's the incredibly simplistic map I just drew of the complex: http://www.runequest.org/Map01.jpg Please don't laugh at my artistic skills, which are in the negative ten percent range. :( Incidentally, I don't know if this makes a difference, but one of the players is relatively new to roleplaying, and I want to keep things from getting *too* complicated for her. Thanks for any help! ->Peter On 9/2/06, Peter Maranci wrote: I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll get lucky. Here's the concept: The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of the Glittering Pav..." The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. But of course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead for some time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/86d43aca/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 03:43:05 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:43:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44FB1429.6050304@gmail.com> Lost Love is always a great motivation for a ghost. Perhaps the ghost pines for the Usurper ruler & the zombie guy is there because he accidentally killed the true love (the ghost) of the usurper ruler. If you need a better map let me know I can do a nicer one up in Campaign Cartographer. takk, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > I want to think EVERYONE for the ideas, and I hope this isn't too > annoying, but overnight the scenario developed in my mind and changed > a good bit. The whole zombie element is now something of a sideline; > still there, but relatively minor (I could follow it up later with a > full-on quest). My notes are still a mess, or I'd throw them up online > somewhere right now; I can run the scenario from them, but they're not > something I'd put up publicly yet. > > That said, the main scenario is taking place in a small natural cave > complex in a canyon. The caves were used long ago by a noble family as > a mausoleum. I'm picking found items from my website to fill most of > the rooms (along with a few monsters), but there's one room that I'd > like to have some sort of puzzle in it...something different. > > The tombs themselves have a pair of magical guardians who can be > deactivated by properly using a talisman that the party will have > (which will itself be a bit of a puzzle), but my thought is that the > room *before* that one would be an additional protection for the tomb > - some sort of puzzle, preferably NOT a riddle (those have been done > to death, don't you think?). I may just have to toss in more found items. > > I also have a side-room with a ghost. I'd like to come up with some > interesting motivation or hook for the ghost. > > Any suggestions will be ENORMOUSLY appreciated, and if I use them I'll > certainly credit you when I write the adventure up and put it on my site. > > Hmm. I'm no artist, but here's the incredibly simplistic map I just > drew of the complex: http://www.runequest.org/Map01.jpg > > Please don't laugh at my artistic skills, which are in the negative > ten percent range. :( > > Incidentally, I don't know if this makes a difference, but one of the > players is relatively new to roleplaying, and I want to keep things > from getting *too* complicated for her. > > Thanks for any help! > > ->Peter > > On 9/2/06, *Peter Maranci* > wrote: > > I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work > something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I > don't know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe > I'll get lucky. > > Here's the concept: > > The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) > will be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. > It's a pierced gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth > with the following words, apparently written in mold or dirt: > > "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for > whoever saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord > of the Glittering Pav..." > > The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some > unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. > > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of > what was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. > Once they've fought their way through, in the bottom of the main > tomb, they'll find the author of the note - who looks very much > like a zombie himself, but can speak and acts as if he's NOT a > zombie. > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the > zombies for (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll > ask the party to escort him to his home in a city not too fa away > so that he may reward them. But of course once they get there, he > finds that he has been presumed dead for some time, and that a > distant cousin is now the master of his estate. > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't > believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is > vague, but to him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his > cousin, or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is > this whole thing going to take too long for a single five- or > six-hour session? Any suggestions would be very welcome! > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/2f31d717/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 03:51:17 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 13:51:17 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <44FB1429.6050304@gmail.com> References: <44FB1429.6050304@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks; you're right, lost love is always a great motivation. I'm leaving in five minutes to pick up the players from the train station, and the game will start soon after we get back - call it an hour, ninety minutes at most - so if you can produce a better map in that time, my hat's off to you. :D But honestly, the map is only for my reference. The players will never see it. It would be nice to have a better-looking version for when I post the scenario on my website, but that's not going to happen right away. I WILL post the whole thing though, and when I do I'll certainly let everyone here know. Thanks, everyone, for all the help! I think this is going to go well, assuming my little boy allows us to play in relative peace. :P ->Peter On 9/3/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Lost Love is always a great motivation for a ghost. Perhaps the ghost > pines for the Usurper ruler & the zombie guy is there because he > accidentally killed the true love (the ghost) of the usurper ruler. If you > need a better map let me know I can do a nicer one up in Campaign > Cartographer. > > takk, > Sven > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > I want to think EVERYONE for the ideas, and I hope this isn't too > annoying, but overnight the scenario developed in my mind and changed a good > bit. The whole zombie element is now something of a sideline; still there, > but relatively minor (I could follow it up later with a full-on quest). My > notes are still a mess, or I'd throw them up online somewhere right now; I > can run the scenario from them, but they're not something I'd put up > publicly yet. > > That said, the main scenario is taking place in a small natural cave > complex in a canyon. The caves were used long ago by a noble family as a > mausoleum. I'm picking found items from my website to fill most of the rooms > (along with a few monsters), but there's one room that I'd like to have some > sort of puzzle in it...something different. > > The tombs themselves have a pair of magical guardians who can be > deactivated by properly using a talisman that the party will have (which > will itself be a bit of a puzzle), but my thought is that the room *before* > that one would be an additional protection for the tomb - some sort of > puzzle, preferably NOT a riddle (those have been done to death, don't you > think?). I may just have to toss in more found items. > > I also have a side-room with a ghost. I'd like to come up with some > interesting motivation or hook for the ghost. > > Any suggestions will be ENORMOUSLY appreciated, and if I use them I'll > certainly credit you when I write the adventure up and put it on my site. > > Hmm. I'm no artist, but here's the incredibly simplistic map I just drew > of the complex: http://www.runequest.org/Map01.jpg > > Please don't laugh at my artistic skills, which are in the negative ten > percent range. :( > > Incidentally, I don't know if this makes a difference, but one of the > players is relatively new to roleplaying, and I want to keep things from > getting *too* complicated for her. > > Thanks for any help! > > ->Peter > > On 9/2/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > I'm running a one-shot RQ3 scenario tomorrow, and I need to work > > something original up. I have a concept, but it needs something. I don't > > know how many people read the list on weekends, but maybe I'll get lucky. > > > > Here's the concept: > > > > The players (medium-level non-Glorantha PCs, a good mix of types) will > > be travelling in the woods when they'll spot a glint of gold. It's a pierced > > gold coin, and tied to it is is a piece of cloth with the following words, > > apparently written in mold or dirt: > > > > "Help! Trapped in the ruins north of Spike Rock. Rich reward for whoever > > saves...[blurred]...eware of the...ead...enter left...ord of the Glittering > > Pav..." > > > > The cloth is covered with bird droppings, and the remains of some > > unidentifiable but decayed foodstuff. > > > > Assuming the players follow up, they find the overgrown ruins of what > > was apparently a royal graveyard, including many zombies. Once they've > > fought their way through, in the bottom of the main tomb, they'll find the > > author of the note - who looks very much like a zombie himself, but can > > speak and acts as if he's NOT a zombie. > > > > He's a high nobleman who has been trapped in the tomb by the zombies for > > (it turns out) seventeen years. Once he's freed, he'll ask the party to > > escort him to his home in a city not too fa away so that he may reward them. > > But of course once they get there, he finds that he has been presumed dead > > for some time, and that a distant cousin is now the master of his estate. > > > > He himself doesn't recognize that he looks like a zombie. He can't > > believe that he has been trapped for so long - his memory is vague, but to > > him it was just a few weeks at most, surely. > > > > So...now what? Was he deliberately trapped by the agents of his cousin, > > or perhaps his cousin's father? Is he in fact a zombie? Is this whole thing > > going to take too long for a single five- or six-hour session? Any > > suggestions would be very welcome! > > > > ->Peter > > -- > > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060903/afb19fd0/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 05:39:44 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 12:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick Scenario Ideas Needed! In-Reply-To: <20060903174342.155AAB7E0DB@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060903193944.43935.qmail@web53910.mail.yahoo.com> Re:Puzzle Door/Room Early in my campaign I had a mausoleum closed with a magical door that had a pattern of lines and spirals in it. To open the door, someone had to trance the path on the door with their finger. THe problem was that each spiral took a POW/POW contest (MP in RQ3) against the door, with the resistance being the number of loops in the spiral. When each spiral was overcome, it faded but the ongoing path continued. I had 4-5 of these, with the largest near the end (so they could anticipate the problem). It's hard to gauge the correct amount of power for this, so I let the party rest and regain MP, but also had the door regenerate its resistance at a random (but slightly lower rate). All of this would have a greater edge of tension if the guardians only deactivate for a certain amount of time per attempt, forcing the party to periodically fight and protect the person working on the door, or figure out some way to permanently disable the guardians. When I'm introducing RQ to new players, especially those with D&D backgrounds, I try to have some RQ-strength portions, e.g. handling touch attacks (e.g. the amulets may have to touch the guardians to deactivate them), Opposition checks (the door), some tactical combat (party having to protect the resting adventurer so he can regain his MP more quickly, etc. Hope that helps Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Sep 4 08:50:46 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:50:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060903024840.39108.qmail@web31204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060903225046.29213.qmail@web27710.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In my view, the most terrible thing in RQ: Slayers was the fact it used 2 different, completely disconnected, systems for combat and non-combat actions : *Outside of a fight, you rolled d10s under a characteristics. *In a fight, you rolled a number of d6s according to your stats ans skills and couted the 6s. Leon Kirshtein a ?crit : > > Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far as > I > > am > > concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above RQ > > Slayers. > > Which wasn't too bad a game from all accounts - not > that I've looked at in detail. I have seen it, and no, it was horrible. 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 --------------------------------- 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/20060904/a6585192/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 16:34:43 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609010646w4caa134ftfcd895698de1b2b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I liked this system. I made a fatigue-system working kind of like this, but I made it too complicated for both me and the players... I'm streamlining my houserules "RQ 8th ed.", and will incorporate this system to the letter, thanks :) >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:46:44 -0500 > >And, not surprisingly, I use a system similar to Nick's. I say "not >surprisingly" because >I searched the Web some years back and found the following. I believe it's >from Nick's site and it has worked well for me ever since. Bravo, Nick! And >thank you! > >David > >FATIGUE STATES and PENALTIES >Normal: The character is not fatigued. >Tired: 10% penalty to all percentile rolls made by the character and +1 to >DEX SR. >Weary: 20% penalty to all percentile rolls made by the character and +2 to >DEX SR. >Exhausted: Halve character's skills, assess a further 20% penalty to all >percentile rolls made by the character, and +4 to DEX SR. >Incapacitated: Character must pass a CONx1 roll to act at all. If >successful, actions are treated as if Exhausted. Otherwise, the character >can do nothing. > >Regardless of fatigue penalties, a roll of 01 will remain a critical and a >modified roll of 100+ will be a fumble. > >Example: a mercenary with 100% Shortsword skill becomes Tired while >fighting >a dwarf bouncer. He rolls an attack of 02, normally a critical, but it is >modified to be a 07, resulting in a special instead. Had he rolled 01, the >result would have been a critical. If he were Weary and rolled a 91, >normally a hit, it would be modified to 101, and treated as a fumble. If he >became Exhausted, his Shortsword skill would be reduced to 50% and a roll >of >05, normally a special, would be modified to a 25, resulting in a normal >hit. > >SHORT-TERM FATIGUE LOSS: >After every 5 rounds of extreme exertion, characters must make a fatigue >roll, based on the below table, to avoid fatigue loss. A failed fatigue >roll >means the character drops one fatigue state and suffers the associated >penalties. > >Total >ENC <= Fatigue Roll >------------ ------------------ >STRx1 CONx5 >STRx2 CONx4 >STRx3 CONx3 >STRx4 CONx2 >STRx5 CONx1 >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 16:49:50 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:49:50 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609010727o4bcc55aco27f9db193c9aea4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree. I do a lot of WMA and what would most easily translate as the scandinavian cousin of SCA; "haerkamp", and when I tried to "improve" the RQ(3)-system, I discovered how good the original rules really were, and that most of the "faults" were a result over "detail vs. playability". The only thing I really ended up modifiing, were to make damage-categories (bashing, cutting, piercing, etc.), and to modify the Fatigue-system. I later learned (on this mail-ring) that the fategue was an attempt to combine tiredness (pulse) with heat. After I've started fighting in panzara(textile-armor), I've discovered how devastating heat-generation is for the warrior, and Personally, I think that's what really made fighting mounted became an advantage; you don't get as hot as a foot soldier. So a mounted knight can avoid the fully armoured foot-soldier, until he faints from heat, and he can chop the lightly armoured warrior to pieces. So one idea that just popped into mind, is a heat-generating system from the tabletop-game "Battletech", where a fusion reactor generates heat that must be dissipated. It could be fun to start using the original Fatigue-rules as a heat-scale-system, and use the model presented earlier this weekend (con roll every 5th turn) as the fategue-system. Yes, it will result in more book-keeping, but I've got characters walking around with so much armor that (with realistic rules) they are invulnerable from everything exept a Mostali cannon... By introducing heat, it's possible to re-create the Agincourt-battle, just let the english archers wait for the french knights on foot to generate too much heat, that they become paralyzed, then open the armor and stabbie-stabbie with the dagger :) >From: Styopa >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Not about MRQ, for a change >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:27:24 -0500 > >On 9/1/06, Peter Maranci wrote: >> >>I suppose basing it on REAL combat experience might lead to an even better >>system, but I imagine that Steve Perrin might object to being forced to >>battle for his life with a sword and shield in an area somewhere. :D >> > >The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Sep 4 17:19:21 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:19:21 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter, >... I'm leaving in five minutes to pick up the players from the train station, >and the game will start soon after we get back - call it an hour, ninety minutes at most > - so if you can produce a better map in that time, my hat's off to you. :D > >But honestly, the map is only for my reference. The players will never see it. >It would be nice to have a better-looking version for when I post the scenario >on my website, but that's not going to happen right away. > >I WILL post the whole thing though, and when I do I'll certainly let everyone here know. :( I did try and post some ideas, but my home email address is still bouncing from the list. Sorry! I hope the scenario went well, and in particular that it leads to more regular RQ games for you. I look forward to seeing the scenario up at your site. One question (on behalf of my currently one armed character) - no Sabre-tooths the size of elephants please! ;-) >Thanks, everyone, for all the help! I think this is going to go well, assuming my little boy allows us to play in relative peace. :P My experience (with two girls, 20 months apart) was that very little was fine for evening sessions, but could be problematic for afternoon sessions - the difficulty has come since they were old enough to be around in the evenings when my sessions typically start. But I had a long follow period from when the eldest was 2 1/2 - 3 to about 8 where I played very little... As I say, hope it went well, look forward to hearing about it and seeing the scenario at some point. Cheers, Nick Middleton From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Sep 4 17:44:59 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:44:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060903225046.29213.qmail@web27710.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060904074459.13930.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Which is also the thing that really annoys me about MRQ. They've increased the distance between resolution in combat and non-combat situations. Cheers, Ash --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > In my view, the most terrible thing in RQ: Slayers > was the fact it used 2 different, completely > disconnected, systems for combat and non-combat > actions : > > *Outside of a fight, you rolled d10s under a > characteristics. > *In a fight, you rolled a number of d6s according > to your stats ans skills and couted the 6s. > > Leon Kirshtein a ?crit : > > > Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far > as > > I > > > am > > > concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above > RQ > > > Slayers. > > > > Which wasn't too bad a game from all accounts - > not > > that I've looked at in detail. > > I have seen it, and no, it was horrible. > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------- > Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! > Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour > appeler la France et l'international.T?l?chargez la > version beta.> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Sep 4 19:36:58 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (thomas zunder) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 10:36:58 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060903225046.29213.qmail@web27710.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060903225046.29213.qmail@web27710.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44FBF3BA.2010606@zunder.org.uk> Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > In my view, the most terrible thing in RQ: Slayers was the fact it > used 2 different, completely disconnected, systems for combat and > non-combat actions : > The whole idea of collecting runes to release powers was nicely done. I think that Mongoose should have dropped the feat-like legendary abilities and rune magic and gone down that route.. collect runes to release progressive powers. From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 20:54:44 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:54:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060901134705.0AF99B68EA2@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904105444.56666.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> [More boring Mongoose stuff - Page Down at will] Peter Maranci: > Good grief. I hope I won't get flamed for discussing DBRP here when/if that > ever comes out. No, DBRP ks as much RQ as any of the other RQ versions, if you forget about SAN and EDU .... > But if a change of subject is THAT desperately needed...I'm thinking of > updating my RQ site. It's been four months after all. I'll be added some > sort of "What the hell is going on with RuneQuest?" bit to the front page, > just because SO many people seem to be confused about MRQ, but I'd like to > add some new game content as well. Are people confused? About some parts the rules maybe, but about the product? I don't know. > A long time ago I worked up a rough system of charms for RQ, small items > that add to skill rolls. I'd like to develop that some more and post it on > my site. Is anyone going to object if I throw it open to the list to > discuss? Speak now, or forever hold your peace! :D How could anyone object to new RQ rules on the RQ Rules Mailing List? > Oh, and for the record: I'm very interested in this whole MRQ thing, and I > enjoy reading about it here. But I'm not a Gloranthaphile; I'm a > Staffordphobe. I AM disgruntled, though. :D Roger Benham: > Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a giant dummy spitting > exercise for disgruntled and disappointed Gloranthaphiles for now... can't > we discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor am I ever likely to > (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play) so lets get back on track..? Please? RQM is a new set of RQ Rules, how can we not discuss it here? There are several PDF supplements out for RQM that are not set in Glorantha. There will also be non-Gloranthan supplements/campaign worlds for RQM in the near future. I fact, looking at the things that I have already bought for RQM: 1. Rulebook (Non-Gloranthan) 2. GM's Shield (Non-Gloranthan) 3. Rune of Chaos (Generic/Non-Gloranthan) 4. 5 Fantasy Monsters PDF (Generic/Non-Gloranthan) 5. Danger in the City of Immer PDF (Diomin/Non-Gloranthan) 6. Outpost Qether PDF (Diomin/Non-Gloranthan) 7. Glorantha Second Age Ralios PDF (Gloranthan) So, 6 out of 7 are Non-Gloranthan. So, how can you say "Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor am I ever likely to (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play)"? RQ2 was almost exclusively Gloranthan. RQ3, with the expection of a few supplements, was mainly Gloranthan. There will be cases where people ask questions about the new rules, especially where some cults etc have changed. They will be valid questions. There will also be new rules here that are Gloranthan in nature, they also belong. So do questions about Corruption Points in Diomin and whatever rules are needed for other campaign worlds. All are valid RQ Rules Questions. Fred Vogel: >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these discussions are >about rules, background, execution, or of value, productive or >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching about how Mongoose >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this person or insulted >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of that and I don't >know why any of you do either. It's only a F---ing book for crying >out loud. I agree that arguments along the lines of "Mongoose have stolen RQ" or "Chaosium should own RQ" or "Mongoose RQ is not the same as other RQ" are probably not worth reading, but that's what the Page Down Key is for. I also agree with points 1,2,3 and 4. Point 5 has some merit, but I don't think it has been hijacked, more that RQM is new and has had a flurry of posts. Point 6 is reasonable, but Mongoose RQ is new and will have more posts, people will harp back on the same old "I could have done better" which we all could say, but it does give people a chance to let off steam. When RQ3 came out, we resisted moving to it immediately because there was not Gloranthan material out for it. So, converting characters would be a nonsense without seeing what spells/skills the cults had. Eventually we converted and lost a lot of the flavour with generic skills such as Sleight and also changes in spells available. But we coped. RQM has taken some things a lot further with a small number of all-encompassing skills and massive changes to the magic system. So, I would recommend that people not convert to RQM immediately, but wait until more things come out that will make conversion easier. I would even go so far as saying that there is no reason to convert at all. Use RQM alongside RQ3 and RQ2 for a better experience. Use the supplements that come out and use rules that you like. We eventually converted wholesale RQ2-RQ3 where we should have kept the things from RQ2 that we liked, scrapped the things from RQ3 that we didn't like and played a combined system. The same shoould apply now - keep the stuff from RQ2 and RQ3 that you like, scrap the RQM rules you don't like and play with a combined system. If all you have is RQM then use it and change the rules you don't like. It's not a Sin! See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/fe47ca4c/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Sep 4 21:36:49 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:36:49 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database Message-ID: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe database project for a long time now. What I envision is a website where people could post house rules, variant rules and such. With the release of MRQ and (D)BRP around the corner and lots of people still using RQ II/III (and in some cases RQ IV), there ought to be a lot of rules snippets floating around and it would be nice to have a repository for them. I know that similar ideas have been floating around on this list before and nothing came out of those, but I still think it's a good idea. The website would be a quite simple one, just a interface to allow searches and another for browsing and a form for submitting rules. Only rules usable with the various incarnations of RQ and BRP would be allowed. I can host the site and I know enough of programming to be able to build it. I do need some feedback on the usefulness of such a project and also on what data should be saved for each rules snippet. So what do you think, is this just waste of my time or could it become something useful? /Peter Brink From rog_benham at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 21:40:53 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:40:53 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/6870b0fd/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 21:55:09 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:55:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060903131632.3BE38B7C168@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904115509.91008.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> From: Lev Lafayette: Lev: >>> Ah, on that we differ. IMO it is sufficiently >>> different that conversion won't be so easy. For >>> example, how do we deal with the differences in >>> skills? >>Leon: >> Skills have percentages and maybe different names, >> but >> still work the same. > > Basic and advanced skills? RQ III First Aid converts > to what? I haven't got the rules here with me, so I may well be making mistakes/assumptions .... OK, skill conversion is relatively painless: Jump, Swim, Climb , Run (if you use it) all convert to Athletics (take the highest of those skills as Athletics). Scan, Search, Listen all become Perception. First Aid, Treat Poison, Treat Disease become Healing (I think) Lores stay separate, as do Crafts and so on. Converting back to RQ3: Athletics becomes Jump, Climb, Swim, Run (set them equal to Athletics, or one at Atheltics, the rest at 75% of Althetics) Perception becomes Scan, Search, Listen (as above) Healing becomes First Aid, Treat Diseas, Treat Poison (Only healers and healer-type people get Treat Disease and Treat Poison) Lev: >>> Changing spirit magic to rune magic seems >>> relatively painless, even if it is a *big* >>> conceptual >>> shift, but what about divine magic and sorcery? Leon: >> Divine magic seems the same to me, we shall see more >> when they publish more cults writte ups. As to >> sorcery, it can be used as is or converted to >> whatever >> version you are using right now. I do not see it as >> a >> big deal. Lev: > You have a RQ III character who has divine magic or > sorcery. You convert them to RQ IV - what magic do > they use? Well, there are no rules, as yet, for Divine Magic or Sorcery. We'll have to wait until the Gloranthan Cults books come out. Don't forget that in RQ3, there were no cults except Ernalda and the Templates until Gods of Glorantha came out, so we were in much the same boat. > What you seem to be saying is that you continue to use > the RQ III rules until a supplement comes out. > > Which isn't a conversion at all, but rather a hybrid. > A RQ 3.5 if you like. Well, that makes most sense anyway. Keep the bits you like from all the systems. Lev: >>> Perhaps an interesting task for this list will be >> producing a conversion paper, rather like the RQ II >>> to RQ III conversion papers. Leon: >> Only if this list actually agrees on a single set of >> rules as a base point, like RQ3. I view that as >> unlikely, since most people here use some sort of >> fussion of the existing rules. Lev: > Well, I would say that RQ3 rules "as they are writ", > would be the way to go. I'll be putting some kind of Conversion material on my website when the Cults books come out. That way, I don't need to worry aboput what anyone else thinks :-) We'll never get half the people on the RQ Rules list to agree on anything like Conversion material, so it isn't worth getting a consensus. The best we'll get is a number of different conversion rules and take our pick. Lev: >>> Yes, Second Age Glorantha is a big plus, no doubt >>> about it - however that could just as easily be done >>> with RQIII or HeroQuest. Leon: >> Don't even get me started on HeroQuest. As far as I >> am >> concerned, that thisng is just a smidgen above RQ >> Slayers. Lev: > Which wasn't too bad a game from all accounts - not > that I've looked at in detail. HeroQuest is OK, but it is different from RQ. RQM is OK, but is a bit different from RQ3. RQ3 is OK and is a bit different to RQ2. That's what happens when rules change. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/b7ab8c1d/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Sep 4 21:56:37 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:56:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060904105444.56666.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060904115637.47198.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Simon, Any gems worth getting amongst the new RQ stuff? About the only that's a no brainer for me from a game play perspective would be the Second Age book. Cheers, Ash PS: GM screen? How 1980s! --- Simon Phipp wrote: > [More boring Mongoose stuff - Page Down at will] > > Peter Maranci: > > > > Good grief. I hope I won't get flamed for > discussing DBRP here when/if that > > ever comes out. > > No, DBRP ks as much RQ as any of the other RQ > versions, if you forget about SAN and EDU .... > > > But if a change of subject is THAT desperately > needed...I'm thinking of > > updating my RQ site. It's been four months after > all. I'll be added some > > sort of "What the hell is going on with > RuneQuest?" bit to the front page, > > just because SO many people seem to be confused > about MRQ, but I'd like to > > add some new game content as well. > > Are people confused? About some parts the rules > maybe, but about the product? I don't know. > > > A long time ago I worked up a rough system of > charms for RQ, small items > > that add to skill rolls. I'd like to develop that > some more and post it on > > my site. Is anyone going to object if I throw it > open to the list to > > discuss? Speak now, or forever hold your peace! :D > > How could anyone object to new RQ rules on the RQ > Rules Mailing List? > > > Oh, and for the record: I'm very interested in > this whole MRQ thing, and I > > enjoy reading about it here. But I'm not a > Gloranthaphile; I'm a > > Staffordphobe. I AM disgruntled, though. :D > > Roger Benham: > > Amen to that. The whole discussion has become a > giant dummy spitting > > exercise for disgruntled and disappointed > Gloranthaphiles for now... can't > > we discuss RQ2 and 3? Its not like I'm playing > MRQ, nor am I ever likely to > > (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play) so lets get > back on track..? Please? > > RQM is a new set of RQ Rules, how can we not > discuss it here? > > There are several PDF supplements out for RQM that > are not set in Glorantha. There will also be > non-Gloranthan supplements/campaign worlds for RQM > in the near future. I fact, looking at the things > that I have already bought for RQM: > 1. Rulebook (Non-Gloranthan) > 2. GM's Shield (Non-Gloranthan) > 3. Rune of Chaos (Generic/Non-Gloranthan) > 4. 5 Fantasy Monsters PDF (Generic/Non-Gloranthan) > 5. Danger in the City of Immer PDF > (Diomin/Non-Gloranthan) > 6. Outpost Qether PDF (Diomin/Non-Gloranthan) > 7. Glorantha Second Age Ralios PDF (Gloranthan) > > So, 6 out of 7 are Non-Gloranthan. So, how can you > say "Its not like I'm playing MRQ, nor am I ever > likely to (Its on Glorantha, which I don't play)"? > > RQ2 was almost exclusively Gloranthan. RQ3, with > the expection of a few supplements, was mainly > Gloranthan. > > There will be cases where people ask questions > about the new rules, especially where some cults etc > have changed. They will be valid questions. There > will also be new rules here that are Gloranthan in > nature, they also belong. So do questions about > Corruption Points in Diomin and whatever rules are > needed for other campaign worlds. All are valid RQ > Rules Questions. > > Fred Vogel: > >I am sick of hearing about Mongoose. None of these > discussions are > >about rules, background, execution, or of value, > productive or > >constructive. Rather they are all about bitching > about how Mongoose > >screwed this up or how Mongoose slighted this > person or insulted > >that. Whatever. I don't give a shit about any of > that and I don't > >know why any of you do either. It's only a F---ing > book for crying > >out loud. > > I agree that arguments along the lines of > "Mongoose have stolen RQ" or "Chaosium should own > RQ" or "Mongoose RQ is not the same as other RQ" are > probably not worth reading, but that's what the Page > Down Key is for. > > I also agree with points 1,2,3 and 4. Point 5 has > some merit, but I don't think it has been hijacked, > more that RQM is new and has had a flurry of posts. > Point 6 is reasonable, but Mongoose RQ is new and > will have more posts, people will harp back on the > same old "I could have done better" which we all > could say, but it does give people a chance to let > off steam. > > When RQ3 came out, we resisted moving to it > immediately because there was not Gloranthan > material out for it. So, converting characters would > be a nonsense without seeing what spells/skills the > cults had. Eventually we converted and lost a lot of > the flavour with generic skills such as Sleight and > also changes in spells available. But we coped. RQM > has taken some things a lot further with a small > number of all-encompassing skills and massive > changes to the magic system. > > So, I would recommend that people not convert to > RQM immediately, but wait until more things come out > that will make conversion easier. I would even go so > far as saying that there is no reason to convert at > all. Use RQM alongside RQ3 and RQ2 for a better > experience. Use the supplements that come out and > use rules that you like. We eventually converted > wholesale RQ2-RQ3 where we should have kept the > things from RQ2 that we liked, scrapped the things > from RQ3 that we didn't like and played a combined > system. The same shoould apply now - keep the stuff > from RQ2 and RQ3 that you like, scrap the RQM rules > you don't like and play with a combined system. If > all you have is RQM then use it and change the rules > you don't like. It's not a Sin! > > See Ya > > Simon > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 22:49:42 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:49:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: non Gloranthan MRQ adventures at RPG Now In-Reply-To: <20060902224256.BFC48B7750D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904124942.6579.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?manufacturers_id=426 > > I can't make any comment as I haven't actually purchsed.... I've bought some of them. RPGNow is soooo slow it is unbelievable, using dial-up it takes 5 minutes to load a page. I've got Five Classic Monsters, Outpost Qether and Danger in the City of Immer. I'll probably have a look at getting the others, since they work out at just over a pound apiece (I think). Five Classic Mosters is a plain supplement with stats for Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres (not Gloranthan Ones) and Orcs, with Dire Wolves and Worgs as bonuses. The stats are OK, the descriptions are bland but generic. They'll fit into any campaign if you want them. Outpost Qether is part of the world of Diomin and details a small fort miles from anywhere, the people in the fort, the fort itself, the main tribes/peoples of Diomin and a short scenario. The background is sketchy, the tribes are single page, the fort is OK, the scenario is very linear. OK for a one-off session, OK if you are interested in Diomin. Danger in the City of Immer is another scenario set in Diomin. It is set in Immer but does not describe Immer at all, so it could as well be set anywhere. It also details the tribes/peoples of Diomin, duplicating the material in Outpost Qether, or vice versa. The scenario is very linear but would do for a single gaming session. OK for a one-off session, OK if you are interested in Diomin. OK, I kicked off the link on rpgnow before I started typing this and the link still hasn't come up. RPG Now seems very, very poor. Anyway, I'll post some more detailed reviews on my website when I get the chance. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/e6c347de/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 01:12:23 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:12:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Gems In-Reply-To: <20060904125002.3B87CB85E55@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904151223.75340.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley Munday: > Any gems worth getting amongst the new RQ stuff? About > the only that's a no brainer for me from a game play > perspective would be the Second Age book. Issaries' Unfinished Work on the God Learners is OK, if you like pages of history, kings and what they did. It does have a fascinating overview on their approach to HeroQuesting and why they succeeded. Basically, they found a hole into the Storm Age that belonged to the Storm Gods and they sent a hundred HeroQuestors in, but they all died. So, they changed things and sent another 100 in who all died. They tried again and 2 came back! Yippee! Next time, 4 came back and they knew they'd cracked it! So, their appraoch was to throw HeroQuestors at a problem until not all of them died. Apparently, only losing 50% of the HeroQuestors was an unqualified success. The PDF Glorantha Second Age Ralios is also truly excellent. It is basically a spillover from Glorantha:Second Age and looks very nice. It's got a lot of info about non-Safelesteran Ralios and would look familiar to anyone who has seen Glorantha:Genertela or the Dragon Pass Gazateer. It only costs a couple of quid as a download. Have a look on Mongoose's site for it, it really is worth getting. I haven't seen Glorantha:Second Age yet, as it isn't offically out. But, someone has posted a review on Mongoose's RQ Forum and it looks pretty good. Well worth getting, I think. The Rulebook is pretty non-Glornathan, the Rune of Chaos is so generic and old fashioned it's almost laughable. The other stuff is non-Gloranthan so wouldn't be of particular interest. But, get Ralios immediately, get the Unfinished Work if you liked the other Unfinished Work and get Glorantha:Second Age the second it comes out. You know you want to. Go on ...... > PS: GM screen? How 1980s! What can I say? It came bundled with RQM Rulebook and Rune of Chaos. It's big, it's hard, it's got trolls on the back and tables on the front. It separates GMs from players and stops each other seeing dice rolls. It divides the game into Us and Them, or Me and You Lot. You could use it to smack disruptive players on the head with a resounding crack! I don't use them, but if I played RQM then it would be handy sat alongside me so I could refer to the tables. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/7f252c6e/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 01:30:28 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:30:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <20060904125002.3B87CB85E55@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904153028.69333.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley Munday: > Any gems worth getting amongst the new RQ stuff? About > the only that's a no brainer for me from a game play > perspective would be the Second Age book. Here are the links. I can't find a link for the Godlearners' Unfinished Work. Second Age Glorantha Review: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20817 Second Age Glorantha Ralios: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=12632 See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/49792aef/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Sep 5 01:34:24 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:34:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <20060904153028.69333.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060904153425.83256.qmail@web86102.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Thanks for the links. I had no idea there was a God Learner's unfinished work out there, I'll have to track it down. I remember Graham Robinson telling me about it at Scotscon in 2003 but forgot all about it after that. Cheers, Ash --- Simon Phipp wrote: > > Ashley Munday: > > Any gems worth getting amongst the new RQ stuff? > About > > the only that's a no brainer for me from a game > play > > perspective would be the Second Age book. > > Here are the links. I can't find a link for the > Godlearners' Unfinished Work. > > Second Age Glorantha Review: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20817 > > Second Age Glorantha Ralios: > http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=12632 > > > See Ya > > Simon > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Sep 5 03:42:52 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:42:52 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609041042g2331cf48g5232ac331f12af41@mail.gmail.com> Same here! This is an awesome idea, Peter. I would hesitate to contribute only because most of my house rules were authored by someone else and were pulled from the authors' websites. I haven't kept notes on who wrote what since I never expected to post any of "my" houserules to the web. I'd hate to be given credit when I haven't earned it. David From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 5 04:55:18 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules Recipe Database In-Reply-To: <20060904113718.84E5FB854A1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060904185519.81683.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> While I'm not a Wiki expert, wouldn't that be a perfect application for this? It would allow categorization and linking between entries without a lot of coding. I like the idea. Steve > Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:36:49 +0200 > From: Peter Brink > Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database > > I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe > database project for a > long time now. What I envision is a website where > people could post house > rules, variant rules and such. With the release of > MRQ and (D)BRP around the > corner and lots of people still using RQ II/III (and > in some cases RQ IV), > there ought to be a lot of rules snippets floating > around and it would be > nice to have a repository for them. I know that > similar ideas have been > floating around on this list before and nothing came > out of those, but I > still think it's a good idea. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Sep 5 07:43:45 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:43:45 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <70F9DF84-3C5E-11DB-9BDC-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I concur. I have a bunch of house rules to contribute, covering such things as knockback, fatigue and nutrition. On 4-Sep-06, at 5:40 AM, Roger Benham wrote: > I think its a bloody good idea, Peter.? > > From:??Peter Brink > Reply-To:??"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > To:??rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject:??[Rq-rules] Rules recipe database > Date:??Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:36:49 +0200 > >I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe database project > for a > >long time now. What I envision is a website where people could post > house > >rules, variant rules and such. With the release of MRQ and (D)BRP > around the > >corner and lots of people still using RQ II/III (and in some cases RQ > IV), > >there ought to be a lot of rules snippets floating around and it > would be > >nice to have a repository for them. I know that similar ideas have > been > >floating around on this list before and nothing came out of those, > but I > >still think it's a good idea. > > > >The website would be a quite simple one, just a interface to allow > searches > >and another for browsing and a form for submitting rules. Only rules > usable > >with the various incarnations of RQ and BRP would be allowed. > > > >I can host the site and I know enough of programming to be able to > build it. I > >do need some feedback on the usefulness of such a project and also on > what > >data should be saved for each rules snippet. > > > >So what do you think, is this just waste of my time or could it become > >something useful? > > > >/Peter Brink > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > Amazing competition for unsigned bands with Live Sessions from MSN > Spaces _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3141 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060904/3513c846/attachment.bin From slposey at concentric.net Tue Sep 5 13:06:53 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:06:53 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules Recipe Database In-Reply-To: <20060904185519.81683.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060904185519.81683.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44FCE9CD.4070802@concentric.net> Steve Davies wrote: > While I'm not a Wiki expert, wouldn't that be a > perfect application for this? It would allow > categorization and linking between entries without a > lot of coding. My thought exactly. > I like the idea. Ditto. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 19:04:08 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:04:08 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: I'd like to bother the RQ community with my house-rules, that are overly focused on realistic and historical correct combat, so, YES, I'd like you to host such a site. I miss somthing similar for posting sample adventures using RQ-rules; somthing easy accessable, that RQ GM's can copy and paste the evenings evenement from :-) >From: Peter Brink >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database >Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:36:49 +0200 > >I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe database project for a >long time now. What I envision is a website where people could post house >rules, variant rules and such. With the release of MRQ and (D)BRP around >the >corner and lots of people still using RQ II/III (and in some cases RQ IV), >there ought to be a lot of rules snippets floating around and it would be >nice to have a repository for them. I know that similar ideas have been >floating around on this list before and nothing came out of those, but I >still think it's a good idea. > >The website would be a quite simple one, just a interface to allow searches >and another for browsing and a form for submitting rules. Only rules usable >with the various incarnations of RQ and BRP would be allowed. > >I can host the site and I know enough of programming to be able to build >it. I >do need some feedback on the usefulness of such a project and also on what >data should be saved for each rules snippet. > >So what do you think, is this just waste of my time or could it become >something useful? > >/Peter Brink >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 6 04:28:45 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:28:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ rules site Message-ID: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> Sounds like a good idea, a sort of RQ clearing house, if like me you're too technophobic ( and possibly lazy :} ) to host your own site it'd be a great idea for the occasional rules idea or spell or possibly even monster that springs to mind -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060905/eada4a60/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 6 00:05:56 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:05:56 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Peter Brink wrote: > I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe database project for a > long time now. What I envision is a website where people could post house > rules, variant rules and such. With the release of MRQ and (D)BRP around > the > I most heartily agree with this concept. There are a lot of websites out there that have been up for years which could dissapear at any time. Example: http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html A lot of really good information could get lost and a central repository to keep this for posterity is an excellent idea. Tony From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 6 05:47:20 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:47:20 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ rules site In-Reply-To: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> References: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> Message-ID: <44FDD448.9000502@brinkdata.se> Thanks folks for the encouraging replies! After considering the pros and cons of using a wiki, as Steve Davies suggested, for this particular purpose - the pros seem to carry over. A wiki has the advantage of letting people write using simple yet elegant wiki syntax (which is a kind of shorthand html code without the hassle). It also enables people to collaborate, if they wish, which might be an added bonus. I have been using PmWiki (http://pmwiki.org) in the past with good effect, so (at this stage at least) that will be my first choice. The site will become available at http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se in short while. Don't expect any content or for that matter to be able to contribute in the next week or so, I need to configure the site and add some extra plugins that I suspect might come in handy. I will post a "to-do" list at the sites frontpage so the interested parties can keep track of the sites development. I will implement a rules repository as step one, then I'll create a structure for posting creatures, critters, spells etc. and finally I'll look into providing the possibility of posting scenarios. The later would probably best be handled by people posting pdf files to a mailbox and then I'll make the pdf-documents available on one or more wikipages. The reason why I I'm hesitant to allow people to post files unrestricted is simply to make sure that nothing "inappropriate" is being posted. Not that I would dream of censoring any contributions, but mp3:s, executables and various lewd pictures do not belong on a site like this. Stay tuned! /Peter Brink From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 6 06:01:15 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:01:15 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ rules site In-Reply-To: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> References: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> Message-ID: <44FDD78B.8040801@brinkdata.se> Thanks folks for the encouraging replies! After considering the pros and cons of using a wiki, as Steve Davies suggested, for this particular purpose - the pros seem to carry over. A wiki has the advantage of letting people write using simple yet elegant wiki syntax (which is a kind of shorthand html code without the hassle). It also enables people to collaborate, if they wish, which might be an added bonus. I have been using PmWiki (http://pmwiki.org) in the past with good effect, so (at this stage at least) that will be my first choice. The site will become available at http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se in short while. Don't expect any content or for that matter to be able to contribute in the next week or so, I need to configure the site and add some extra plugins that I suspect might come in handy. I will post a "to-do" list at the sites frontpage so the interested parties can keep track of the sites development. I will implement a rules repository as step one, then I'll create a structure for posting creatures, critters, spells etc. and finally I'll look into providing the possibility of posting scenarios. The later would probably best be handled by people posting pdf files to a mailbox and then I'll make the pdf-documents available on one or more wikipages. The reason why I I'm hesitant to allow people to post files unrestricted is simply to make sure that nothing "inappropriate" is being posted. Not that I would dream of censoring any contributions, but mp3:s, executables and various lewd pictures do not belong on a site like this. Stay tuned! /Peter Brink From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 06:26:26 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:26:26 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ rules site In-Reply-To: <44FDD448.9000502@brinkdata.se> References: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> <44FDD448.9000502@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Peter, just one thing: I really hope you'll have good spam protection built into this wiki. Spammers killed my own RQ wiki, after all. ->Peter On 9/5/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > Thanks folks for the encouraging replies! > > After considering the pros and cons of using a wiki, as Steve Davies > suggested, for this particular purpose - the pros seem to carry over. A > wiki has the advantage of letting people write using simple yet elegant > wiki syntax (which is a kind of shorthand html code without the hassle). > It also enables people to collaborate, if they wish, which might be an > added bonus. I have been using PmWiki (http://pmwiki.org) in the past > with good effect, so (at this stage at least) that will be my first > choice. > > The site will become available at http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se in > short while. Don't expect any content or for that matter to be able to > contribute in the next week or so, I need to configure the site and add > some extra plugins that I suspect might come in handy. I will post a > "to-do" list at the sites frontpage so the interested parties can keep > track of the sites development. > > I will implement a rules repository as step one, then I'll create a > structure for posting creatures, critters, spells etc. and finally I'll > look into providing the possibility of posting scenarios. The later > would probably best be handled by people posting pdf files to a mailbox > and then I'll make the pdf-documents available on one or more wikipages. > The reason why I I'm hesitant to allow people to post files unrestricted > is simply to make sure that nothing "inappropriate" is being posted. Not > that I would dream of censoring any contributions, but mp3:s, > executables and various lewd pictures do not belong on a site like this. > > Stay tuned! > > /Peter Brink > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060905/dba9cdd4/attachment.html From StevenDLeary at comcast.net Wed Sep 6 06:51:03 2006 From: StevenDLeary at comcast.net (Steven Leary) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:51:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: And while not strictly rules, I would also like to suggest that anyone that saved ANYTHING from the SODA archives place them on the new site if it ever comes up. SDLeary On 05 Sep , 06, at 7:05 AM, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Peter Brink wrote: > >> I've been thinking of how to pull of a rules recipe database >> project for a >> long time now. What I envision is a website where people could >> post house >> rules, variant rules and such. With the release of MRQ and (D)BRP >> around >> the >> > > I most heartily agree with this concept. There are a lot of > websites out > there that have been up for years which could dissapear at any time. > Example: http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html > > A lot of really good information could get lost and a central > repository > to keep this for posterity is an excellent idea. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 07:11:25 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> Anyone know if the RQ-Tekumel rules are available as a *.doc file? Unfortunately, I only can find them in a PDF, and whilst one can easily convert PDFs to txt, it obviously destroys formatting and tables. Thought of that in context of importing it - I wonder if Sandy is easily reachable and if he'd mind. Bringing to mind another question: yes, there are countless orphaned RQ sites out there, would one have to necessarily try to reach the owner before posting their stuff, or is it considered public domain (with attribution, of course)? What if the owner is unreachable? On 9/5/06, Steven Leary wrote: > > And while not strictly rules, I would also like to suggest that > anyone that saved ANYTHING from the SODA archives place them on the > new site if it ever comes up. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060905/5483162d/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 6 08:48:23 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:48:23 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ rules site In-Reply-To: References: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> <44FDD448.9000502@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <44FDFEB7.1030501@brinkdata.se> Peter Maranci skrev: > Peter, just one thing: I really hope you'll have good spam protection built > into this wiki. Spammers killed my own RQ wiki, after all. > I do. First of all the spamfilters available have improved dramatically, secondly one can limit the number of links a wikipage can contain. If the author wants to post more than say two links he need to enter an approval password. This password can be posted somewhere on the site. Spambots and spammers in general don't seem to bother to check that the links actually work - so this strategy works quite well for many wikis. Add a edit password (also posted on the site) and the vast majority of spamming problems goes away, or so I hope at least... /Peter Brink From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 6 08:56:51 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:56:51 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44FE00B3.4020307@brinkdata.se> Styopa skrev: > Anyone know if the RQ-Tekumel rules are available as a *.doc file? > Unfortunately, I only can find them in a PDF, and whilst one can easily > convert PDFs to txt, it obviously destroys formatting and tables. > > Thought of that in context of importing it - I wonder if Sandy is easily > reachable and if he'd mind. Bringing to mind another question: yes, there > are countless orphaned RQ sites out there, would one have to necessarily > try to reach the owner before posting their stuff, or is it considered public > domain (with attribution, of course)? What if the owner is unreachable? > Those sites are *not* PD. The strict and careful approach is to get the authors permission. If that's not possible one can always save the site and use it for personal use, and continue to try and get a permission to post the stuff, but without such a permission it cannot be re-published. One could of course take a more daring approach and assume that people that has published stuff on the net intended it to be available and therefore wouldn't mind if it's safeguarded for future use. I would prefer that people only post stuff they have permission to post. /Peter Brink From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 09:19:17 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:19:17 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ rules site In-Reply-To: <44FDFEB7.1030501@brinkdata.se> References: <000601c6d119$1fb08ed0$49262ad9@sickboy> <44FDD448.9000502@brinkdata.se> <44FDFEB7.1030501@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609051619y5e654555i972d5006f506bba2@mail.gmail.com> I've also seen another wiki site hacked and all its contents destroyed. There was some great Traveller background info there that's forever lost. From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 09:34:38 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:34:38 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609051634k207db205ie3a7cfdf31070699@mail.gmail.com> On 9/5/06, Styopa wrote: > Anyone know if the RQ-Tekumel rules are available as a *.doc file? *raises hand* I have copies of Sandy's original TekumelQuest MSWord files dating from 1994 through 2002. The man is truly a genius. I also have Loren Miller's addendum to the rules on pre-manipulated Tekumel magic. All told, it's about 260k zipped. I haven't compared the material to the pdf version but if anyone would like a copy, please contact me privately. David From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 10:24:16 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:24:16 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: My site is still up, of course. In fact, I just realized that in October it will have been up for ten years straight, which may well make it the oldest RuneQuest site still online. But along these lines, I think I've said it before: If I die, I certainly hope that others will save and share as much of the stuff I've written as possible. And actually, I have to admit that I found the Chaos Project material surprisingly useful in the one-shot scenario that I created and ran over the weekend. As for PDF to .DOC table conversion, yes, it's a pain. It can be done, though, depending on the copy protection built into the PDFs. If high security has been used (which is the default for Acrobat 6 and later versions), the only way I've heard to break the protection is a Russian program - but it is, of course, illegal. ->Peter On 9/5/06, Styopa wrote: > > Anyone know if the RQ-Tekumel rules are available as a *.doc file? > Unfortunately, I only can find them in a PDF, and whilst one can easily > convert PDFs to txt, it obviously destroys formatting and tables. > > Thought of that in context of importing it - I wonder if Sandy is easily > reachable and if he'd mind. Bringing to mind another question: yes, there > are countless orphaned RQ sites out there, would one have to necessarily try > to reach the owner before posting their stuff, or is it considered public > domain (with attribution, of course)? What if the owner is unreachable? > > > On 9/5/06, Steven Leary < StevenDLeary at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > And while not strictly rules, I would also like to suggest that > > anyone that saved ANYTHING from the SODA archives place them on the > > new site if it ever comes up. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060905/b043a078/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Sep 6 13:19:13 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:19:13 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules recipe database References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se><22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za><56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> <1c92296e0609051634k207db205ie3a7cfdf31070699@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007601c6d163$3a73c170$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> I also passed on some of the previous correspondence to Sandy. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:34 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Rules recipe database > On 9/5/06, Styopa wrote: >> Anyone know if the RQ-Tekumel rules are available as a *.doc file? > > *raises hand* > > I have copies of Sandy's original TekumelQuest MSWord files dating > from 1994 through 2002. The man is truly a genius. I also have Loren > Miller's addendum to the rules on pre-manipulated Tekumel magic. All > told, it's about 260k zipped. > > I haven't compared the material to the pdf version but if anyone would > like a copy, please contact me privately. > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 7 00:51:56 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:51:56 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Poll on Runequezt.za.org Message-ID: <3676.196.8.104.31.1157554316.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Hi All. With all the discussion re RQ versions and who likes what, I put up a bit of a tongue in cheek poll on my site. Use it, don't use it..... http://www.runequest.za.org/ Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 6 16:29:36 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:29:36 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <44FE00B3.4020307@brinkdata.se> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> <44FE00B3.4020307@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <57008.196.8.104.31.1157524176.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Peter brink het geschryf: >> > > Those sites are *not* PD. The strict and careful approach is to get the > authors permission. If that's not possible one can always save the site > and use it for personal use, and continue to try and get a permission to > post the stuff, but without such a permission it cannot be re-published. > One could of course take a more daring approach and assume that people > that has published stuff on the net intended it to be available and > therefore wouldn't mind if it's safeguarded for future use. I would > prefer that people only post stuff they have permission to post. > While I fully accept that the content of such old, long since maintained, almost forgotten sites belongs to the author and as such the author should be contacted, I do believe that in many cases this is not possioble. Some of these sites are at university domains and the author has long since left. If the author had any special rules he didn't want shared with the global RQ community, then he/she would not have cobbled together a site to share. My suggestion is: 1. Contact Author, failing which - 2. Copy content and make specific note of why, that author couldnae be contacted, who the author is, where the original site was etc. I do not see how this could be seen as stealing, more like preservation. Just my ZWD500000 Tony From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 03:43:49 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Poll on Runequezt.za.org In-Reply-To: <3676.196.8.104.31.1157554316.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <3676.196.8.104.31.1157554316.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: Hey, you left out any mention of DBRP from the poll! :D On 9/6/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Hi All. > > With all the discussion re RQ versions and who likes what, I put up a bit > of a tongue in cheek poll on my site. Use it, don't use it..... > > http://www.runequest.za.org/ > > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060906/98a18d7c/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 6 22:04:57 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:04:57 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] What Ever Happened To? Message-ID: <58295.196.8.104.31.1157544297.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Hi All, Tony here, using my webmail for the list dseeing as my work chose to put a block on their mail marshall. All this talk of a house rules repository etc has made me think. What has happened to the following sites: Ouija's RuneQuest Site Kev Spencers RQ generator Tony From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 21:55:26 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 06:55:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609060455t45e8b04cr52c4e832ab374ef1@mail.gmail.com> On 9/5/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > As for PDF to .DOC table conversion, yes, it's a pain. It can be done, > though, depending on the copy protection built into the PDFs. If high > security has been used (which is the default for Acrobat 6 and later > versions), the only way I've heard to break the protection is a Russian > program - but it is, of course, illegal. > Googlemail showed the following links. I know nothing about them, however, so caveat emptor. David *PDF to Word Converter* Convert PDF Files into MS Word Easy, Fast, Exact. Free download. www.verypdf.com *PDF to Doc Converter* New Version! Convert PDF to Doc. Fast. Easy. Accurate. Free Trial. www.solidpdf.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060906/0b8d204f/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Sep 7 01:17:58 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:17:58 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Gems Message-ID: <20060906180455.E23F1B95D47@mini.thinbits.net> Hi > But, get Ralios immediately Is it a DRM'd PDF or not? The reason I ask is I once bought a PDF on drivethrough and after I changed my PC it became useless :-( Gianni From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Sep 6 23:30:51 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <44F6F906.7060304@concentric.net> References: <20060831145214.38066.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <44F6F906.7060304@concentric.net> Message-ID: <44FECD8B.9010005@inetnebr.com> Stephen Posey wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: >> Nope, he can actually do something. It's there in >> black and white. Well, what passes for black and white >> in RPGs these days. > > Well, precisely. My (tongue in cheek) intent was to point out the > dubious nature of using INT for this determination. > > Clearly someone might be able to determine what they SHOULD do, but > (for whatever reason) be unable to do so. someone who is smart is not necessarily decisive someone who is precise is not necessarily fast. sometimes the opposite is quite true simplification has occurred for game purposes. From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 05:00:09 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:00:09 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] What Ever Happened To? In-Reply-To: <58295.196.8.104.31.1157544297.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <58295.196.8.104.31.1157544297.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609061200r2baced50seafd704f6c295fc7@mail.gmail.com> Last I heard, Ouija shut the site down. David On 9/6/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Hi All, Tony here, using my webmail for the list dseeing as my work chose > to put a block on their mail marshall. > > All this talk of a house rules repository etc has made me think. What has > happened to the following sites: > > Ouija's RuneQuest Site > Kev Spencers RQ generator > > Tony > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060906/c24bb050/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 7 06:02:56 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:02:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Ouija's site + I could do that Message-ID: <000601c6d1ef$7203abf0$b7ba8956@sickboy> I knew the Ouija's site had gone, but I'd assumed it had died the death in a ISP clearup or something - I didn't realise he'd taken it down himself ( if thats the case ) Shame, I really liked it. Downloaded the five classic monsters PDF from RPG Now ( how slow ?! ) I think for the money ( $2.85 ) it's ok too goodish, a few stock monsters for non gloranthan settings - I guess Trollkin pretty much took that role in Glorantha, I did think the Dire Weasel was a nice touch, though at 700lb SIZ seemed rather small. But what I did think was: I could do that, it would never occur to me to sell that kind of thing, I'd either do my own web site or offer it to something like the Wiki site that Peter is contemplating. Actually I probably couldn't do it insofar as I know bugger all about PDF's, e-publishing and setting up my own company etc etc. But I could come up with monsters, spells etc and flog them off at a few dollars a time. Ah well, thats why they're going to be wealthy games tycoons and I'll remain a poor civil servant all my life. Anyway I do Goblins different in my game world :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060906/8b49b7b8/attachment.html From Meirion at ukgateway.net Thu Sep 7 06:29:52 2006 From: Meirion at ukgateway.net (Meirion) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:29:52 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Gems In-Reply-To: <20060906180455.E23F1B95D47@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <002201c6d1f3$35887030$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> >> But, get Ralios immediately > Gianni > > Is it a DRM'd PDF or not? The reason I ask is I once bought a PDF on drivethrough and after I changed my PC it became useless :-( I've not used DriveThru, but the Mongoose RQ stuff is "watermarked .PDF" rather than DRMed. Cheers, Meirion From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 7 08:49:45 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <20060906203010.7114EB97BA6@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060906224946.23133.qmail@web53905.mail.yahoo.com> I've downloaded several things from Drivethrough. Their early stuff was DRM, and I was able to re-download it on a new computer when my original died. They've also gone to digital watermark for some or all of their materials (and have converted over all of the DRM ones I downloaded). So you should be able to get a copy of the document you lost. The Ralios one is watermarked and should not cause the same problem. Steve > Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:17:58 +0200 > From: "Gianni" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Gems > Hi > > But, get Ralios immediately > Is it a DRM'd PDF or not? The reason I ask is I once > bought a PDF on > drivethrough and after I changed my PC it became > useless :-( > Gianni __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 09:47:49 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609060455t45e8b04cr52c4e832ab374ef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have the acrobat professional suite and might be able to help with conversions. If the file is locked down so tight that you can't do anything with it, it can always be made into a graphic and converted to text with an OCR program. I would also be willing to take a crack at that. Just let me know where I can get the files if you want me to help. As far as Russian freeware programs go...they scare me...you never know which ones are trojans that actually have the stated functionality as a cover for the secret program that makes you vulnerable. Fred >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database >Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 06:55:26 -0500 > >On 9/5/06, Peter Maranci wrote: >> >> >>As for PDF to .DOC table conversion, yes, it's a pain. It can be done, >>though, depending on the copy protection built into the PDFs. If high >>security has been used (which is the default for Acrobat 6 and later >>versions), the only way I've heard to break the protection is a Russian >>program - but it is, of course, illegal. >> > >Googlemail showed the following links. I know nothing about them, however, >so caveat emptor. > >David > >*PDF to Word >Converter* >Convert PDF Files into MS Word Easy, Fast, Exact. Free download. >www.verypdf.com > >*PDF to Doc >Converter* >New Version! Convert PDF to Doc. Fast. Easy. Accurate. Free Trial. >www.solidpdf.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From slposey at concentric.net Thu Sep 7 11:31:54 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:31:54 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <57008.196.8.104.31.1157524176.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <200609041336.51093.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <22159.196.8.104.31.1157465156.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <56e64e7a0609051411r3dbea11dj4fabd6e0a5a3a5f@mail.gmail.com> <44FE00B3.4020307@brinkdata.se> <57008.196.8.104.31.1157524176.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <44FF768A.6020601@concentric.net> postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Peter brink het geschryf: >> Those sites are *not* PD. The strict and careful approach is to get the >> authors permission. If that's not possible one can always save the site >> and use it for personal use, and continue to try and get a permission to >> post the stuff, but without such a permission it cannot be re-published. >> One could of course take a more daring approach and assume that people >> that has published stuff on the net intended it to be available and >> therefore wouldn't mind if it's safeguarded for future use. I would >> prefer that people only post stuff they have permission to post. > > While I fully accept that the content of such old, long since maintained, > almost forgotten sites belongs to the author and as such the author > should be contacted, I do believe that in many cases this is not > possioble. Some of these sites are at university domains and the author > has long since left. If the author had any special rules he didn't want > shared with the global RQ community, then he/she would not have cobbled > together a site to share. My suggestion is: > 1. Contact Author, failing which - > 2. Copy content and make specific note of why, that author couldnae be > contacted, who the author is, where the original site was etc. > > I do not see how this could be seen as stealing, more like preservation. > Just my ZWD500000 I'm in total agreement with you; though I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to any legal ramifications. I've also heard of authors who were adamant that their unpublished work not persist past their death;, which might translate into an author wishing anything left on an "abandoned" Web address not remain available. Given your stipulations though, I'm hard pressed to think anyone could object as long as we were diligent in taking anything down promptly if requested to do so. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 13:45:51 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:45:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: <44FF768A.6020601@concentric.net> Message-ID: Here are some guidlines on U.S. Copyright law that parallel title 17. The law can be looked up directly on-line. This website (http://www.copyright.gov/) is the U.S. Libaray of Congress website where the below quotes come from and there is a lot more information. The U.S. is also part of many treaties that enforce copyrights with most but not all countries. Hope this helps with your research of what you can and can't use. ------------------------------------------------------------ How to Secure a Copyright Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See ?Copyright Registration.? Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is ?created? when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. ?Copies? are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. ?Phonorecords? are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the ?work?) can be fixed in sheet music (?copies?) or in phonograph disks (?phonorecords?), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What Is Not Protected by Copyright? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded) Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources) From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 7 16:50:39 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:50:39 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Poll on Runequezt.za.org In-Reply-To: References: <3676.196.8.104.31.1157554316.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <2251.196.8.104.31.1157611839.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Actually considered it, but couldn't think up a short enought desrciption to put in. Peter Maranci wrote: > Hey, you left out any mention of DBRP from the poll! :D > > On 9/6/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org > wrote: >> >> Hi All. >> >> With all the discussion re RQ versions and who likes what, I put up a >> bit >> of a tongue in cheek poll on my site. Use it, don't use it..... >> >> http://www.runequest.za.org/ >> >> Tony >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 7 17:05:47 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:05:47 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Ouija's site + I could do that In-Reply-To: <000601c6d1ef$7203abf0$b7ba8956@sickboy> References: <000601c6d1ef$7203abf0$b7ba8956@sickboy> Message-ID: <18558.196.8.104.31.1157612747.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Yes, its a pity Ouijas site is goen, was one of the better ones IMO. Hmm, I also do Goblins diferent. Apart from my illd advised misspellung (Goblyn - muct go fix that sometime), I have them as the degenerate form of elf who lead short, violdent, almost hive like lives. Tony > I knew the Ouija's site had gone, but I'd assumed it had died the death in > a ISP clearup or something - I didn't realise he'd taken it down himself ( > if thats the case ) Shame, I really liked it. > > Downloaded the five classic monsters PDF from RPG Now ( how slow ?! ) I > think for the money ( $2.85 ) it's ok too goodish, a few stock monsters > for non gloranthan settings - I guess Trollkin pretty much took that role > in Glorantha, I did think the Dire Weasel was a nice touch, though at > 700lb SIZ seemed rather small. > > But what I did think was: I could do that, it would never occur to me to > sell that kind of thing, I'd either do my own web site or offer it to > something like the Wiki site that Peter > is contemplating. Actually I probably couldn't do it insofar as I know > bugger all about PDF's, e-publishing and setting up my own company etc > etc. > > But I could come up with monsters, spells etc and flog them off at a few > dollars a time. Ah well, thats why they're going to be wealthy games > tycoons and I'll remain a poor civil servant all my life. > > Anyway I do Goblins different in my game world :) > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Sep 7 22:10:50 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:10:50 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy Petersen's heroquesting rules Message-ID: Since we're talking about Sandy Petersen, does anyone have a copy of his heroquesting rules? There are multiple copies of his sorcery, mysticism, and shaman rules floating about the web, but I can't find his HQ system. Michael Hoxie "How many broo does it take to screw in a light-bulb?" "One, but then there is no room for the goat." From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Sep 7 23:47:26 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:47:26 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450022EE.7090006@brinkdata.se> The site http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se is now up and running. I need some feedback on the look and feel of the site. Personally I don't think there is any need for any more frills, but YMMV. There's not that much content yet, just a few links and a few rules in the Stormbringer repository. I've decided to tackle the potential spam issue by using a editor password. If anyone is interested in contributing material to the site, please send me an email at peter.brink at brinkdata.se and I'll send you the password (and some basic instructions). There is probably some need for templates and such, I'll add that in over the weekend. /Peter Brink From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 00:38:55 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Yippee! Your site's older than mine. Er, hang on ... In-Reply-To: <20060906174327.E4960B9539F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060907143855.94235.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > My site is still up, of course. In fact, I just realized that in October it > will have been up for ten years straight, which may well make it the oldest > RuneQuest site still online. Well done, it's difficult to keep a site going after all that time. Hang on, though, I got married in 98, moved to Moscow in 97, moved to Ireland in 96, started my website on AOL in probably 95, moved it to GeoCities in 97, moved it to soltakss.com in 05. So, although my website is 2 years old, the one before that would have been 9 years old and the one before that would have been 11 years old! But of course, they are probably different sites. It's like Cromwell's Knife. (Someone has a knife that was used by Oliver Cromwell, of course it's had 6 new handles and 10 new blades since then) Anyway, I'm probably uglier and nerdier than you, so there! > But along these lines, I think I've said it before: If I die, I certainly > hope that others will save and share as much of the stuff I've written as > possible. And actually, I have to admit that I found the Chaos Project > material surprisingly useful in the one-shot scenario that I created and ran > over the weekend. Ever the optimist "If I die" .... :-) But, yes, I'd probably like the same thing - for things to be archived off somewhere so that people in generations time will be able to look back and think "what a strange lot they were in the 20th and 21st centuries". See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060907/1380c4ec/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 03:32:40 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:32:40 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Yippee! Your site's older than mine. Er, hang on ... In-Reply-To: <20060907143855.94235.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060906174327.E4960B9539F@mini.thinbits.net> <20060907143855.94235.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Heh. If we're talking about predecessor sites, then I had one for my old roleplaying APA, Interregnum, at least a year before I put up my RQ site - and that included some of the same RQ-related content. In fact, the two sites shared the same domain for several years. I'm wondering what, if anything, I might do to celebrate the decennial of the site. It doesn't seem appropriate to let it go by without some sort of recognition, and thanks for the people who've contributed to it. Anyone have any suggestions? ->Peter On 9/7/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Peter Maranci: > > My site is still up, of course. In fact, I just realized that in > October it > > will have been up for ten years straight, which may well make it the > oldest > > RuneQuest site still online. > > Well done, it's difficult to keep a site going after all that time. > > Hang on, though, I got married in 98, moved to Moscow in 97, moved to > Ireland in 96, started my website on AOL in probably 95, moved it to > GeoCities in 97, moved it to soltakss.com in 05. So, although my website > is 2 years old, the one before that would have been 9 years old and the one > before that would have been 11 years old! But of course, they are probably > different sites. > > It's like Cromwell's Knife. (Someone has a knife that was used by Oliver > Cromwell, of course it's had 6 new handles and 10 new blades since then) > > Anyway, I'm probably uglier and nerdier than you, so there! > > > But along these lines, I think I've said it before: If I die, I > certainly > > hope that others will save and share as much of the stuff I've written > as > > possible. And actually, I have to admit that I found the Chaos Project > > material surprisingly useful in the one-shot scenario that I created and > ran > > over the weekend. > > Ever the optimist "If I die" .... :-) > > But, yes, I'd probably like the same thing - for things to be archived off > somewhere so that people in generations time will be able to look back and > think "what a strange lot they were in the 20th and 21st centuries". > > See Ya > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060907/ffb8853a/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 20:11:58 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:11:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Brief History of Chaosium In-Reply-To: <20060907143908.7DE6AB9FD74@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060908101158.75411.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Shannon Appelcline has a brief history of Chaosium at http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml if anyone is interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/1e091409/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 22:24:41 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 08:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Brief History of Chaosium In-Reply-To: <20060908101158.75411.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060907143908.7DE6AB9FD74@mini.thinbits.net> <20060908101158.75411.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It's an interesting article, and quite extensive. But I was disappointed that it didn't get to more interesting stuff, like the details of the break between Chaosium and Avalon Hill, whatever happened between Jack Dott and Stafford, and the Chaosium/Issaries split. But then, I like to hear about the dirt behind the scenes. :D I was also surprised to see no mention of the RQ monographs, and to see DBRP so thoroughly minimized. But then, Shannon doubtless knows more about Chaosium's inner workings than I do; I hope this doesn't portent trouble getting DBRP published! I've been worrying about that. ->Peter On 9/8/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Shannon Appelcline has a brief history of Chaosium at > http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml if anyone is > interested. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/ac0f213d/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Sep 8 23:08:41 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:08:41 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Brief History of Chaosium In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter, >It's an interesting article, and quite extensive. But I was disappointed that it didn't get to more >interesting stuff, like the details of the break between Chaosium and Avalon Hill, whatever happened >between Jack Dott and Stafford, and the Chaosium/Issaries split. But then, I like to hear about >the dirt behind the scenes. :D Well, google for Greg Costikyan on the history of gaming - IIRC he has some choice tails about working for "Papa Dott". >I was also surprised to see no mention of the RQ monographs, and to see DBRP so thoroughly minimized. >But then, Shannon doubtless knows more about Chaosium's inner workings than I do; I hope this doesn't >portent trouble getting DBRP published! I've been worrying about that. Hardly Peter - I think it's far more likely that Shannon is trying to write a calm, reasoned piece and be as objective as possible about a company he worked for and the staff of which he may well still be friends with. Chaosium have actually made precious few if any "public" statements about DBRP, and I thought he gave quite a reasonable assessment of the monographs to date. If he updates the article in a few years time, there may well be more to say about "DBRP", but at present it's not been published, so it really isn't relevant to a _history_ of Chaosium. And there aren't any RQ monographs (that would be infringing Issaries Trademark) - there are some BRP monographs though... ;-) My only reservation about the piece is that it skipped around a little and didn't jibe entirely with either my personal memory of events as seen by an outside fan (I've been buying Chaosium games since 1979), nor (and more importantly) with some details in accounts of events by other Chaosium staff past and present. Such discrepancies are no doubt due to the vagaries of memory, but given the articles prominent location at RPGnet I'm afraid it will get treated as 100% fact, rather than one (well informed) persons own account of the History of Chaosium. Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sat Sep 9 00:58:53 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:58:53 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rules recipe database In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4501852D.8090804@brinkdata.se> FYI, I've set up a Yahoo Group and a mailinglist as a sort of help-desk for the website (http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se). Those of you who have expressed interest in contributing content to the site have already been invited to join the new mailinglist. Anyone else that's interested in contributing can apply to join the list at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rpg_repository/ /Peter Brink From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 01:50:33 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 08:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude Message-ID: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is something I been thinking for a while. One of the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is that after a while all characters begin to be very good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. There have been several attempts to fix that. One was to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair advantage to characters with good stats. Another attempt has been to limit the number of checks a character can take after an adventure, but that does not take training into account and penalizes characters who are engaged in a long adventure. What I propose is that each player decides and area of Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his character. The 3 areas of aptitude: Physical (Combat, Agility) Mental (Knowledge, Magical) Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) If you have aptitude then you take the checks as normal If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 on each skill increase in those skills If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on each skill increase in those skills You always considered to have Aptitude in Communication and Perception skills. Basically what it would mean is that in best case a character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum 0 (for a hard skill with no aptitude). For medium skill it would the range would be: 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude What do you think? Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 02:09:27 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I see your point, and it's a good one. I worked up something similar once, a while back, but rather than make it mandatory, it was a system of advantages and disadvantages. A character could have improved ability with one or more skill categories. That enhancement could be balanced with a compensating weakness in a skill category of approximately equal value - which could be difficult to determine, I admit - or paid for with character design points. Enhancement in a skill category also gave the character an improved chance to increase all skills in that category. But my gut feeling is that while that's not a bad idea (in fact, an Advantage/Disadvantage system is something that I'd very much like to see for RQ) it's not really the right tool for the sort of character differentiation that you're looking for. There should be some sort of reality-based approach that we can take to this. What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the top of my head - is that in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of similar skills. That's not always true, but it usually is. For example, someone who does a lot of climbing is likely to be better at other physical skills, too - and, I presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I don't know). Likewise, if you spend a lot of time researching and reading, you're likely to be more comfortable with mental skills in general. It's possible to be a true jack-of-all-trades, of course, but the general tendency is to develop areas of comfort and to concentrate on them. I'm not sure how this could be reflected in a rule. Perhaps increasing skills in a category could give some small bonus for increasing any other skill in that category? For example (and this is awfully blocky, and I'm sure I'll be criticized), perhaps every skill in a category which is at 90% or better increases the chance to improve lower skills in that same category by 1%? I'll reply to this on the list as well as the Yahoo group. ->Peter On 9/8/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > This is something I been thinking for a while. One of > the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is > that after a while all characters begin to be very > good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > There have been several attempts to fix that. One was > to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair > advantage to characters with good stats. Another > attempt has been to limit the number of checks a > character can take after an adventure, but that does > not take training into account and penalizes > characters who are engaged in a long adventure. > > What I propose is that each player decides and area of > Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his > character. The 3 areas of aptitude: > > Physical (Combat, Agility) > Mental (Knowledge, Magical) > Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) > > If you have aptitude then you take the checks as > normal > If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 > on each skill increase in those skills > If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on > each skill increase in those skills > > You always considered to have Aptitude in > Communication and Perception skills. > > Basically what it would mean is that in best case a > character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy > skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum 0 > (for a hard skill with no aptitude). > > For medium skill it would the range would be: > > 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude > 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude > 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude > > What do you think? > > 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 > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/8737e770/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 02:11:28 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have been thinking about this myself over the years. I don't like classes because it permanantly pigeon holes people into categories of what they can be good at. Some people are talented and are great at diverse subjects. I thought of having aptitutde levels: inept - 4 x cost of developement challenged - 2 X cost of developement normal - developement as normal natural - 1/2 cost of developement prodigy - 1/4 cost of developement the aptitude level would be rolled the first time a skill is attempting to be learned, this would set the characters aptitude from then on. But this would suck if you wanted to create a warrior type character, and you ended up rolling inept on every weapon you tried to learn. So I was thinking of having some set number of "exceptions" (maybe 5)that the character has, that represented the characters will and determination that could be assigned to skills (like when sports team has to make cuts, there is small list of protected players, who are exempted) any skill with an exception assinged to it would could be treated as 2 aptitude levels higher due to the focus and concentration that the character is assiging to those skills. Ahh well, enough of my rambling. I never did work out all the details. Greg --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > This is something I been thinking for a while. One > of > the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, > is > that after a while all characters begin to be very > good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > There have been several attempts to fix that. One > was > to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair > advantage to characters with good stats. Another > attempt has been to limit the number of checks a > character can take after an adventure, but that does > not take training into account and penalizes > characters who are engaged in a long adventure. > > What I propose is that each player decides and area > of > Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his > character. The 3 areas of aptitude: > > Physical (Combat, Agility) > Mental (Knowledge, Magical) > Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) > > If you have aptitude then you take the checks as > normal > If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 > on each skill increase in those skills > If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on > each skill increase in those skills > > You always considered to have Aptitude in > Communication and Perception skills. > > Basically what it would mean is that in best case a > character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy > skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum > 0 > (for a hard skill with no aptitude). > > For medium skill it would the range would be: > > 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude > 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude > 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude > > What do you think? > > 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 > "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 rjmeints at aol.com Sat Sep 9 02:36:17 2006 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Chaosium History In-Reply-To: <20060908160944.07760BABEB8@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060908160944.07760BABEB8@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <8C8A17C0ABA1659-CD4-5ECB@FWM-R01.sysops.aol.com> All, Unfortunately, all the major parties involved at Chaosium, especially the current employees, are firmly against airing dirty laundry in public. Few individuals want to provide info on their own bad behavior or past wrong doings (I am not saying this applies to anyone in particular at Chaosium). It does them little good, especially when they sometimes still want to work in the industry. Also, most of the "nasty" stuff that happened would all be from one point of view. Chaosium's opinion of the Avalon Hill relationship is probably very different from what Avalon Hill would say it was. For an overview of the company, the Chaosium History works just fine, but all of the details would probably fill an entire book. Lastly, as others have said, the author is a friend of many of the people (past and present) involved with Chaosium. Peter Maranci writes: It's an interesting article, and quite extensive. But I was disappointed that it didn't get to more interesting stuff, like the details of the break between Chaosium and Avalon Hill, whatever happened between Jack Dott and Stafford, and the Chaosium/Issaries split. But then, I like to hear about the dirt behind the scenes. :D Regards, Rick ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/b39fd3fc/attachment.html From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Sep 9 02:44:21 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:44:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004e01c6d366$099bacc0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> My most recent attempt to address this is from a financial approach. I created "sects" within the tribe structure that encourage characters to hone specific skills. I consider that the tribe distributes resources in a way that is most beneficial to all of its members. When players join a particular sect they receive cheaper training in certain skills, and access to sect-specific spells, equipment and uncommon skills. The Hunter's sect for example may have the best archery trainers and access to cheap blade venom for their arrows, while the Shaman's sect has a wide range spirit magic to choose from, and first pick of power crystals. A member of the Shaman's sect can still train in archery and a member of the Hunters can still get (some) spirit magic, just at an additional charge or limited availability. Players are free to advance however they like but it is assumed in the long run they will be shaped by their selected sect. Of course the same thing can be done with the cult framework, but typically the distinction of "specialty" isn't so clear. Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Leon Kirshtein Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:51 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude This is something I been thinking for a while. One of the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is that after a while all characters begin to be very good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. There have been several attempts to fix that. One was to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair advantage to characters with good stats. Another attempt has been to limit the number of checks a character can take after an adventure, but that does not take training into account and penalizes characters who are engaged in a long adventure. What I propose is that each player decides and area of Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his character. The 3 areas of aptitude: Physical (Combat, Agility) Mental (Knowledge, Magical) Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) If you have aptitude then you take the checks as normal If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 on each skill increase in those skills If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on each skill increase in those skills You always considered to have Aptitude in Communication and Perception skills. Basically what it would mean is that in best case a character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum 0 (for a hard skill with no aptitude). For medium skill it would the range would be: 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude What do you think? 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 From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 02:48:08 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You know, it suddenly strikes me that characteristics should probably have a greater impact on skills. The difference between a 10 and 18 intelligence should be a LOT more than an 8% category bonus for mental skills, for example. ->Peter On 9/8/06, grogthing wrote: > > I have been thinking about this myself over the years. > > I don't like classes because it permanantly pigeon > holes people into categories of what they can be good > at. > > Some people are talented and are great at diverse > subjects. > > I thought of having aptitutde levels: > > inept - 4 x cost of developement > challenged - 2 X cost of developement > normal - developement as normal > natural - 1/2 cost of developement > prodigy - 1/4 cost of developement > > the aptitude level would be rolled the first time a > skill is attempting to be learned, this would set the > characters aptitude from then on. > > But this would suck if you wanted to create a warrior > type character, and you ended up rolling inept on > every weapon you tried to learn. > > So I was thinking of having some set number of > "exceptions" (maybe 5)that the character has, that > represented the characters will and determination that > could be assigned to skills (like when sports team has > to make cuts, there is small list of protected > players, who are exempted) any skill with an exception > assinged to it would could be treated as 2 aptitude > levels higher due to the focus and concentration that > the character is assiging to those skills. > > Ahh well, enough of my rambling. I never did work out > all the details. > > Greg > > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > This is something I been thinking for a while. One > > of > > the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, > > is > > that after a while all characters begin to be very > > good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > > skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > > > There have been several attempts to fix that. One > > was > > to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, > > Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair > > advantage to characters with good stats. Another > > attempt has been to limit the number of checks a > > character can take after an adventure, but that does > > not take training into account and penalizes > > characters who are engaged in a long adventure. > > > > What I propose is that each player decides and area > > of > > Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his > > character. The 3 areas of aptitude: > > > > Physical (Combat, Agility) > > Mental (Knowledge, Magical) > > Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) > > > > If you have aptitude then you take the checks as > > normal > > If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 > > on each skill increase in those skills > > If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on > > each skill increase in those skills > > > > You always considered to have Aptitude in > > Communication and Perception skills. > > > > Basically what it would mean is that in best case a > > character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy > > skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum > > 0 > > (for a hard skill with no aptitude). > > > > For medium skill it would the range would be: > > > > 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude > > 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude > > 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude > > > > What do you think? > > > > 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 > > > > > "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 -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/a25e1e37/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 03:50:19 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:50:19 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609081050h2c150384i2d87a6f67b6a0ff8@mail.gmail.com> I don't really have an alternative at hand, but rather than looking at it from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd try to solve the observed results by looking at reality...what happens in the real world to an expert in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is there such a thing as "the top" in the real world? Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat skills are good enough, now I should learn medicine, or computer use"? Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his surgical skills, decide to learn how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real world people tend to: a) continue to improve their current skill set, because even a tiny improvement might significantly reduce the likelihood of failure in tougher-than-average conditions. b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or fields that would support/synergize with the skills that they have - a surgeon might take up radiology, or osteopathy c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW knowledge: the combat veteran might synthesize what he's learned about knife fighting and wrestling into a new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an expert boatman might develop a new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader in rough seas. Evolving game effects from these sorts of observations then becomes, if not trivial, then at least a little more logically supportable: a) this is already subsumed in the "improving beyond 100%" capability in RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword attack isn't all that much better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting in the dark or something where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. b) like the old rule about being able to divide your % into multi attacks when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain the ability to spend % over 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid might give you 14 points that you could apply to plant lore or human lore (you'd still have a skill of 114 in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 points again). c) also relatively trivial, and could involve some discussion between the player and the GM, about what the player sees his character doing with the skill. For example, first aid at 150% might not simply be really good first aid, but every 20% or fraction over 100% might give them a +1 to the damage healed, or a chance to save someone otherwise beyond hope, or heal injuries otherwise beyond (typical) first aid like CON loss. Combat skills could involve the investing of % into "combat arts" where a character with say 138% spear attack, might have a 38% chance be able to apply "The Reaching Crane", a fighting style that allows the player to have -1SR, +2 damage when facing an opponent armed with a sword and shield. Or he gets a 38% chance to stun his opponent for 1 round, a lot of these sort of 'chance on hit' effects could be literally be copied from MMOGs...they have a ton of examples. I agree that characters tend to 'max out' if not given a reasonable incentive to continue to improve their focus areas, though. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/0a6161dd/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 04:02:16 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609081050h2c150384i2d87a6f67b6a0ff8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060908180216.69985.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having perfect scores in medical school taking advanced biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine physiques with black belts in more than one martial art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well in the hobby time. Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and therefore should be duplicate-able via the game mechanics. Greg --- Styopa wrote: > I don't really have an alternative at hand, but > rather than looking at it > from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd try > to solve the observed > results by looking at reality...what happens in the > real world to an expert > in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is there > such a thing as "the > top" in the real world? > > Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat > skills are good enough, now > I should learn medicine, or computer use"? > > Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his surgical > skills, decide to learn > how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? > > No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real world > people tend to: > a) continue to improve their current skill set, > because even a tiny > improvement might significantly reduce the > likelihood of failure in > tougher-than-average conditions. > b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or > fields that would > support/synergize with the skills that they have - a > surgeon might take up > radiology, or osteopathy > c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW > knowledge: the combat veteran > might synthesize what he's learned about knife > fighting and wrestling into a > new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an expert > boatman might develop a > new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader in > rough seas. > > Evolving game effects from these sorts of > observations then becomes, if not > trivial, then at least a little more logically > supportable: > a) this is already subsumed in the "improving beyond > 100%" capability in > RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword attack > isn't all that much > better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting in > the dark or something > where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. > b) like the old rule about being able to divide your > % into multi attacks > when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain the > ability to spend % over > 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid might > give you 14 points that > you could apply to plant lore or human lore (you'd > still have a skill of 114 > in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 > points again). > c) also relatively trivial, and could involve some > discussion between the > player and the GM, about what the player sees his > character doing with the > skill. For example, first aid at 150% might not > simply be really good first > aid, but every 20% or fraction over 100% might give > them a +1 to the damage > healed, or a chance to save someone otherwise beyond > hope, or heal injuries > otherwise beyond (typical) first aid like CON loss. > Combat skills could > involve the investing of % into "combat arts" where > a character with say > 138% spear attack, might have a 38% chance be able > to apply "The Reaching > Crane", a fighting style that allows the player to > have -1SR, +2 damage when > facing an opponent armed with a sword and shield. > Or he gets a 38% chance > to stun his opponent for 1 round, a lot of these > sort of 'chance on hit' > effects could be literally be copied from > MMOGs...they have a ton of > examples. > > I agree that characters tend to 'max out' if not > given a reasonable > incentive to continue to improve their focus areas, > though. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Sep 9 04:04:48 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:04:48 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908180216.69985.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0609081050h2c150384i2d87a6f67b6a0ff8@mail.gmail.com> <20060908180216.69985.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609081104y5cab8c7bv172697ee09646f55@mail.gmail.com> Though such characters should be rare though a GM could always override such rareness if his campaign calls for it. David On 9/8/06, grogthing wrote: > > I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having > perfect scores in medical school taking advanced > biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine > physiques with black belts in more than one martial > art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting > firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well > in the hobby time. > > Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? > Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and > therefore should be duplicate-able via the game > mechanics. > > Greg > > > --- Styopa wrote: > > > I don't really have an alternative at hand, but > > rather than looking at it > > from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd try > > to solve the observed > > results by looking at reality...what happens in the > > real world to an expert > > in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is there > > such a thing as "the > > top" in the real world? > > > > Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat > > skills are good enough, now > > I should learn medicine, or computer use"? > > > > Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his surgical > > skills, decide to learn > > how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? > > > > No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real world > > people tend to: > > a) continue to improve their current skill set, > > because even a tiny > > improvement might significantly reduce the > > likelihood of failure in > > tougher-than-average conditions. > > b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or > > fields that would > > support/synergize with the skills that they have - a > > surgeon might take up > > radiology, or osteopathy > > c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW > > knowledge: the combat veteran > > might synthesize what he's learned about knife > > fighting and wrestling into a > > new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an expert > > boatman might develop a > > new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader in > > rough seas. > > > > Evolving game effects from these sorts of > > observations then becomes, if not > > trivial, then at least a little more logically > > supportable: > > a) this is already subsumed in the "improving beyond > > 100%" capability in > > RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword attack > > isn't all that much > > better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting in > > the dark or something > > where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. > > b) like the old rule about being able to divide your > > % into multi attacks > > when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain the > > ability to spend % over > > 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid might > > give you 14 points that > > you could apply to plant lore or human lore (you'd > > still have a skill of 114 > > in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 > > points again). > > c) also relatively trivial, and could involve some > > discussion between the > > player and the GM, about what the player sees his > > character doing with the > > skill. For example, first aid at 150% might not > > simply be really good first > > aid, but every 20% or fraction over 100% might give > > them a +1 to the damage > > healed, or a chance to save someone otherwise beyond > > hope, or heal injuries > > otherwise beyond (typical) first aid like CON loss. > > Combat skills could > > involve the investing of % into "combat arts" where > > a character with say > > 138% spear attack, might have a 38% chance be able > > to apply "The Reaching > > Crane", a fighting style that allows the player to > > have -1SR, +2 damage when > > facing an opponent armed with a sword and shield. > > Or he gets a 38% chance > > to stun his opponent for 1 round, a lot of these > > sort of 'chance on hit' > > effects could be literally be copied from > > MMOGs...they have a ton of > > examples. > > > > I agree that characters tend to 'max out' if not > > given a reasonable > > incentive to continue to improve their focus areas, > > though. > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/5a26647f/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 04:07:01 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:07:01 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908180216.69985.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0609081050h2c150384i2d87a6f67b6a0ff8@mail.gmail.com> <20060908180216.69985.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that the rules as they are tend to produce jack-of-all-trades characters, rather than specialists. It's possible to change that by fiat, of course (Stormbringer comes to mind), but it just doesn't seem that in the real world most people are successful generalists. So I'm not calling for the *elimination* of "jack-of-all-trades" characters, but merely for consideration of an alternative rule that would encourage characters to have more variety, and to more closely represent reality. ->Peter On 9/8/06, grogthing wrote: > > I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having > perfect scores in medical school taking advanced > biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine > physiques with black belts in more than one martial > art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting > firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well > in the hobby time. > > Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? > Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and > therefore should be duplicate-able via the game > mechanics. > > Greg > > > --- Styopa wrote: > > > I don't really have an alternative at hand, but > > rather than looking at it > > from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd try > > to solve the observed > > results by looking at reality...what happens in the > > real world to an expert > > in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is there > > such a thing as "the > > top" in the real world? > > > > Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat > > skills are good enough, now > > I should learn medicine, or computer use"? > > > > Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his surgical > > skills, decide to learn > > how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? > > > > No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real world > > people tend to: > > a) continue to improve their current skill set, > > because even a tiny > > improvement might significantly reduce the > > likelihood of failure in > > tougher-than-average conditions. > > b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or > > fields that would > > support/synergize with the skills that they have - a > > surgeon might take up > > radiology, or osteopathy > > c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW > > knowledge: the combat veteran > > might synthesize what he's learned about knife > > fighting and wrestling into a > > new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an expert > > boatman might develop a > > new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader in > > rough seas. > > > > Evolving game effects from these sorts of > > observations then becomes, if not > > trivial, then at least a little more logically > > supportable: > > a) this is already subsumed in the "improving beyond > > 100%" capability in > > RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword attack > > isn't all that much > > better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting in > > the dark or something > > where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. > > b) like the old rule about being able to divide your > > % into multi attacks > > when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain the > > ability to spend % over > > 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid might > > give you 14 points that > > you could apply to plant lore or human lore (you'd > > still have a skill of 114 > > in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 > > points again). > > c) also relatively trivial, and could involve some > > discussion between the > > player and the GM, about what the player sees his > > character doing with the > > skill. For example, first aid at 150% might not > > simply be really good first > > aid, but every 20% or fraction over 100% might give > > them a +1 to the damage > > healed, or a chance to save someone otherwise beyond > > hope, or heal injuries > > otherwise beyond (typical) first aid like CON loss. > > Combat skills could > > involve the investing of % into "combat arts" where > > a character with say > > 138% spear attack, might have a 38% chance be able > > to apply "The Reaching > > Crane", a fighting style that allows the player to > > have -1SR, +2 damage when > > facing an opponent armed with a sword and shield. > > Or he gets a 38% chance > > to stun his opponent for 1 round, a lot of these > > sort of 'chance on hit' > > effects could be literally be copied from > > MMOGs...they have a ton of > > examples. > > > > I agree that characters tend to 'max out' if not > > given a reasonable > > incentive to continue to improve their focus areas, > > though. > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/264e779e/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 04:08:28 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude Message-ID: <20060908180828.93945.qmail@web31205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> These rules allows for it, but will make progress in one of those areas a bit harder. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having > perfect scores in medical school taking advanced > biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine > physiques with black belts in more than one martial > art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting > firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well > in the hobby time. > > Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? > Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and > therefore should be duplicate-able via the game > mechanics. > > Greg > > > --- Styopa wrote: > > > I don't really have an alternative at hand, but > > rather than looking at it > > from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd try > > to solve the observed > > results by looking at reality...what happens in the > > real world to an expert > > in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is there > > such a thing as "the > > top" in the real world? > > > > Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat > > skills are good enough, now > > I should learn medicine, or computer use"? > > > > Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his surgical > > skills, decide to learn > > how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? > > > > No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real world > > people tend to: > > a) continue to improve their current skill set, > > because even a tiny > > improvement might significantly reduce the > > likelihood of failure in > > tougher-than-average conditions. > > b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or > > fields that would > > support/synergize with the skills that they have - a > > surgeon might take up > > radiology, or osteopathy > > c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW > > knowledge: the combat veteran > > might synthesize what he's learned about knife > > fighting and wrestling into a > > new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an expert > > boatman might develop a > > new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader in > > rough seas. > > > > Evolving game effects from these sorts of > > observations then becomes, if not > > trivial, then at least a little more logically > > supportable: > > a) this is already subsumed in the "improving beyond > > 100%" capability in > > RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword attack > > isn't all that much > > better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting in > > the dark or something > > where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. > > b) like the old rule about being able to divide your > > % into multi attacks > > when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain the > > ability to spend % over > > 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid might > > give you 14 points that > > you could apply to plant lore or human lore (you'd > > still have a skill of 114 > > in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 > > points again). > > c) also relatively trivial, and could involve some > > discussion between the === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 04:15:23 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060908181523.12649.qmail@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hmmm, it seems that characters represent non-standard above average representations of their world or they would be staying at home doing their specialized job. So I don't see the need to force developement along the lines of what the "average joe"s skill set would be. IMHO of course. I have been leaning lately at game balance being entirely at the hands of the referree, not built into the system. Let players choose their stats and skills for the character they want to play. The GM get veto and override power if he thinks its too (unbalanced, unrealistic, munchkiny). Greg --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Of course, but that's not the point. The point is > that the rules as they are > tend to produce jack-of-all-trades characters, > rather than specialists. It's > possible to change that by fiat, of course > (Stormbringer comes to mind), but > it just doesn't seem that in the real world most > people are successful > generalists. > > So I'm not calling for the *elimination* of > "jack-of-all-trades" characters, > but merely for consideration of an alternative rule > that would encourage > characters to have more variety, and to more closely > represent reality. > > ->Peter > > On 9/8/06, grogthing wrote: > > > > I have known people who seem almost "perfect" > having > > perfect scores in medical school taking advanced > > biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine > > physiques with black belts in more than one > martial > > art as well as mastering several weapons and > shooting > > firearms, who also plays and writes music quite > well > > in the hobby time. > > > > Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? > > Maybe, but there are real live people like this, > and > > therefore should be duplicate-able via the game > > mechanics. > > > > Greg > > > > > > --- Styopa wrote: > > > > > I don't really have an alternative at hand, but > > > rather than looking at it > > > from a game-mechanic point of view, I guess I'd > try > > > to solve the observed > > > results by looking at reality...what happens in > the > > > real world to an expert > > > in a field when they reach nearly the top? Is > there > > > such a thing as "the > > > top" in the real world? > > > > > > Does a seasoned combat veteran decide "my combat > > > skills are good enough, now > > > I should learn medicine, or computer use"? > > > > > > Or does a doctor, reaching the apex of his > surgical > > > skills, decide to learn > > > how to fire a gun or pilot a ship? > > > > > > No, I'd suggest anecdotally that in the real > world > > > people tend to: > > > a) continue to improve their current skill set, > > > because even a tiny > > > improvement might significantly reduce the > > > likelihood of failure in > > > tougher-than-average conditions. > > > b) branch out, if at all, into similar fields or > > > fields that would > > > support/synergize with the skills that they have > - a > > > surgeon might take up > > > radiology, or osteopathy > > > c) specialize further, possibly creating NEW > > > knowledge: the combat veteran > > > might synthesize what he's learned about knife > > > fighting and wrestling into a > > > new martial-arts style; the sailor who is an > expert > > > boatman might develop a > > > new kind of hull that is more nimble or steader > in > > > rough seas. > > > > > > Evolving game effects from these sorts of > > > observations then becomes, if not > > > trivial, then at least a little more logically > > > supportable: > > > a) this is already subsumed in the "improving > beyond > > > 100%" capability in > > > RQ. Granted, in typical combat, 120% sword > attack > > > isn't all that much > > > better compared to 95%. But if you're fighting > in > > > the dark or something > > > where skill is halved, it's quite a benefit. > > > b) like the old rule about being able to divide > your > > > % into multi attacks > > > when over 100, maybe you could (with study) gain > the > > > ability to spend % over > > > 100 to improve another skill. 114% first aid > might > > > give you 14 points that > > > you could apply to plant lore or human lore > (you'd > > > still have a skill of 114 > > > in first aid, but you could never spend those 14 > > > points again). > > > c) also relatively trivial, and could involve > some > > > discussion between the > > > player and the GM, about what the player sees > his > > > character doing with the > > > skill. For example, first aid at 150% might not > > > simply be really good first > > > aid, but every 20% or fraction over 100% might > give > > > them a +1 to the damage > > > healed, or a chance to save someone otherwise > beyond > > > hope, or heal injuries > > > otherwise beyond (typical) first aid like CON > loss. > > > Combat skills could > > > involve the investing of % into "combat arts" > where > > > a character with say > > > 138% spear attack, might have a 38% chance be > able > > > to apply "The Reaching > > > Crane", a fighting style that allows the player > to > > > have -1SR, +2 damage when > > > facing an opponent armed with a sword and > shield. > > > Or he gets a 38% chance > > > to stun his opponent for 1 round, a lot of these > > > sort of 'chance on hit' > > > effects could be literally be copied from > > > MMOGs...they have a ton of > > > examples. > > > > > > I agree that characters tend to 'max out' if not > > > given a reasonable > > > incentive to continue to improve their focus > areas, > > > though. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > 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 carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 04:51:00 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060908185100.68649.qmail@web31815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mythworld, which at least historically can be considered one of the multitudenous RuneQuest variants, deals with this problem quite easily. It is true that characters can gain any skill their time, money, intellegence (and in rare cases, other primary characteristics such as strength and dexterity) permit. However, even for the most successful (substitute wealthy) adventurer, the time factor still is a check on expertise in every skill. The fact that there are over 100 general skills that theoretically any character can learn, and many of those (such as speak, read, and write language; play game; play sport; know culture; etc.) are subdivided into any number of specific subjects; plus that there are trade skills taught only to those in that guild and there is a limit to the number of guilds one can join; plus some spells are limited to various religions and the character can only be in a couple and reach high level in only one; all come together to make it impossible for even elves to reach such expertise levels in everything. The rules can provide for exceptional versatility and still stay within the realm of the reasonable. Oh yes, one more detail. After a certain level of this versatility is reached, the character becomes rather boring to play because of the lack of challenge and is usually retired. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 05:20:25 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908160944.07760BABEB8@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060908192025.62902.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> What I've done is to increase the category bonus by 1% every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with any skill in the category. So if Listen goes from 38% to 43%, the Perception bonus increases by 1%, increasing all related skills (and incidentally the effective Listen skill to 44%). I've incorporated this in the character sheets but it's still a lot of book keeping by separating out the Base, Bonus and Total skill. This has the advantage of allowing characters to roll over their base skill for advancement without any math, but overall it is a bit cumbersome. Maybe someone can come up with a simpler approach. Steve > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 > From: "Peter Maranci" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the > top of my head - is that > in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of > similar skills. That's not > always true, but it usually is. For example, someone > who does a lot of > climbing is likely to be better at other physical > skills, too - and, I > presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I > don't know). Likewise, if > you spend a lot of time researching and reading, > you're likely to be more > comfortable with mental skills in general. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 05:24:51 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude Message-ID: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The last thing I want is to increase the bonuses. Imagine what happens with weapon skills! In fact IMW, the rule is if your skill is at base% you dont even get the modifier and the modifier can not more than double your skill. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > What I've done is to increase the category bonus by 1% > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with > any skill in the category. > > So if Listen goes from 38% to 43%, the Perception > bonus increases by 1%, increasing all related skills > (and incidentally the effective Listen skill to 44%). > > I've incorporated this in the character sheets but > it's still a lot of book keeping by separating out the > Base, Bonus and Total skill. This has the advantage > of allowing characters to roll over their base skill > for advancement without any math, but overall it is a > bit cumbersome. > > Maybe someone can come up with a simpler approach. > > Steve > > > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 > > From: "Peter Maranci" > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > > > What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the > > top of my head - is that > > in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of > > similar skills. That's not > > always true, but it usually is. For example, someone > > who does a lot of > > climbing is likely to be better at other physical > > skills, too - and, I > > presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I > > don't know). Likewise, if > > you spend a lot of time researching and reading, > > you're likely to be more > > comfortable with mental skills in general. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 05:39:55 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:39:55 -0400 Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: So how do you handle negative modifiers, then? ->Peter On 9/8/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > The last thing I want is to increase the bonuses. > Imagine what happens with weapon skills! > > In fact IMW, the rule is if your skill is at base% you > dont even get the modifier and the modifier can not > more than double your skill. > > Leon > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > What I've done is to increase the category bonus by > 1% > > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with > > any skill in the category. > > > > So if Listen goes from 38% to 43%, the Perception > > bonus increases by 1%, increasing all related skills > > (and incidentally the effective Listen skill to > 44%). > > > > I've incorporated this in the character sheets but > > it's still a lot of book keeping by separating out > the > > Base, Bonus and Total skill. This has the advantage > > of allowing characters to roll over their base skill > > for advancement without any math, but overall it is > a > > bit cumbersome. > > > > Maybe someone can come up with a simpler approach. > > > > Steve > > > > > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 > > > From: "Peter Maranci" > > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > > > > > What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the > > > top of my head - is that > > > in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of > > > similar skills. That's not > > > always true, but it usually is. For example, > someone > > > who does a lot of > > > climbing is likely to be better at other physical > > > skills, too - and, I > > > presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I > > > don't know). Likewise, if > > > you spend a lot of time researching and reading, > > > you're likely to be more > > > comfortable with mental skills in general. > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/c31a50aa/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 05:48:28 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:48:28 -0500 Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609081248t68c40ba0r5ff65e16d3d83993@mail.gmail.com> Nature vs nurture, really. We all know those people. I'd argue those people are 'creatable' in most rules systems - just roll hella great stats to start, and the character will have a natural advantage over everyone. But (like in the game) if you're born and you're not one of them, you can't 'make' yourself have the natural gifts with which they were born, generally. They're just going to be better at everything. (It's one reason I don't like 'point buy' stat systems. Sure, they're intrinsically fairer but the best stories are about people who succeed DESPITE their shortcomings.) I got totall gypped on the APP roll. :( -Steve On 9/8/06, grogthing wrote: "I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having perfect scores in medical school taking advanced biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine physiques with black belts in more than one martial art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well in the hobby time. Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and therefore should be duplicate-able via the game mechanics." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/2214436b/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 05:48:59 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:48:59 -0400 Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908192025.62902.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060908160944.07760BABEB8@mini.thinbits.net> <20060908192025.62902.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Steve, does the chance to increase a skill *also* go up when the bonus goes up, in your game? Because that sounds unbalancing. The whole point of the experience system is to make skill increases slower as a skill gets higher, and the mechanism you describe would go directly against that. ->Peter On 9/8/06, Steve Davies wrote: > > What I've done is to increase the category bonus by 1% > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with > any skill in the category. > > So if Listen goes from 38% to 43%, the Perception > bonus increases by 1%, increasing all related skills > (and incidentally the effective Listen skill to 44%). > > I've incorporated this in the character sheets but > it's still a lot of book keeping by separating out the > Base, Bonus and Total skill. This has the advantage > of allowing characters to roll over their base skill > for advancement without any math, but overall it is a > bit cumbersome. > > Maybe someone can come up with a simpler approach. > > Steve > > > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 > > From: "Peter Maranci" > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > > > What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the > > top of my head - is that > > in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of > > similar skills. That's not > > always true, but it usually is. For example, someone > > who does a lot of > > climbing is likely to be better at other physical > > skills, too - and, I > > presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I > > don't know). Likewise, if > > you spend a lot of time researching and reading, > > you're likely to be more > > comfortable with mental skills in general. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/178fb5a2/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 05:55:52 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:55:52 -0400 Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609081248t68c40ba0r5ff65e16d3d83993@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0609081248t68c40ba0r5ff65e16d3d83993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with most of your points, but I don't agree that a point buy system normally results in excessively all-around-great characters. Maybe it's just the class of roleplayer I hung out with, but there wasn't one of my old friends who wouldn't LOVE a good and interesting weakness, or even several. About APP, I have to say that I firmly believe that APP and SIZ should probably be disconnected from the main pool of a point buy system. I'd actually advocate allowing a free pick for both, or assigning both a starting value at the mid-point and charging points for buying them up OR down. But in any case, sorry as I am to say it, APP and SIZ should be extremely cheap. Because we all know that otherwise a lot of people will end up with an APP of 8. :( Reminds me of a lot of D&D parties in campaigns that use character design systems, at least for attributes. You never saw such a low-CHA group in your life. :D ->Peter On 9/8/06, Styopa wrote: > > Nature vs nurture, really. > > We all know those people. > > I'd argue those people are 'creatable' in most rules systems - just roll > hella great stats to start, and the character will have a natural advantage > over everyone. > > But (like in the game) if you're born and you're not one of them, you > can't 'make' yourself have the natural gifts with which they were born, > generally. They're just going to be better at everything. (It's one reason > I don't like 'point buy' stat systems. Sure, they're intrinsically fairer > but the best stories are about people who succeed DESPITE their > shortcomings.) > > I got totall gypped on the APP roll. :( > > -Steve > > On 9/8/06, grogthing < grogthing at yahoo.com> wrote: > "I have known people who seem almost "perfect" having > perfect scores in medical school taking advanced > biology and math courses, yet still extremely fine > physiques with black belts in more than one martial > art as well as mastering several weapons and shooting > firearms, who also plays and writes music quite well > in the hobby time. > > Would this be an unbalanced character in a game? > Maybe, but there are real live people like this, and > therefore should be duplicate-able via the game > mechanics." > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/91f4c14f/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 05:56:47 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Modifiers Message-ID: <20060908195647.49368.qmail@web31202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Same way. I consider it as, once you know something, you realise how much you do not know ;) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > So how do you handle negative modifiers, then? > > ->Peter > > On 9/8/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > > The last thing I want is to increase the bonuses. > > Imagine what happens with weapon skills! > > > > In fact IMW, the rule is if your skill is at base% you > > dont even get the modifier and the modifier can not > > more than double your skill. > > > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > > wrote: > > > What I've done is to increase the category bonus by > > 1% > > > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with > > > any skill in the category. > > > > > > So if Listen goes from 38% to 43%, the Perception > > > bonus increases by 1%, increasing all related skills > > > (and incidentally the effective Listen skill to > > 44%). > > > > > > I've incorporated this in the character sheets but > > > it's still a lot of book keeping by separating out > > the > > > Base, Bonus and Total skill. This has the advantage > > > of allowing characters to roll over their base skill > > > for advancement without any math, but overall it is > > a > > > bit cumbersome. > > > > > > Maybe someone can come up with a simpler approach. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:09:27 -0400 > > > > From: "Peter Maranci" > > > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > > > > > > > What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the > > > > top of my head - is that > > > > in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of > > > > similar skills. That's not > > > > always true, but it usually is. For example, > > someone > > > > who does a lot of > > > > climbing is likely to be better at other physical > > > > skills, too - and, I > > > > presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I > > > > don't know). Likewise, if > > > > you spend a lot of time researching and reading, > > > > you're likely to be more > > > > comfortable with mental skills in general. > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > 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 > > > === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 06:32:12 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:32:12 -0500 Subject: [RQ-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: <20060908192451.1737.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0609081248t68c40ba0r5ff65e16d3d83993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609081332t5b78f21cjf67a79d561facb54@mail.gmail.com> Believe it or not, I've never had any problems with uber-PCs. There's one dwarf PC in my campaign I call the group's "little Abrams" (after the US tank) who was rolled up in front of my eyes using my dice. He's a highly-skilled, well-rounded RuneLord with gawd-awfully awesome armor and what's essentially an artifact-level weapon. Despite that he's been taken out of action on three separate occasions by 1) a pair of wraiths, 2) a crit to the leg from an enspelled heavy crossbow, and 3) being knocked 25 feet off of a glacier. One of the best aspects about RQ is no one is ever truly safe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/427efa47/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 06:34:52 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <20060908194913.5E458BAE765@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060908203452.39896.qmail@web53904.mail.yahoo.com> If I'm understanding your question correctly, the answer is No. Changes to the Category bonus don't affect the chance of increase. Example: Grog with 48% Listen Skill and 10% Perception Bonus. He has a 58% chance of succeeding with his skill to get a skill check. When he processes the check, he needs to roll above 48% (his base skill). Let's say he does and increases his Listen by 3%. He now has a 51% Listen Skill and since he crossed the 50% threshold, his Perception bonus goes up to 11%. So next time he needs to listen, he has a 51%+11%=62% chance of success (and his other Perception chances also went up). When it's time to process the check, the player needs to be above 51% (the base Listen skill). Steve >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:48:59 -0400 >From: "Peter Maranci" >Subject: Re: [RQ-rules] Aptitude > >Steve, does the chance to increase a skill *also* go >up when the bonus >goes >up, in your game? Because that sounds unbalancing. >The whole point of >the >experience system is to make skill increases slower >as a skill gets >higher, >and the mechanism you describe would go directly >against that. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 9 06:43:49 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <20060908194913.5E458BAE765@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060908204349.99262.qmail@web53907.mail.yahoo.com> Leon, Yes, this does lead to more rapidly increasing skills, but the pace of advancement is working for us. After about 18 months of regular play, players are just starting to feel confident to go on HeroQuests where their skills all get cut in half...and the more conservative players are grumbling about how their are all going to die. I only allow one experience check at a time, and typically the characters need to get back to somewhere safe where they can "process checks". That happens about once every 2-3 sessions. I have been letting all weapons add to an overall weapon skill, but now that we're talking about it, it would make more sense to keep the bonuses within one weapon family (e.g. 1-h hafted). In truth, I've been thinking about scrapping this rule even though I like it. My gaming group has 3 sessions of AD&D3.5 and one session of variant-RQ per month, and I'm working to decrease complexity wherever possible. We fight through resetting rule mindset every session. I already scrapped the skill degeneration rule and the Bonus Damage<=Weapon Damage on each hit. At the end of the day, one of the things I love about RQ is that the base system is clean and it relies on the GM/world to provide the balance and direction. I have had NPCs (mentors and those in power who control advancement) 'suggest' to characters that they are wasting too much of their time on frivolous activities (read as skill advancements that the NPC does not value). Steve > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT) > From: Leon Kirshtein > Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-rules] Aptitude > > The last thing I want is to increase the bonuses. > Imagine what happens with weapon skills! > > In fact IMW, the rule is if your skill is at base% > you > dont even get the modifier and the modifier can not > more than double your skill. > > Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Sat Sep 9 10:23:55 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:23:55 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7A73A3D9-3F99-11DB-9DF7-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Perhaps a way to do this is simply to introduce a random element to the basic category modifiers, say, adding 1d20-10? This would allow someone to be surprisingly good at certain sorts of skills, despite mediocre characteristics, or disappointing at other skills you'd expect them to excel at. On 8-Sep-06, at 9:50 AM, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > This is something I been thinking for a while. One of > the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is > that after a while all characters begin to be very > good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > There have been several attempts to fix that. One was > to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair > advantage to characters with good stats. Another > attempt has been to limit the number of checks a > character can take after an adventure, but that does > not take training into account and penalizes > characters who are engaged in a long adventure. > > What I propose is that each player decides and area of > Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his > character. The 3 areas of aptitude: > > Physical (Combat, Agility) > Mental (Knowledge, Magical) > Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) > > If you have aptitude then you take the checks as > normal > If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 > on each skill increase in those skills > If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on > each skill increase in those skills > > You always considered to have Aptitude in > Communication and Perception skills. > > Basically what it would mean is that in best case a > character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy > skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum 0 > (for a hard skill with no aptitude). > > For medium skill it would the range would be: > > 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude > 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude > 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude > > What do you think? > > 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 > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 9 12:26:21 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:26:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b501c6d3b7$5728b7c0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Not the intention of the rules. The idea is that natural ability gives you bonuses if you have zero training in a skill, but once training sets in, people with little aptitude can eventually equal those with superior aptitude. Someone with 18% is very much better than someone with 10%, but give them both 50% worth of training and 68 is not all that much better than 60. Carry through on this concept has been irregular - I only recently made up my mind what I had in mind all those years ago. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude You know, it suddenly strikes me that characteristics should probably have a greater impact on skills. The difference between a 10 and 18 intelligence should be a LOT more than an 8% category bonus for mental skills, for example. ->Peter es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060908/7c787757/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 9 12:31:18 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:31:18 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7A73A3D9-3F99-11DB-9DF7-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <00f701c6d3b8$07bf5260$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Eventually you have to come to a conclusion. It is very tempting to keep adding modifiers based on stats and adding modifiers based on background and adding modifiers based on general worldview and adding modifiers based on whether the player's dog is in good health, but eventually you have to stop and take the character you have. You already have a character whose stats have been rolled up, now you want to add another roll to perhaps negate the effect of the first roll? Either stats have an effect on certain skills, or they don't. The rest of it is just where you choose to increase skills. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cantine" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > Perhaps a way to do this is simply to introduce a random element to the > basic category modifiers, say, adding 1d20-10? This would allow someone to > be surprisingly good at certain sorts of skills, despite mediocre > characteristics, or disappointing at other skills you'd expect them to > excel at. > > > From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Sep 9 13:58:28 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060909035828.47960.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > You know, it suddenly strikes me that > characteristics should probably have a > greater impact on skills. The difference between a > 10 and 18 intelligence > should be a LOT more than an 8% category bonus for > mental skills, for > example. > > ->Peter Depends very much on the skill really. Physical skills tend to be heavily based on the stat. Most mental and social skills less so. The influence of one's INT or CHA in expressing themselves in Japanese is quite modest if they don't have any Japanese training. Exceptions would include pure logic etc. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Sep 9 14:05:10 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:05:10 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <00b501c6d3b7$5728b7c0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060908161128.60314.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00b501c6d3b7$5728b7c0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <45023D76.5070107@inetnebr.com> Steve Perrin wrote: > Not the intention of the rules. > > The idea is that natural ability gives you bonuses if you have zero > training in a skill, I have most of my life had a resistance to the concept of talent it somehow cheapened the mater I always resented the idea that Artistic skill is somehow an inborn thing like it wasnt something I learned and practiced. it made it something genetics gave me. Yet I have unusually early memories I remember things my dad told me and showed me about paying attention to the way light affected the apparent shape of things how where an object wasnt was as important as where it is(negative space)... and how nothing was ever made up of the lines and a number of other bits and pieces like noticing even the very ugly has the power and ability to inspire emotions making it as important as the beautiful. And it was important to really see what you were looking at and percieve past illusions like the named shapes and colors that get drilled into your head as reality is a complex mixture of values between those that people have named. He told me all art was an illusion you exploit to communicate... It was not and is not about coordination and dexterity because anyone with the hand eye coordination to write half way legibly had what they need in that arena to draw or paint masterfully. (Kind of misses when the art form is dancing eh) Aptitude is one of those interesting things it lets you spend less energy to "get by" or even excel at if its in something you need but arent interested in.... so that you can spend more time and effort on things you are interested in. ;-) In real life individuals who are prodigies tend to ... accelerate very fast to some high plateau which others may be unable to reach (no matter how they try) then go on cruise not necessarily accomplishing as much later in life atleast in that field of endeavor... Einstein accomplished a great deal as a humanitarian and similar things but he was probably only marginally better at his science/math than he was in his late twenties. Boris Vallejo is a great artist who would rather play baseball. and his art isnt particularly improving over the years but its still ahem something many others may never reach. Early acceleration sometimes to levels others cant reach ... then trailing off or changing of interest. seems very common From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Sep 9 16:37:02 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 07:37:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060909063702.65199.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Not having read the entire thread but... One of the attractions of RQ over other 1980s RPGs for me was the fact that most characters would be competent in most things they used for survival. So everyone would have reasonable perception skills, a couple of okay weapon skills and have some useful spells. If there's a problem with this lot in my experience it's with the training and research rules being capped at 75%. As it's capped character's can't specialise, so when they get the time to practise they have do it in areas outside of what they'd consider the core focus. I removed the training cap and most of my player's characters ended up becoming more focussed. Incidentally, the removal of the training cap was one of the things Mongoose got right. Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > This is something I been thinking for a while. One > of > the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, > is > that after a while all characters begin to be very > good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > There have been several attempts to fix that. One > was > to cap certain skills to DEXx5 or DEXx3 for Priests, > Shamans and Sorcerers, but this gives an unfair > advantage to characters with good stats. Another > attempt has been to limit the number of checks a > character can take after an adventure, but that does > not take training into account and penalizes > characters who are engaged in a long adventure. > > What I propose is that each player decides and area > of > Aptitude, Little Aptitude and No Aptitude for his > character. The 3 areas of aptitude: > > Physical (Combat, Agility) > Mental (Knowledge, Magical) > Manual (Manipulation, Reasoning) > > If you have aptitude then you take the checks as > normal > If you have little aptitude you get an additional -1 > on each skill increase in those skills > If you have no aptitude you get an additional -3 on > each skill increase in those skills > > You always considered to have Aptitude in > Communication and Perception skills. > > Basically what it would mean is that in best case a > character will be increasing by 1d6 (for an easy > skill), and the worst case it would be 1d6-4 minimum > 0 > (for a hard skill with no aptitude). > > For medium skill it would the range would be: > > 1d6-1 minimum 1 Aptitude > 1d6-2 minimum 0 Little Aptitude > 1d6-3 minimum 0 No Aptitude > > What do you think? > > 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 > From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Sep 9 19:55:50 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:55:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <001401c6cf60$f286d310$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: Message-ID: <45029DB6.18528.26734244@tom.zunder.org.uk> You know, reading and sharing ideas for RQ games has been far more fun than any of the rules posts we've had here for the last umpteen months. Can we do some more? Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From Ludowick at aol.com Sat Sep 9 20:13:35 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:13:35 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude Message-ID: Tom Cantine wrote: > Perhaps a way to do this is simply to introduce a random element to the > basic category modifiers, say, adding 1d20-10? This would allow someone > to be surprisingly good at certain sorts of skills, despite mediocre > characteristics, or disappointing at other skills you'd expect them to > excel at. I had always wanted to do this, especially for perception skills. I was thinking of rolling 1D10 - 1D10 for a range of -9 to +9, mean of 0. Michael Hoxie From Ludowick at aol.com Sat Sep 9 20:19:41 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:19:41 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude Message-ID: <53d.11776500.3233ef3d@aol.com> Steve Davies wrote: > What I've done is to increase the category bonus by 1% > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold with > any skill in the category. There is a similar system to this in FGU's "Lands of Adventure." LoA is similar to Runequest, and anybody who likes to tinker with RQ's rules might want to get a copy if they can find one for a good price. Michael Hoxie From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 10:45:31 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:45:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <45029DB6.18528.26734244@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <001401c6cf60$f286d310$0201a8c0@laptop2> <45029DB6.18528.26734244@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609091745j1247d20cx31e086c0f69fbbf4@mail.gmail.com> How about the following? The PCs have to go into the depths of a lost underground dwarven city (a mini-Moria) in order to retrieve a Horn of the Dwarves that stops anyone sounding it from attacking any dwarf for 24 hours (yep, I'm running a Griffin Island clone). The purpose of the retrieval is to stop an impending war between dwarves and elves and get them to work together to stop an local sorcerer and his orcish army bent on regional domination. The bad news is the dwarven city is rumored to be filled with the ghosts of the dwarves killed during the orcish/ogreish attack that destroyed it. The reality..ghosts were there but were bound and removed over the space of a century by the previously mentioned sorcerer. And the royal chambers contain a Gate (my version of an uber-Homing Circle; see below) to the sorcerer's base of operations. The really bad news is he can summon Stormbringer-type demons. *GATE** Ritual (Enchant)* This spell allows the caster to create a permanent Gate to other lands, places, and worlds, even other Planes of Existence. Each Gate is preset for a single other location. Creation of a Gate on the same Plane of Existence allows travel to a location up to 50km distance. Each addition?al point of POW used in the casting doubles the range. The opening at the destination will be within 2km of the caster's desired loca?tion. The caster will have an idea of where the Gate's destination opening will appear before "locking it in" and can expend MPs to place the destination opening more precise?ly at 1MP/10m of distance manipu?lated. Creation of a Gate to a different Plane of Existence is extremely dangerous. Creating such a Gate costs the caster 3d3 POW AND 1d3 CON. The destination opening is either at a specific loca?tion which the caster has visited before or has a *highly detailed* description of. If the caster has no specific location in mind, the opening destination is completely random on the desired Plane (80%) and may even be a Plane different from the one desired (20%). Conditions at the desti?nation portal cannot be determined without actually traveling there. The destination opening can be seen by anything with magical sight (i.e. demons, other magic users, etc.) allowing the viewer to come through the Gate if it knows how to activate it. The Gate may take many forms, a common one being a pattern of painted lines on a floor or a peculiar arrangement of stones in a field. Using a Gate costs a number of MPs equal to the POW origi?nally used to make it. If a character going through a Gate does not have enough MPs to make the transition, he goes through anyway, but arrives at the other side dead. Gates are designed for returns as well as departures. To return, a caster must make a return Gate attuned to the Gate used to move initially. Constructing the return Gate is accomplished by the caster going through the initial Gate and, while on the other side, inking out or otherwise making a copy of the Gate through which he came. Then the caster expends MPs equal to the POW expended in making the original Gate, and the return passage is operational. Ancient Gates have been known to change those passing through them, the better to aid their survival on an alien Plane, and some have been known to be able to access more than one destination. Altering a Gate's destination requires one point of POW per alteration and a physical rearrangement of some or all of its runes of power.. Gates can be activated by anyone knowing this spell simply by touching the runes used to form the Gate area boundary and expending 1 MP for each SIZ of the largest object that will move through the Gate during the duration of the Gate's activation. Objects with a SIZ larger than the expended MPs will not be able to move through the Gate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060909/e53ad9b4/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Sun Sep 10 19:25:35 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:25:35 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ yet again :-) Message-ID: <20060910092559.4333BBBD331@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all I've downoaded the extended character sheet from Mongoose's web site. This new charsheet includes divine magic and sorcery from the [Mongoose] RQ Companion. Apparently, the MRQ divine magic and sorcery will be pretty similar to their RQIII counterparts. cheers Gianni From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Sep 11 07:49:17 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:49:17 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ yet again :-) References: <20060910092559.4333BBBD331@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <023d01c6d522$f6ce5700$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Speaking of Mongoose, for those of you who have not been following the discussion on RPGNet, Matthew and I have come to an agreement on paying me for the work I put in and my invoice has been submitted. I also gave him what I thought would be proper accreditation for the original concepts of the rules, but have no idea if he will use it. So that is settling fairly peacefully. If any of you have not seen what I did for the original magic rules concept, let me know privately and I'll send you a copy. Looking at it now, about a year after I first submitted it, I can see a lot that needed to change (not necessarily to what Mongoose ended up using) but I'm not getting paid to change it, so you'll have to take it as submitted. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:25 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ yet again :-) Hi all I've downoaded the extended character sheet from Mongoose's web site. This new charsheet includes divine magic and sorcery from the [Mongoose] RQ Companion. Apparently, the MRQ divine magic and sorcery will be pretty similar to their RQIII counterparts. cheers Gianni_______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 11 08:16:12 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:16:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] discussion at rpg net Message-ID: <000601c6d526$bb75f060$caeb8c56@sickboy> Do you have a link for the discussion perchance ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060910/4251228e/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Mon Sep 11 08:34:17 2006 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:34:17 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic Rules In-Reply-To: <023d01c6d522$f6ce5700$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: Hi, I'm quite interested in your magic rules, so I would very much like a copy, when you have time to send it. Thanks. Andrew E. Larsen On 9/10/06 4:49 PM, "Steve Perrin" wrote: > Speaking of Mongoose, for those of you who have not been following the > discussion on RPGNet, Matthew and I have come to an agreement on paying me > for the work I put in and my invoice has been submitted. I also gave him > what I thought would be proper accreditation for the original concepts of > the rules, but have no idea if he will use it. > > So that is settling fairly peacefully. > > If any of you have not seen what I did for the original magic rules concept, > let me know privately and I'll send you a copy. Looking at it now, about a > year after I first submitted it, I can see a lot that needed to change (not > necessarily to what Mongoose ended up using) but I'm not getting paid to > change it, so you'll have to take it as submitted. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gianni" > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:25 AM > Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ yet again :-) > > > Hi all > > I've downoaded the extended character sheet from Mongoose's web site. This > new charsheet includes divine magic and sorcery from the [Mongoose] RQ > Companion. > Apparently, the MRQ divine magic and sorcery will be pretty similar to their > RQIII counterparts. > > cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 11 12:39:56 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <53d.11776500.3233ef3d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060911023956.53964.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Steve Davies wrote: > > > What I've done is to increase the category bonus > by 1% > > every time a character crosses a 10% threshold > with > > any skill in the category. > > There is a similar system to this in FGU's "Lands of > Adventure." > LoA is similar to Runequest, and anybody who likes > to tinker > with RQ's rules might want to get a copy if they can > find one for > a good price. > I have this game and it is indeed worthy of tinkering on. That said, it's worth buying just for the cover art. Beautiful! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Sep 11 19:42:30 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:42:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ yet again :-) In-Reply-To: <023d01c6d522$f6ce5700$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <20060910092559.4333BBBD331@mini.thinbits.net> <023d01c6d522$f6ce5700$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <958E1E4F-38A7-443C-8382-7F93CFDB65AE@zunder.org.uk> Bravo! On 10 Sep 2006, at 22:49, Steve Perrin wrote: > Speaking of Mongoose, for those of you who have not been following > the discussion on RPGNet, Matthew and I have come to an agreement > on paying me for the work I put in and my invoice has been > submitted. I also gave him what I thought would be proper > accreditation for the original concepts of the rules, but have no > idea if he will use it. From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 19:52:38 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:52:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060909003413.335BDBB1282@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060911095238.91884.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > Believe it or not, I've never had any problems with uber-PCs. There's one > dwarf PC in my campaign I call the group's "little Abrams" (after the US > tank) who was rolled up in front of my eyes using my dice. He's a > highly-skilled, well-rounded RuneLord with gawd-awfully awesome armor and > what's essentially an artifact-level weapon. Despite that he's been taken > out of action on three separate occasions by 1) a pair of wraiths, 2) a crit > to the leg from an enspelled heavy crossbow, and 3) being knocked 25 feet > off of a glacier. > > One of the best aspects about RQ is no one is ever truly safe. Hear, hear. It's the "Trollkin Factor" - you parry the three trolls, split attack against two more and ignore the trollkin with the spear, then you find the trollkin has criticaled you in the abdomen doing 19 points of damage. Ooops. Steve Davies: > If I'm understanding your question correctly, the > answer is No. Changes to the Category bonus don't > affect the chance of increase. > > Example: > Grog with 48% Listen Skill and 10% Perception Bonus. > He has a 58% chance of succeeding with his skill to > get a skill check. When he processes the check, he > needs to roll above 48% (his base skill). Let's say > he does and increases his Listen by 3%. He now has a > 51% Listen Skill and since he crossed the 50% > threshold, his Perception bonus goes up to 11%. > > So next time he needs to listen, he has a 51%+11%=62% > chance of success (and his other Perception chances > also went up). When it's time to process the check, > the player needs to be above 51% (the base Listen > skill). Interesting. So, if I have Spot Hidden, Spot Traps and Listen (Scan, Search and Listen for RQ3) at 45%, say, and I make some increases as follows: 1. My Listen increases by 6, pushing it to 51%, crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to 11 2. Next time, Spot Hidden/Scan increases by 6%, crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to 12 3. Next time, Spot Trap/Search increases by 6%, crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to 13 Is this how it's supposed to work? Or is it just the highest skill in the category that attracts the bonus? By the way, RQM has effectively knocked the uber-character on the head by restricting the number of experience rolls made each session. From past experience, if you do that then people will focus their PCs a lot more, so shamans increases shamanic skills, sorcerers increase sorcery skills, fighters increase fighting skills and so on. Of course, they'll increase other skills as and when they need to, but they will generally concentrate on a few skills. That can only be a good thing, of course. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/d7178ddd/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 11 20:30:57 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:30:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <20060910004556.14732BBABAA@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060911103057.1878.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > How about the following? > > The PCs have to go into the depths of a lost underground dwarven city (a > mini-Moria) in order to retrieve a Horn of the Dwarves that stops anyone > sounding it from attacking any dwarf for 24 hours (yep, I'm running a > Griffin Island clone). The purpose of the retrieval is to stop an impending > war between dwarves and elves and get them to work together to stop an local > sorcerer and his orcish army bent on regional domination. I had a generic supplement from years ago that is a dwarven complex with loads of levels, lots of rooms, lifts, staircases, caves and so on. It would have been perfect for this. I used it for the Fortress under Plateau Wrath in Dorastor. I think it was called the Fort of Dolg, or something like that. > The bad news is the dwarven city is rumored to be filled with the ghosts of > the dwarves killed during the orcish/ogreish attack that destroyed it. An extended Spirit Block soon sorts them out. > The reality..ghosts were there but were bound and removed over the space > of a century by the previously mentioned sorcerer. And the royal chambers > contain a Gate (my version of an uber-Homing Circle; see below) to the > sorcerer's base of operations. The really bad news is he can summon > Stormbringer-type demons. Demon weapons and armour are good, but a bit overpowering. Other demons are just generic demons - things that pop up and kill you - so aren't as interesting. > *GATE** Ritual (Enchant)* > > This spell allows the caster to create a permanent Gate to other lands, > places, and worlds, even other Planes of Existence. Each Gate is preset for > a single other location. I like the idea of Gates being absolutley fixed, so you walk through the Gate at one place and end up at the gate in the other place. More like Stargates, but without stars. Guided Teleport or Homing Circle are similar, but they don't start from a particular point. > Creation of a Gate on the same Plane of Existence allows travel to a > location up to 50km distance. Each addition­al point of POW used in the > casting doubles the range. The opening at the destination will be within > 2km of the caster's desired loca­tion. The caster will have an idea of > where the Gate's destination opening will appear before "locking it in" and > can expend MPs to place the destination opening more precise­ly at 1MP/10m > of distance manipu­lated. Hmmm, I suppose increasing POW for range makes sense, but I'd just have the same POW cost regardless. It's easier and doesn't make much difference in the long run. Just make them all 3 POW to create and be done with it. > Creation of a Gate to a different Plane of Existence is extremely dangerous. > Creating such a Gate costs the caster 3d3 POW AND 1d3 CON. The destination > opening is either at a specific loca­tion which the caster has visited > before or has a *highly detailed* description of. If the caster has no > specific location in mind, the opening destination is completely random on > the desired Plane (80%) and may even be a Plane different from the one > desired (20%). Conditions at the desti­nation portal cannot be determined > without actually traveling there. The destination opening can be seen by > anything with magical sight (i.e. demons, other magic users, etc.) allowing > the viewer to come through the Gate if it knows how to activate it. I've never liked the randomness of this kind of writeup. I know the theory - travelling to other planes is dangerous and unpredictable - but surely Gates make it less random, otherwise why make them in the first place? I'd leave the randomness out. > The Gate may take many forms, a common one being a pattern of painted lines > on a floor or a peculiar arrangement of stones in a field. Using a Gate > costs a number of MPs equal to the POW origi­nally used to make it. Mirrors are always good, as are doorways or paintings. > If a character going through a Gate does not have enough MPs to make the > transition, he goes through anyway, but arrives at the other side dead. A bit harsh, I think. I'd just say it didn't work and he was left alone with whatever was chasing him in the first place. > Gates are designed for returns as well as departures. To return, a caster > must make a return Gate attuned to the Gate used to move initially. > Constructing > the return Gate is accomplished by the caster going through the initial Gate > and, while on the other side, inking out or otherwise making a copy of the > Gate through which he came. Then the caster expends MPs equal to the POW > expended in making the original Gate, and the return passage is operational. Personally, I'm torn as to whether I'd make a Gate automatically two-way or whether the magician would have to enchant the Gate at the other end as well. Part of me says that two-way is good, part of me says that two one-way Gates is better. > Ancient Gates have been known to change those passing through them, the > better to aid their survival on an alien Plane, and some have been known to > be able to access more than one destination. Altering a Gate's destination > requires one point of POW per alteration and a physical rearrangement of > some or all of its runes of power.. I'd say you couldn't alter a Gate's Destination once it has been set. You could certainly have more than one destination by enchanting it multiple times. > Gates can be activated by anyone knowing this spell simply by touching the > runes used to form the Gate area boundary and expending 1 MP for each SIZ of > the largest object that will move through the Gate during the duration of > the Gate's activation. Objects with a SIZ larger than the expended MPs will > not be able to move through the Gate. So, it costs 1 MP per POW expended in creating the spell plus 1 MP per SIZ of the person moving? And anyone with not enough magic points dies upon using it? So, a normal sizes person, SIZ 13, travelling 1000km needs to spend 19 MPs to use it. Presumably MPs spent can come from any source, including POW Spirits, POW Crystals and so on? You could make the Gate a matrix for the spell, so that people just touch it and can use it. You could even put an automatic casting on the Gate so that anyone touching it is transported. That would be funny. Some good ideas there. I'd split the spell into 2 parts. One spell to Enchant Gate (1 POW, enchants a Gate ready to be used). Another spell to Create Gate (variable POW (or 3 POW), creates a gateway between two previously enchanted Gates). It gives them more things to spend POW on. So, Muggins the Sorcerer wants to create a Gate between his Tower of Doom and the Isle of Happiness. He casts Enchant Gate in the Tower of Doom and enchants a Gate. He then travels to the Isle of Happiness and enchants another Gate there. He then casts Create Gate on the Gate in the Isle of Happiness and points it at the Gate in the Tower of Doom. He activates the Gate and travels to the Tower of Doom, then casts Create Gate on that Gate and points it at the Gate in the Isle of Happiness. Now, he can travel between the Tower of Doom and his timeshare on the Isle of Happiness at will. Later, he goes to Sorcerers' Isle and uses Enchant Gate there. As he already has two Gates, he can cast Create Gate to make a gateway between Sorcerers' Isle and Tower of Doom. Once he travels back to the Tower of Doom, he can use Create gate again to enable him to visit Sorcerers' Isle. Muggins can now work and play with ease. Sorcerers who can create gates would have a number of them set up at key places for easy travel, escapes and so on. They might even have Enchant Conditions to stop other people using the Gates or to stop people linking to the Gates. Clever sorcerers may even put Gates on movable objects, such as a cart or ship, so they can travel to other locations. But, that has its dangers, especially if the cart is currently in Mad Maud's Mausoleum. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/abd9b248/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Sep 11 23:31:50 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:31:50 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: HELP! Quick scenario ideas needed! In-Reply-To: <20060911103057.1878.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060910004556.14732BBABAA@mini.thinbits.net> <20060911103057.1878.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609110631j59f541vbf11fd9e2a0dd72e@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/06, Simon Phipp wrote: >So, it costs 1 MP per POW expended in creating the spell plus 1 MP per SIZ of the person moving? > And anyone with not enough magic points dies upon using it? So, a normal sizes person, SIZ 13, > travelling 1000km needs to spend 19 MPs to use it. Presumably MPs spent can come from any > source, including POW Spirits, POW Crystals and so on? Yes, as long as the MP source is attuned to the person trying to move through the gate. MPs gained from Tapping may also be used. I admit the spell definition is evolving as I see its use in my current campaign. That is, I'm tightening up the definition for future use though the definition in my campaign is locked down and won't change until the campaign is ended or the players agree to a change. I can see where auto-death would lower Maximum Game Fun; I'll incorporate your suggested change. Thank you for that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/47f761b4/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 01:05:54 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:05:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060911095238.91884.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/baa3dc3d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 04:20:23 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: <20060911095238.91884.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609111120s28523de8p54a9c6b1e0515608@mail.gmail.com> In any RPG, perfect safety leads to perfect boredom. The best way to survive in RQ combat is through the use of layered defenses, innovative attacks, and superior tactics. Works pretty good in the real world too. On 9/11/06, Roger Benham wrote: > > One of the D20 DMs at the club I go to said "The thing with RuneQuest is > that your players can be killed by anything." He said it in a depressed > way. I said "The thing with RQ is that your players *can *be killed by > anything!" > > He didn't see it that way! I always thought it was a major strength of > the game. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/79ee8057/attachment.html From mason.bruce at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 04:50:32 2006 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:50:32 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ Message-ID: <5f3990080609111150o7c95ddf9q61eec386ed9de7ba@mail.gmail.com> Haven't been on this list for years. Drifted out of rpging into the not-to-be-mentioned world of ccgs. Much to amazement I discovered that Mongoose have licensed RuneQuest. Bought it, read it, did some reading around various forums. I suppose it is always the case that when you revisit an old system that you'll generate hurt feelings, miss opportunities and so on. So far I've found MRQ to be a bit of curate's egg. Nowhere near as bad as some claim but there is, IMHO, the definite air of a business plan based around getting the core rules out as cheaply as possible and hoping to bootstrap it with the supplements. I suspect that if the supplements make money that we will see a plush 2nd edition in no time flat. The good bit is that, hopefully, the release will generate ideas, energy and so on. I can see MRQ getting me back into gaming though I would tweak it to my own tastes. That, IMHO, is half the fun of rpging. The use of the Second Age is a master stroke for Glorantha players. Similarly, if they do come up with a good Lhankmar set that would be a great match for the system. What's the current status on Thieve's World? I played that box set to death in my youth. I personally think that RQ hits its sweet spot when the key skills are in the 70-90% range and there's a 'low fantasy' background. I might even be tempted to see how well a MRQ variant would work in A Game of Thrones campaign. Anyway, hopefully there'll be productive discussions to be had. Bruce Mason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/4ae3534b/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 05:27:55 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:27:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609111120s28523de8p54a9c6b1e0515608@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/46d9bc5d/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 12 06:12:50 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060911103122.6AAD2BC61BA@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060911201251.70421.qmail@web53909.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, I allow the Category Bonus to go up for every skill in the Category (so it tends to go up faster for categories with lots of skills). I also give out "Adventure Points" each session for good roleplaying (and to given an incentive for behavior I like). I usually give a couple of points per session. These can be used for advancement rolls (they give a chance to increase, not an automatic increase) as well. So, I'm giving players a lot of chances to advance their characters' skills quickly. In practice what this does is to get everyone through the start-up "I can't do anything" phase quickly, but only slightly speeds up advancement at higher skill levels. Steve > Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:52:38 +0100 (BST) > From: Simon Phipp > Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude > Steve Davies: > > If I'm understanding your question correctly, > the > > answer is No. Changes to the Category bonus don't > > affect the chance of increase. > > > > Example: > > Grog with 48% Listen Skill and 10% Perception > Bonus. > > He has a 58% chance of succeeding with his skill > to > > get a skill check. When he processes the check, he > > needs to roll above 48% (his base skill). Let's > say > > he does and increases his Listen by 3%. He now has > a > > 51% Listen Skill and since he crossed the 50% > > threshold, his Perception bonus goes up to 11%. > > > > So next time he needs to listen, he has a > 51%+11%=62% > > chance of success (and his other Perception > chances > > also went up). When it's time to process the > check, > > the player needs to be above 51% (the base Listen > > skill). > > Interesting. > > So, if I have Spot Hidden, Spot Traps and Listen > (Scan, Search and Listen for RQ3) at 45%, say, and I > make some increases as follows: > 1. My Listen increases by 6, pushing it to 51%, > crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to > 11 > 2. Next time, Spot Hidden/Scan increases by 6%, > crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to > 12 > 3. Next time, Spot Trap/Search increases by 6%, > crossing a boundary and pushing Perception Bonus to > 13 > > Is this how it's supposed to work? Or is it just > the highest skill in the category that attracts the > bonus? > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From talmeta at talmeta.net Tue Sep 12 08:32:13 2006 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:32:13 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <5f3990080609111150o7c95ddf9q61eec386ed9de7ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <5f3990080609111150o7c95ddf9q61eec386ed9de7ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4505E3ED.2030903@talmeta.net> Bruce Mason wrote: > great match for the system. What's the current status on Thieve's World? > I played that box set to death in my youth. I personally think that RQ > hits its sweet spot when the key skills are in the 70-90% range and > there's a 'low fantasy' background. I might even be tempted to see how > well a MRQ variant would work in A Game of Thrones campaign. Both of which already have d20 worldbooks. :) -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM, WIM - talmeta A Proud Howard Family Affiliate since 1987! Homepage - You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 12 08:44:17 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060911224417.75911.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Surely he meant "characters". If he meant players I can't imagine the game having much popularity at all! ;-) --- Roger Benham wrote: --------------------------------- One of the D20 DMs at the club I go to said "The thing with RuneQuest is that your players can be killed by anything." He said it in a depressed way. I said "The thing with RQ is that your players can be killed by anything!" He didn't see it that way! I always thought it was a major strength of the game. --------------------------------- From: Simon Phipp Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:52:38 +0100 (BST) David Smart: > Believe it or not, I've never had any problems with uber-PCs. There's one > dwarf PC in my campaign I call the group's "little Abrams" (after the US > tank) who was rolled up in front of my eyes using my dice. He's a > highly-skilled, well-rounded RuneLord with gawd-awfully awesome armor and > what's essentially an artifact-level weapon. Despite that he's been taken > out of action on three separate occasions by 1) a pair of wraiths, 2) a crit > to the leg from an enspelled heavy crossbow, and 3) being knocked 25 feet > off of a glacier. > > One of the best aspects about RQ is no one is ever truly safe. Hear, hear. It's the "Trollkin Factor" - you parry the three trolls, split attack against two more and ignore the trollkin with the spear, then you find the trollkin has criticaled you in the abdomen doing 19 points of damage. Ooops. --------------------------------- Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try the Windows Live? Mail Beta > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 08:49:55 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:49:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060911224417.75911.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/01f4334e/attachment.html From anders at california.com Tue Sep 12 10:22:12 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:22:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world Message-ID: I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in Ray Turney's highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar empire and at the more or less runelord level. I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and trying RQ again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Sep 12 11:05:06 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:05:06 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d607$7c8c4340$0201a8c0@laptop2> Good games never die, they just spawn variants.... -- joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Anders Swenson Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:22 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in Ray Turney's highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar empire and at the more or less runelord level. I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and trying RQ again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 12:25:18 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:25:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The funny thing is that the list has been going on practically forever. I've never traced the lineage, but as far as I can remember the basic membership has been online, active, and "RQ-listing" since before RQ3 went out of print - although under different moderators, software, and names. It would be interesting to see a geneology of sorts for the list. Did the old RuneQuest list split into this one and the Glorantha list when the Gloranthan "scholars" came online? I can't remember. Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! ->Peter On 9/11/06, Anders Swenson wrote: > > I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in Ray > Turney's > highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar empire > and > at the more or less runelord level. > > I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and trying RQ > again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/04362e2f/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Tue Sep 12 13:34:12 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:34:12 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C8A433733EAA24-1568-2301@mblk-r16.sysops.aol.com> Having started the Scholars debate on the old list, I don't ever recall knowing about this list...or I might have jumped off the Glorantha list way back then. I thought this list sprouted from the schism that erupted from the great debate. Devin -----Original Message----- From: pmaranci at gmail.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Hello world The funny thing is that the list has been going on practically forever. I've never traced the lineage, but as far as I can remember the basic membership has been online, active, and "RQ-listing" since before RQ3 went out of print - although under different moderators, software, and names. It would be interesting to see a geneology of sorts for the list. Did the old RuneQuest list split into this one and the Glorantha list when the Gloranthan "scholars" came online? I can't remember. Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! ->Peter On 9/11/06, Anders Swenson < anders at california.com> wrote: I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in Ray Turney's highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar empire and at the more or less runelord level. I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and trying RQ again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/da34c98d/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 14:13:21 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:13:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450633E1.20603@gmail.com> BTW Peter, was the revisions on the map to your satisfaction? takk, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > The funny thing is that the list has been going on practically > forever. I've never traced the lineage, but as far as I can remember > the basic membership has been online, active, and "RQ-listing" since > before RQ3 went out of print - although under different moderators, > software, and names. > > It would be interesting to see a geneology of sorts for the list. Did > the old RuneQuest list split into this one and the Glorantha list when > the Gloranthan "scholars" came online? I can't remember. > > Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! > > ->Peter > > On 9/11/06, *Anders Swenson* < anders at california.com > > wrote: > > I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in > Ray Turney's > highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar > empire and > at the more or less runelord level. > > I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and > trying RQ > again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060911/20b2e7d9/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Sep 12 16:19:08 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:19:08 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RPG Net Game Index Message-ID: <28931.196.8.104.37.1158041948.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> I see that RPG Net (Same place as that history of Chaosium article) has a game index. Don't know if anyone here is a member and wants to maybe put RQ on the index? http://index.rpg.net/ Tony From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Sep 12 16:30:46 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:30:46 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] discussion at rpg net References: <000601c6d526$bb75f060$caeb8c56@sickboy> Message-ID: <006901c6d634$faea9980$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Do a search for "RuneQuest" and "Steve" ----- Original Message ----- From: Clive Wickens To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:16 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] discussion at rpg net Do you have a link for the discussion perchance ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060911/da757b74/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Sep 12 18:02:59 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:02:59 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >One of the D20 DMs at the club I go to said "The thing with RuneQuest is that your players can be killed by anything." >He said it in a depressed way.? I said "The thing with RQ is that your players can be killed by anything!" > > >He didn't see it that way!? I always thought it was a major strength of the game. He also doesn't understand D&D very well. It's trivially easy to kill a D&D party: just put them against an intelligent challenge at least 4 or 5 CR above their rating and it'll almost certainly result in a TPK. And frankly, whilst RQ (in any flavour) doesn't try and model the minutiae of PC vs. Challenges to the same degree, it's equally true that one can stat an over powered encounter that 99 times out of 100 will demolish the PC's. The point is that _in an even fight_ not only can "your players can be killed by anything" BUT your players can also kill anything in RQI/-/III - combat is a far more risky proposition _on both sides_ than in D&D (the d20 version of which is BUILT on the assumption of an equal CR challenge only taking 1/5th of the parties resources to overcome). Sandy Petersen's comments (quoted at Lokarnos) about RQ being anti-heroic have always struck me as particularly insightful... Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:51:19 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:51:19 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <20060908155033.23168.qmail@web31211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >This is something I been thinking for a while. One of >the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is >that after a while all characters begin to be very >good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat >skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > >There have been several attempts to fix that. Fix that???!!??? IMHO that's one of the main reasons why I'm playing RQ(3), and not D&D; the fact that RQ is blessingly free of totally unrealistic "classes", levels, etc. If I like to ride a motorcycle, doesn't mean that I cannot become good in sewing medieval clothes for my re-enactment hobby?!? In Rune Quest you become good at what you train, not depending on some more or less stupid list, stating that no matther how much you wield a longsword, you'll never improve if you have the word "magician" written in the corner of your sheet I respect your right to have a different opinion than me, though :) -But introducing classes and/or levels into RQ is IMHO like vikinghelmets with horns; -totally unrealistic and stupid! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:57:15 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:57:15 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, I've jumped into this discussion a little late, and I see this point: >What I'm tempted to say - and this is just off the top of my head - is that >in the real world, there's a degree of linkage of similar skills. That's >not >always true, but it usually is. For example, someone who does a lot of >climbing is likely to be better at other physical skills, too - and, I >presume, to be stronger (I'm not a climber, so I don't know). Likewise, if >you spend a lot of time researching and reading, you're likely to be more >comfortable with mental skills in general. > >It's possible to be a true jack-of-all-trades, of course, but the general >tendency is to develop areas of comfort and to concentrate on them. But there are far better ways to deal with this than the ***#?% -classes???!? -Like the "merits" and "Flaws" in WOD? Or Gifts and geases in the Yelmalio/Humakt-religion? That someone choosing "magician-carreer" can choose a merit/flaw when making the caracter, saying that he's having a 10% modifier to improve all mental attributes/skills, and -10% modifier to improve all physical attributes/skills I have never played a lvl-based RPG, so I really don't know how helpeful it is to use the level-systems to make "fair" scenarios, but IMHO one of the funnies things beeing a RQ(3)-GM, is to gauge the abilities of the PC's, and try to calibrate the adventure to be a good mix of "realizm", challenge and oppertuneties for players to have a saying in the adventures progress. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:59:07 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:59:07 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <004e01c6d366$099bacc0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: >My most recent attempt to address this is from a financial approach. I >created "sects" within the tribe structure that encourage characters to >hone specific skills. I consider that the tribe distributes resources >in a way that is most beneficial to all of its members. When players >join a particular sect they receive cheaper training in certain skills, >and access to sect-specific spells, equipment and uncommon skills. -This one is allso a good supplement/replacement for levels and classes, it's allso a more realistic sollution! Demonstration modus:["NO TO CLASSES AND LEVELS!"] :D From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 20:09:13 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:09:13 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609081050h2c150384i2d87a6f67b6a0ff8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist from the 50's and 60's? I agree that improving somthing you're allready good at is somthing that comes natural to most of us, but, solving this by using LVL and classes is not the answer. Making clausules in cult-rules, gifts-geases, and simply let people improve in what they're good at/or have to do a lot are far better answers to this "problem" than LVL's and Classes. I work with refugees. Take one of my Somali pupils as example: He was some sort of Goat-herder+ Imam. He had 8 children and was probably good at "Speak somali", Herd goats, Somali-lore, etc. What happened? Civil war, and he had to run away. Now he's learning new skills; Read/Write Norwegian, Speak Norwegian, Read bus-table, Know: norwegian laws, etc. Your seasoned veteran might pick up embrodery, like my sailor-uncle, after he left the seas and went to shore. He's now making beautiful tablecloths. Take me as an example; what class will I fit in? Here are my skills that are "high": Ride Motorcycle, Drive auto, Medieval fighting, Medieval dagger, Lecturing, Read/Write Norwegian, G3-rifle, MP5-SMG, Survival, Play Piano, English, Norwegian, History, Nature-science, Know Aircraft, Know Dinosaurs, First Aid, Drive Tank. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 20:21:25 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:21:25 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Take me as an example; what class will I fit in? >Here are my skills that are "high": >Ride Motorcycle, Drive auto, Medieval fighting, Medieval dagger, Lecturing, >Read/Write Norwegian, G3-rifle, MP5-SMG, Survival, Play Piano, English, >Norwegian, History, Nature-science, Know Aircraft, Know Dinosaurs, First >Aid, Drive Tank. I forgot some skills: GM RQ3, Change dipers, Take care of children, Sew historically plausible costumes, tablet-weaving and Drive boat. If you let your PC's improve in skills and abilities that they use, and let them only train/use skills/abilities that are realistic in the setting/religion, add some cult/cultural-related gifts-gease-house-rules, I think both the GM and the players should be happy :) (It's not realistic that a Fronelan peassant can start training Katana-skill, as I've put the existance of a katana into Kralorela/eastern Islands, and since the peassants in Fronela in (my) Glorantha-setting do not have the liberty to go around and train with swords anyway (cultural reason) =problem solved! From mason.bruce at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 20:35:53 2006 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:35:53 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5f3990080609120335l5526b6f6wa3da44be4ba966b9@mail.gmail.com> On 12/09/06, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > Sandy Petersen's > comments (quoted at Lokarnos) about RQ being anti-heroic have always > struck > me as particularly insightful... I agree entirely. It's why RQ has always been so good at "scum and villainy" style campaigns because the idea is to avoid fights where ever possible. If you do have to fight then you fight dirty because the best way to stay is to alive is to face an absolute minimum of attack rolls coming your way and attack from behind, while your enemy's fast asleep. Death comes suddenly in RQ. Obviously you can tune the system; in the 80s I ran DragonLance using RQ3 - twice. The major change I made at that time was Hero Points that let you change the results of rolls among other things (though I did insist that players spend the HP before the roll and gave the big bads Villain Points to match...). This helped allow for a heroic campaign. What RQ has by default, though, is a certain grim, unpredictable brutality when it comes to combat. What for example D&D does really well is "fantasy combat" where the hero wades through the hordes of minions. You can argue that D&D is a type of system that models standard heroic fantasy because the risk to the hero is nearly always the big bad at the end and that, after all, is what people are interested in. Conan dying in chapter 2 when he's stabbed in the back by a lucky lizard man is not really why we read in Conan. In RQ, the odds on Conan doing a Rurik are greater and that does put a lot of people off the game. On the other hand, that's what I love about RQ. I enjoy the relatively less predictable nature of RQ combat. MRQ has 1/10 criticals (something I've also been using for ages) and I tend to use that as a guideline. In roughly 1/10 of combats in RQ something significantly unusual will happen. In D&D, combats are somewhat more predictable because it takes a greater number of unusual rolls to affect a combat; both have their advantages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/c1b9dd47/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 12 21:23:48 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060912112348.78666.qmail@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND > stand-up-pianist from the > 50's and 60's? Poisoning pigeons in the park? How could one forget? As another example there's the various polymaths in history.. Actually one person who was an interesting minor polymath was one Dr. Rick Charlesworth. Apart from his medical skills, he also was an state grade cricketeer making it as opening batsman until he gave that up to concentrate on his Olympic level hockey skills. Obviously not satisfied he decided to finish off his career as a politician for the State seat of Perth. > Take me as an example; what class will I fit in? > Here are my skills that are "high": > Ride Motorcycle, Drive auto, Medieval fighting, > Medieval dagger, Lecturing, > Read/Write Norwegian, G3-rifle, MP5-SMG, Survival, > Play Piano, English, > Norwegian, History, Nature-science, Know Aircraft, > Know Dinosaurs, First > Aid, Drive Tank. All this said, games like D&D3.x does allow easy switching between classes so such a collection of skills is not so unlikely. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 00:36:26 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:36:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/307e919a/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 01:00:05 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude Message-ID: <20060912150005.3917.qmail@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Folks, first of all I did not suggest inclution of classes or levels. What I suggest was a system which channels character development over a long run by varying the rate of progression without setting a more artificial system of limiting the number of checks or capping skill categories based on skills. This system does allow for characters to pick up and progress in skills outside their main areas of expertise, but it makes such progress less efficient. It makes sense for my game, with my players. Others may want to consider it, if they wish to. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Im with Bjorn here.  RQ proves that you can teach an old dog new tricks.  And like him, Id shy away from levels, flaws, traits, feats and the rest of the baggage of The Curse of Gygax.  > I have tried to add an aptitude to some races and tribes by raising their base cultural skills in some areas and reducing them in others.  This just means they start at a higher % than an outsider- I have a sorcerous city where they have somewhat higher base chances and more positive modifiers to cast magic, for instance.  I wouldnt include anything like an aptitude for something. > Battletech the RPG had in one of its incarnations an aptitude that basically meant you halved the number of points you put into a skill to get a raise in it.  Could an aptitude in a particular skill simply be an increase in the chance to make the experience roll in RQ?  Id be leery of this since no doubt someone will end up with 1 H sword attack and before you know it theyre a killing machine with every 1 H sword they can find.  If I were to include it, Id make it specific to a single skill such as Broadsword attack rather than 1 H swords.  > From:   Bjorn Stolen <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com> Reply-To:   Discussion of RuneQuest rules. <rq-rules at crashbox.com> To:   rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject:   Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:21:25 +0000 >>Take me as an example; what class will I fit in? >>Here are my skills that are high: >>Ride Motorcycle, Drive auto, Medieval fighting, Medieval dagger, >>Lecturing, Read/Write Norwegian, G3-rifle, MP5-SMG, Survival, Play >>Piano, English, Norwegian, History, Nature-science, Know Aircraft, >>Know Dinosaurs, First Aid, Drive Tank. >I forgot some skills: GM RQ3, Change dipers, Take care of children, >Sew historically plausible costumes, tablet-weaving and Drive boat. > >If you > let your PCs improve in skills and abilities that they use, >and let them only train/use skills/abilities that are realistic in >the setting/religion, add some cult/cultural-related >gifts-gease-house-rules, I think both the GM and the players should >be happy :) > >(Its not realistic that a Fronelan peassant can start training >Katana-skill, as Ive put the existance of a katana into >Kralorela/eastern Islands, and since the peassants in Fronela in >(my) Glorantha-setting do not have the liberty to go around and >train with swords anyway (cultural reason) =problem solved! > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules Hotmail is evolving - > be one of the first to try out the Windows Live? Mail Beta > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anders at california.com Wed Sep 13 01:39:08 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:39:08 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World Message-ID: >> Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! Actually, Swenstown was named after a Steve Swenston, who did inking IIRC for the early White Bear and Red Moon game. I've had to hang onto the tailcoats of that name, It was years later that Steve Perrin named a DnD npc after me. Given that Johnstown, Swenstown, etc. aren't much bigger than Apple Lane in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it's a small thing. BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were sent to investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging assasination squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. --Anders From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Sep 13 01:51:34 2006 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:34 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades Message-ID: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:51:19 +0000 > From: "Bjorn Stolen" > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > >This is something I been thinking for a while. One of > >the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is > >that after a while all characters begin to be very > >good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > >skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > > >There have been several attempts to fix that. > > Fix that???!!??? > > IMHO that's one of the main reasons why I'm playing RQ(3), and not D&D; > the > fact that RQ is blessingly free of totally unrealistic "classes", levels, > etc. I have to agree with Bjorn here. I am the lord of house rules and probably have more different fixes (and 'fixes') to BRP/RQ rules than most people have rpg books but this really does not worry me. A character who spends time in combat is likely to become either dead or proficient with at least one weapon. A character who spends time learning to read will become better at reading A character who haggles at the market place will become better at Bargaining and other examples (sorry, in review this is all a bit patronising !) It is complete horse feathers that a D20/XD&D Mage 'runs out' of spells, fights the remaining beasties in the dungeon with his dagger, and gains most of his XP for that adventurre form using his dagger and then goes up a level and doesn't improve in his ability to fight with a dagger! It is my view a good thing that RQ characters can become renaissance (wo)men Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/c448b0fc/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Sep 13 02:15:08 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:15:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <20060912155150.37263BD3F55@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060912161508.76312.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> Anders Swenson: > BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? Both. Some people here are into Glorantha, others are very against Glorantha. But everyone likes RQ (I hope). > Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were sent to > investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging assasination > squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. We played Humakti Assassins in Balazar years ago. Assassination Squads are good for gaming. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/26b14d17/attachment.html From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Sep 13 02:18:30 2006 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:18:30 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4506DDD6.5020906@talmeta.net> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist from > the 50's and 60's? I hardly think it fair to call the Professor merely a 'stand up pianist'; he was a comedian extraordinaire! -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM, WIM - talmeta A Proud Howard Family Affiliate since 1987! Homepage - i don't want to listen but it's all to clear From kpmcdona at mindspring.com Wed Sep 13 14:25:49 2006 From: kpmcdona at mindspring.com (Kevin McDonald) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:25:49 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4507884D.3040409@mindspring.com> Anders Swenson wrote: > BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? > > Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were sent to investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging assasination squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. > I am into Glorantha, and my game is also based out of Carmania. Your game reminds me of a project that I want to do sometime - Lions in the Vineyard. I want to run a Carmanian game, maybe using Dogs in the Vineyard, RuneQuest or HeroQuest. I haven't settled on which. Any of the above would work, I think. In DitV, if you are not familiar with it, is a game where the PCs are a kind of religious frontier justice squad. They go from town to town looking for evil hidden within the community. When they find it, they are empowered (by the church, if not always the state) to remove it - one way or the other. This fits nicely with the Carmanian idea that Ganesatarus, Lord of the Lie, is constantly trying to undermine the righteous Order of Idovanus. Individuals and communities that deviate from Order become impure and vulnerable to the minions of the Lie. Adventures then ensue. :) ~Kevin McDonald > --Anders > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 05:15:55 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:15:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609121215y51c271darcd22760f7e4956e9@mail.gmail.com> Same here. In fact, I'd rather be running around with three long-term RQ survivors than I would a gaggle of specialized Runelords. On 9/12/06, alan richards wrote: > > > It is my view a good thing that RQ characters can become renaissance > (wo)men > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/bede0bbf/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 05:20:28 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:20:28 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <4506DDD6.5020906@talmeta.net> References: <4506DDD6.5020906@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609121220gb86143bvab0aad5052ca6786@mail.gmail.com> I let some friends of mine listen to some CDs of his work and one of them pointed out it was a bit depressing how little the world of politics has changed. C'est la vie! On 9/12/06, Tal Meta wrote: > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist from > > the 50's and 60's? > > I hardly think it fair to call the Professor merely a 'stand up > pianist'; he was a comedian extraordinaire! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/de71f5ed/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 05:26:48 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <4507884D.3040409@mindspring.com> References: <4507884D.3040409@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609121226p59842290yae415801d4e8d3a@mail.gmail.com> Anders Swenson wrote: > > BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? > > > I've never played in Gloratha as either a GM or a PC. Everyone I've gamed with has always preferred to use their own settings and borrow as desired from published material. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/195e6bf1/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 05:44:29 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:29 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/12/06, Anders Swenson wrote: > > >> Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! > > Actually, Swenstown was named after a Steve Swenston, who did inking IIRC > for > the early White Bear and Red Moon game. I've had to hang onto the > tailcoats > of that name, It was years later that Steve Perrin named a DnD npc after > me. (clunks self on forehead) Actually, I KNEW that. But I can't remember who told me. Might have been you, if we've corresponded before. > BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? > The RuneQuest rules are the foremost topic of the list. There's an unrelated list for Gloranthaphiles. The split took place about ten years ago, I think. Of course, some people are on both lists. That's not to say that discussion of Glorantha is forbidden here; if it were, even *I* would be in trouble. But discussions of Gloranthan minutiae - particularly if unrelated to RuneQuest - belong over at the Glorantha list. There are a fair number of people here who aren't into Glorantha, but we're probably all conversant with that world. At least the RQII and RQIII versions. And Gloranthan topics do come up fairly often. > Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were sent > to investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging assasination > squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. > VERY interesting - I've had a large scenario with some similar elements stewing in the back of my head for about six or seven years at least. But mine is probably a little darker. Okay, a LOT darker. :D Actually, I wonder if I should post that scenario to the list here for some feedback. It's not like I have a group to run it for, so I'm unlikely to ever get around to writing it up. ->Peter _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/fc2db2d6/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 07:14:18 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:14:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/1a5564a2/attachment.html From IQuinn at surewest.net Wed Sep 13 07:38:10 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:38:10 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009401c6d6b3$c1b60760$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> "I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with extra dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day Manchester and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars." >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success translating more modern weapons into the RQ rule set? Call of Cthulhu for example still stuck with fairly low tech firearms. Have you dealt with issues such as variable armor ratings (melee vs firearm), variable damage types and shock and trauma from high damage? -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Roger Benham Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:14 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World I'm in the homebrew camp; I don't ever intend to adventure in Glorantha as its a world I don't care for. I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with extra dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day Manchester and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars. They all use much the same rules except the latter two have no magic in them, which shows the flexibility of the rules! _____ From: "Peter Maranci" Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:29 -0400 On 9/12/06, Anders Swenson wrote: >> Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! Actually, Swenstown was named after a Steve Swenston, who did inking IIRC for the early White Bear and Red Moon game. I've had to hang onto the tailcoats of that name, It was years later that Steve Perrin named a DnD npc after me. (clunks self on forehead) Actually, I KNEW that. But I can't remember who told me. Might have been you, if we've corresponded before. BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? The RuneQuest rules are the foremost topic of the list. There's an unrelated list for Gloranthaphiles. The split took place about ten years ago, I think. Of course, some people are on both lists. That's not to say that discussion of Glorantha is forbidden here; if it were, even *I* would be in trouble. But discussions of Gloranthan minutiae - particularly if unrelated to RuneQuest - belong over at the Glorantha list. There are a fair number of people here who aren't into Glorantha, but we're probably all conversant with that world. At least the RQII and RQIII versions. And Gloranthan topics do come up fairly often. Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were sent to investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging assasination squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. VERY interesting - I've had a large scenario with some similar elements stewing in the back of my head for about six or seven years at least. But mine is probably a little darker. Okay, a LOT darker. :D Actually, I wonder if I should post that scenario to the list here for some feedback. It's not like I have a group to run it for, so I'm unlikely to ever get around to writing it up. ->Peter _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _____ Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try out the Windows LiveT Mail Beta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/49ea7fbd/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 08:12:19 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:12:19 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <009401c6d6b3$c1b60760$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060912/677c033a/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Sep 13 11:38:27 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45076113.9000504@inetnebr.com> alan richards wrote: > > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:51:19 +0000 > From: "Bjorn Stolen" < stolenbjorn at hotmail.com > > > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Message-ID: < BAY120-F33735A403884B3F147956FBB2B0 at phx.gbl > > > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > >This is something I been thinking for a while. One of > >the problems in RQ, since it does not have classes, is > >that after a while all characters begin to be very > >good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain combat > >skills and fighter types quickly gain magic skills. > > > >There have been several attempts to fix that. > > Fix that???!!??? > > IMHO that's one of the main reasons why I'm playing RQ(3), and not > D&D; the > fact that RQ is blessingly free of totally unrealistic "classes", > levels, > etc. > > > I have to agree with Bjorn here. > > I am the lord of house rules and probably have more different fixes > (and 'fixes') to BRP/RQ rules than most people have rpg books but > this really does not worry me. > > A character who spends time in combat is likely to become either dead > or proficient with at least one weapon. Yes my weapon should be magic if I am a mage.... and unless magic doesnt advance correctly or is intrinsically a sucky weapon... I shouldnt need steel > A character who spends time learning to read will become better at reading he should be reading because it suits his character and circumstance not because each adventure a small a mount of reading counts the same as a large amount of reading and because he has lower skill at it a little goes way to far. > It is my view a good thing that RQ characters can become renaissance > (wo)men It is not a question of "can" but rather will or must then something is wrong. From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Sep 13 12:13:52 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:13:52 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude References: <4506DDD6.5020906@talmeta.net> <1c92296e0609121220gb86143bvab0aad5052ca6786@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00c401c6d6da$42027630$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Extremely so. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Smart To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude I let some friends of mine listen to some CDs of his work and one of them pointed out it was a bit depressing how little the world of politics has changed. C'est la vie! On 9/12/06, Tal Meta wrote: Bjorn Stolen wrote: > -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist from > the 50's and 60's? I hardly think it fair to call the Professor merely a 'stand up pianist'; he was a comedian extraordinaire! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060912/acce2963/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 12:29:36 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:29:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: References: <009401c6d6b3$c1b60760$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609121929o32ac6245g6e78ccc96234d57a@mail.gmail.com> Interesting..I'm trying to put together a Traveller campaign using rules from all three of the settings you've mentioned. I also think Cthulhu Rising would work wonderfully for a 2300AD campaign. Yep, BRPS is definitely flexible. On 9/12/06, Roger Benham wrote: > > We used a mixture of CoC modern weapons from the 6th Ed rulebook and the > occasional bit of Delta Green. Cthulhu Rising also got cheerfully picked > apart. > > Generally, we don't bother much with trauma etc as all the combats seem to > result in massive damage that kills off the opposition PDQ. We borrowed a > lot of damage results (Decompression) from End Time, as well as some of the > effects of the Martian enviroment. Since I used hit locations in all > worlds, trauma etc didn't matter much as most firearms kill fairly quickly, > a good incentive for the players not to get into firefights, or to at least > set them up better. > > We never did iron out any different damage to different armours. > > ------------------------------ > From: *"Robert Hoffman" * > > > Reply-To: *"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." * > To: *"'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" * > Subject: *RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World* > Date: *Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:38:10 -0700* > > > "I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with extra > dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day Manchester and > a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars." > > >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success translating > more modern weapons into the RQ rule set? Call of Cthulhu for example > still stuck with fairly low tech firearms. Have you dealt with issues > such as variable armor ratings (melee vs firearm), variable damage types > and shock and trauma from high damage? > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto: > rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] *On Behalf Of *Roger Benham > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:14 PM > *To:* rq-rules at crashbox.com > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World > > > > I'm in the homebrew camp; I don't ever intend to adventure in Glorantha as > its a world I don't care for. > > I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with extra > dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day Manchester > and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars. They all use much the same > rules except the latter two have no magic in them, which shows the > flexibility of the rules! > > ------------------------------ > > From: *"Peter Maranci" * > Reply-To: *"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." * > To: *"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." * > Subject: *Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World* > Date: *Tue, 12 Sep 2006** **15:44:29** -0400* > > > > On 9/12/06, *Anders Swenson* wrote: > > > >> Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! > > Actually, Swenstown was named after a Steve Swenston, who did inking IIRC > for > > > the early White Bear and Red Moon game. I've had to hang onto the > tailcoats > of that name, It was years later that Steve Perrin named a DnD npc after > me. > > > > (clunks self on forehead) Actually, I KNEW that. But I can't remember who > told me. Might have been you, if we've corresponded before. > > > BTW, are you guys into Glorantha, or mainly into the game of RQ? > > > The RuneQuest rules are the foremost topic of the list. There's an > unrelated list for Gloranthaphiles. The split took place about ten years > ago, I think. Of course, some people are on both lists. > > > > That's not to say that discussion of Glorantha is forbidden here; if it > were, even *I* would be in trouble. But discussions of Gloranthan minutiae - > particularly if unrelated to RuneQuest - belong over at the Glorantha list. > > > > There are a fair number of people here who aren't into Glorantha, but > we're probably all conversant with that world. At least the RQII and RQIII > versions. And Gloranthan topics do come up fairly often. > > > > Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party were > sent to investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging > assasination squad for some local politicians with connections. Think > Munich. > > > > VERY interesting - I've had a large scenario with some similar elements > stewing in the back of my head for about six or seven years at least. But > mine is probably a little darker. > > > > Okay, a LOT darker. :D > > > > Actually, I wonder if I should post that scenario to the list here for > some feedback. It's not like I have a group to run it for, so I'm unlikely > to ever get around to writing it up. > > > > ->Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: > > http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > ------------------------------ > > Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try out the Windows Live? > Mail Beta > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > ------------------------------ > Get the inside track on what's happening at MSN. Sign up for the MSN > Insider newsletter here. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060912/56e8af77/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Sep 13 16:41:34 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:41:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <45076113.9000504@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20060913064134.14926.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> How does a "small amount of reading count as a large amount of reading" then? Cheers, Ash --- Lance Dyas wrote: > alan richards wrote: > > > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:51:19 +0000 > > From: "Bjorn Stolen" < stolenbjorn at hotmail.com > > > > > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Aptitude > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > > Message-ID: < > BAY120-F33735A403884B3F147956FBB2B0 at phx.gbl > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > > > >This is something I been thinking for a > while. One of > > >the problems in RQ, since it does not have > classes, is > > >that after a while all characters begin to be > very > > >good in all skills. Magic Users quickly gain > combat > > >skills and fighter types quickly gain magic > skills. > > > > > >There have been several attempts to fix that. > > > > Fix that???!!??? > > > > IMHO that's one of the main reasons why I'm > playing RQ(3), and not > > D&D; the > > fact that RQ is blessingly free of totally > unrealistic "classes", > > levels, > > etc. > > > > > > I have to agree with Bjorn here. > > > > I am the lord of house rules and probably have > more different fixes > > (and 'fixes') to BRP/RQ rules than most people > have rpg books but > > this really does not worry me. > > > > A character who spends time in combat is likely to > become either dead > > or proficient with at least one weapon. > Yes my weapon should be magic if I am a mage.... and > unless magic doesnt > advance correctly or is intrinsically a sucky > weapon... I shouldnt need > steel > > A character who spends time learning to read will > become better at reading > he should be reading because it suits his character > and circumstance not > because each adventure a small a mount of reading > counts the same as a > large amount of reading and because he has lower > skill at it a little goes > way to far. > > It is my view a good thing that RQ characters can > become renaissance > > (wo)men > It is not a question of "can" but rather will or > must then something is > wrong. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 13 18:50:44 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:50:44 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Settings and Scenario ideas, was Hello World In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609121226p59842290yae415801d4e8d3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4507884D.3040409@mindspring.com> <1c92296e0609121226p59842290yae415801d4e8d3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4016.196.8.104.37.1158137444.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Dave Smart wrote: > I've never played in Gloratha as either a GM or a PC. Everyone I've gamed > with has always preferred to use their own settings and borrow as desired > from published material. Same here - I have all the AH RQ Glorantha books etc and for sure we have pinched some bits and pieces for ideas, but we have always used other settings, either our own or one as we would have pictured from a popular fantasy series. Speaking of which, has anyone heard of or tried a setting in the world that Vincente segrelles details in his Mercenary grafic novels. I have been thinking of maybe rustling up some stats for the various creatures and NPC's of his alternate earth. (Hmm, also I re read my version of The Fortress on the weekend and was reminded that some semi nude scenes (breasts) had been sensured with really badly drawen bra's. Still peeved re that). Tony From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Sep 13 19:29:48 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (thomas zunder) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:29:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550609120851r540bf9aeyd410b258540b10e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4507CF8C.7080400@zunder.org.uk> I like RQ PCs the way they are: renaissance men and women. Many players don't. They like a clearer definition between types. Stormbringer 5 does this quite well, characters can be renaissance, but the penalty for using magic puts some off, and the ability to create ultra capable characters in generation drives a lot towards specialists. The easiest 'fix' if you want it is to use the other Stormbringer fix: you can't use magic unless your INT+POW or INT or POW are above a certain score. Say a total of 35 or more. Or 17 POW for spirit and divine, 17 INT for sorcery. It quickly drives the game to a more Conan or Lanhkmar feel. From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Sep 13 19:31:01 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (thomas zunder) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:31:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <20060912161508.76312.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060912161508.76312.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4507CFD5.8010805@zunder.org.uk> > > > Our current Rayquest takes place in Carmania, where we the party > were sent to > > investigate crimes, and have been coopted to be the avenging > assasination > > squad for some local politicians with connections. Think Munich. I am just so buzzed that you guys are still playing! Are you still RQ-ing or have you gone HQ? What else do you play? From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 20:13:45 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:13:45 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: <4506DDD6.5020906@talmeta.net> Message-ID: Sorry; blasphemy! I have 3 of his CD's and he is so.... fun, isn't quite the word; he's what I think a good "fool"in the royal courts were like; oosing with irony, sarkasm and crazy stories! >From: Tal Meta >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude >Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:18:30 -0400 > >Bjorn Stolen wrote: >>-Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist from >>the 50's and 60's? > >I hardly think it fair to call the Professor merely a 'stand up pianist'; >he was a comedian extraordinaire! > >-- >talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine >AIM, WIM - talmeta >A Proud Howard Family Affiliate since 1987! >Homepage - > >i don't want to listen but it's all to clear >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 20:26:47 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:26:47 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <009401c6d6b3$c1b60760$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: I've done that in my Glorantha setting; dividing between bashing, piercing, cutting, chopping and grappeling. (A friend of mine allso have acid/fire as a different damage type, and to use it in modern/futuristic settings, one could add some other types (high-impact damage and HEAT/laser-damage, for instance). Making good rules for auto-fire is what I've found to be the biggest nightmare, not to make good damage and armor-rules. Every type of armor have different protection-values against the different damage-types. A Gloranthan equipped with A modern flack-vest could for instance have 9-AP against bashing/chopping, 10-AP against piercing, 15 AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 8-AP against "firearm-projectiles", and 6-AP against HEAT/laser. A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"viking chainmail" could for instance have 3AP against bashing/chopping, 7AP against piercing, 15 AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 4-AP against "firearm-projectiles", and 0AP against HEAT/laser. A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"Gamberson" could for instance have 5-AP against bashing/chopping, 3-AP against piercing, 6-AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 2-AP against "firearm-projectiles", and 0-AP against HEAT/laser. >From: "Robert Hoffman" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World >Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:38:10 -0700 > >"I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with >extra dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day >Manchester and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars." > >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success >translating more modern weapons into the RQ rule set? Call of Cthulhu >for example still stuck with fairly low tech firearms. Have you dealt >with issues such as variable armor ratings (melee vs firearm), variable >damage types and shock and trauma from high damage? > >-----Original Message----- >From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com >[mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Roger Benham >Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:14 PM >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World > >I'm in the homebrew camp; I don't ever intend to adventure in Glorantha >as its a world I don't care for. >I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with extra >dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day Manchester >and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars. They all use much the >same rules except the latter two have no magic in them, which shows the >flexibility of the rules! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 20:41:02 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:41:02 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <45076113.9000504@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: >>A character who spends time in combat is likely to become either dead or >>proficient with at least one weapon. >Yes my weapon should be magic if I am a mage.... and unless magic doesnt >advance correctly or is intrinsically a sucky weapon... I shouldnt need >steel The problem is if we fix this by making a rule for it, "-magicians can only have magical weapons!" I don't disagree with you that your wiew can be a good basis for the background/feelings of a mage, but I hate the though that the rules shall make limitations. One of the best things with RQ(3), is that you really can claim that it's impossible to make two identical characters! Here are some examples of what is possible with a system that says NO to classes: Magician A have a magical weapon, because he is a mage... He feals that he shouldn't need steel. To use a steel weapon is a personal defeat in this magicians eyes. Magician B have a steel longsword, because he belongs to "The magical-brotherhood of the steel-longsword", that has it's convenant in the hills of "Aaaargh", where every man is given his personal longsword during baptize-ceremony. Magician C lives in the magical land of "Goooo", where the magicians are the head-farmers; agronoms, making sure the magical tools that run the farm work correctly. Magician D is a street thug that have joined the "mafia-mage-community". Now he's working on learning some nifty illution-spells that he can use to divert the prey, before he strikes them down with his singlestick and mugs them. See? No levels = diversity. I don't say that any character should be allowed access to any skill or percentage; that's where the GM's responsebility kicks inn, applying the culture of the different regions and religions. If Magician C visits the hills of "Aaaargh", perhaps he'll be burned at the stake, as he's not wearing his sign of beeing worhty of wielding magics; the longsword? >>A character who spends time learning to read will become better at reading >he should be reading because it suits his character and circumstance not >because each adventure a small a mount of reading counts the same as a >large amount of reading and because he has lower skill at it a little goes >way to far. I don't improve much in my Arabic-attempts, as I don't put enough effort in learning it (from my arabic-speaking pupils). This is covered perfectly in the RQ-3 rules, as it's up to the GM to deem what is valid "studying"/"training"-time. With a slack GM, (or a nagging player), he might improve in his Arabic under "my" conditions, and I've allso met norwegians that now can speek understandable arabic, simply because they got friends that were asylum-seekers, and that only spoke arabic. From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 22:39:21 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:39:21 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/8a4355db/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 22:42:02 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:42:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609121929o32ac6245g6e78ccc96234d57a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/8c34e515/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Sep 13 23:13:20 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <20060913064134.14926.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060913064134.14926.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <450803F0.1020109@inetnebr.com> Ashley Munday wrote: > How does a "small amount of reading count as a large > amount of reading" then? > > Cheers, > > Ash Use it once get a check box advance and so you get better faster at a skill you rarely use than ones you use all the time. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Sep 13 23:17:14 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:17:14 +0100 Subject: Firearms for RQ was Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success translating more modern weapons into the RQ rule set? You should check out the RQIII Technical Expansion, a fan written supplement hat converts GDW's Twilight:2000, 2300AD and Megatraveller technology (especially weapons) to RQIII. >Call of Cthulhu for example still stuck with fairly low tech firearms. My preference (these days) is to plug Future*World in to either CoC 6 or Elric!/SB5, with a few house rules (AP ratings, better auto / burst fire rules). >Have you dealt with issues such as variable armour ratings (melee vs firearm), variable damage types and shock and trauma from high damage? Life is, quite frankly, too short. Fond as I was of Other Suns, tracking Endurance points AND Hit Points (both total and locational) in that was too much faff for me, so these days I happy with BRP's fairly elastic definition of "hit points", and telling the players to not take the piss. Cheers, Nick Middleton From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Sep 13 23:25:51 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <450803F0.1020109@inetnebr.com> References: <20060913064134.14926.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <450803F0.1020109@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <450806DF.30404@inetnebr.com> Lance Dyas wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: >> How does a "small amount of reading count as a large >> amount of reading" then? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ash > Use it once get a check box advance > and so you get better faster at a skill you rarely use than ones you > use all the time. You only had to be regular in your usage not persistant.. and by the rules reading once a week was just as good as reading once a day depending on the period between advancement testing. I will qualify that there were several fixes for this in the web only RQIV and that I havent read the latest one. I believe the simplest and imho most realistic fix was to allow the user a specified number of advancement checks within a given time period and... assuming not all the hours of the day are played out moment by moment being tolerant of what skills the character is allowed to advance in. Augment the above with extra checks periodically if you want to grant adventurers special compensation for the intensity of there experiences. I have seen the latest RQ at my local gaming shop and when the money burns a hole in my pocket its mine. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 23:40:49 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:40:49 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You're right, the eternal realism vs. playability... I solve it by an elaborate charactersheet. So every time my players invest in new armor or new weapons, it takes some time to note everything down. I've got the tables on my GM-screen as well, so in an emergancy, we skip the book-keeping till between sessions. The system itself isn't more complicated than it is today, there are only more factors involved. -Did the trollkin strike with a club? roll Bashing-damage for given club and subtract the target's bashing AP-value in the region that was hit. Did the trollkin stab with a dagger? Roll Piercing-damage for given dagger and subtract the target's piercingAP-value in the region that was hit. Bigger tables, not more bok-keeping in-game, IMHO >Bjorn- > >I'd be intrigued to see the shorthand form of this- how do you note it down >on the character sheet for instance?? I agree wholeheartedly with the idea, >I just never implemented it into any of my campaigns for the sheer amount >of work involved! > > > > > > >From:??"Bjorn Stolen" >Reply-To:??"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To:??rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject:??RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World >Date:??Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:26:47 +0000 > >I've done that in my Glorantha setting; dividing between bashing, > >piercing, cutting, chopping and grappeling. (A friend of mine allso > >have acid/fire as a different damage type, and to use it in > >modern/futuristic settings, one could add some other types > >(high-impact damage and HEAT/laser-damage, for instance). Making > >good rules for auto-fire is what I've found to be the biggest > >nightmare, not to make good damage and armor-rules. > > > >Every type of armor have different protection-values >against the > >different damage-types. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with A modern flack-vest could for instance > >have 9-AP against bashing/chopping, 10-AP against piercing, 15 AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 8-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 6-AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"viking chainmail" could for > >instance have 3AP against bashing/chopping, 7AP against piercing, 15 > >AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 4-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"Gamberson" could for instance > >have 5-AP against bashing/chopping, 3-AP against piercing, 6-AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 2-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0-AP against >HEAT/laser. > > > > > > > >>From: "Robert Hoffman" > >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >>To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" > >>Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World > >>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:38:10 -0700 > >> > >>"I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with > >>extra dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day > >>Manchester and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial Mars." > >> >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success > >>translating more modern weapons into the RQ rule set???Call of > >>Cthulhu > >>for example still stuck with fairly low tech firearms.??Have you > > >>dealt > >>with issues such as variable armor ratings (melee vs firearm), > >>variable > >>damage types and shock and trauma from high damage? > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > >>[mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Roger Benham > >>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:14 PM > >>To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World > >> > >>I'm in the homebrew camp; I don't ever intend to adventure in > >>Glorantha > >>as its a world I don't care for. > >>I run a stone age/bronze age world, a medieval European world with > >>extra > >>dimensional links, a vampire hunting game set in present day > >>Manchester > >>and a sci fi campaign set on post-colonial >Mars.??They all use much > >>the > >>same rules except the latter two have no magic in them, which shows > >>the > >>flexibility of the rules! > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >Hotmail is evolving - be one of the first to try the Windows Live? Mail >Beta > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 23:50:57 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:50:57 -0500 Subject: Firearms for RQ was Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0609130650m26e06cfw95bfd2025f4725ef@mail.gmail.com> And if anyone doesn't have access to the Tech Expansion, just holler. I'm sure between all of us, we have quite a few copies on hard drives throughout western civilization. *grin* On 9/13/06, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >>Not to get too far off topic, but have you had much success translating > more modern weapons into the RQ rule set? > > You should check out the RQIII Technical Expansion, a fan written > supplement hat converts GDW's Twilight:2000, 2300AD and Megatraveller > technology (especially weapons) to RQIII. > > >Call of Cthulhu for example still stuck with fairly low tech firearms. > > My preference (these days) is to plug Future*World in to either CoC 6 or > Elric!/SB5, with a few house rules (AP ratings, better auto / burst fire > rules). > > > >Have you dealt with issues such as variable armour ratings (melee vs > firearm), variable damage types and shock and trauma from high damage? > > > Life is, quite frankly, too short. Fond as I was of Other Suns, tracking > Endurance points AND Hit Points (both total and locational) in that was > too > much faff for me, so these days I happy with BRP's fairly elastic > definition of "hit points", and telling the players to not take the piss. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/83dbbcdb/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 00:01:34 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:01:34 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: References: <45076113.9000504@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: Maybe the real issue is PC differentiation. That's not a problem for every group, of course. But in some campaigns, a PC without a strong and party-exclusive area of speciality (in a skill or ability that's needed by the group) can find themselves with nothing to do. Normally good roleplaying can overcome that, or even just good GMing; unless the player is a total wallflower, the GM should be able to draw them into the action. I'd bet we've all seen or at least heard of games where that DIDN'T happen, though, and one or more players ended up without a speaking part. This problem is exacerbated when a party starts out at a relatively low skill level. Since all the PCs go through pretty much the same things as they develop their skills, they're less likely to develop strong differentiation. Class-based games basically *force* differentiation, admittedly in a very artificial way. Now that I think of it, when I've run or played in a game in which the characters were designed, rather than created using the RQIII character generation system, there's never been a problem with excessive skill redundancy. Of course, those characters were also usually more powerful than the standard starting RQIII character anyway. I'm not sure what conclusion to draw here. The RQ system in this regard isn't broken. A good character design system, one that allows a pretty fine level of specialization, would help reduce the likelihood of problems - but ultimately it's up to the GM to make sure that everyone in the game gets a fair amount of focus and action. I don't know that we should try to forestall every bad GMing choice with a new rule. That way lies madness. Unless, as in the case of a character design system, the rule is actually needed and enhances the system in other ways. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/292db12f/attachment.html From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 00:20:36 2006 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Firearms for RQ was Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609130650m26e06cfw95bfd2025f4725ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060913142036.58082.qmail@web54215.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Smart wrote: > And if anyone doesn't have access to the Tech > Expansion, just holler. I'm > sure between all of us, we have quite a few copies > on hard drives throughout > western civilization. *grin* Anyone who doesn't have access could also join the Yahoo BRPs group and download it from the files section. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/brpsystem/ Cheers, John The political parties and men savagely scrambling for power will scorn me as hopelessly out of tune with our time. I cheerfully admit the charge. I find comfort in the assurance that their hysteria lacks enduring quality. Their hosanna is but of the hour. Man's yearning for liberation from all authority and power will never be soothed by their cracked song. Man's quest for freedom from every shackle is eternal. It must and will go on. --- Emma Goldman Gypsy Punk Revolution: http://www.gogolbordello.com/ They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 00:37:21 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060913143721.81778.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Maybe the real issue is PC differentiation. That's > not a problem for every > group, of course. But in some campaigns, a PC > without a strong and > party-exclusive area of speciality (in a skill or > ability that's needed by > the group) can find themselves with nothing to do. > > Normally good roleplaying can overcome that, or even > just good GMing; unless > the player is a total wallflower, the GM should be > able to draw them into > the action. I'd bet we've all seen or at least heard > of games where that > DIDN'T happen, though, and one or more players ended > up without a speaking > part. > > This problem is exacerbated when a party starts out > at a relatively low > skill level. Since all the PCs go through pretty > much the same things as > they develop their skills, they're less likely to > develop strong > differentiation. Class-based games basically *force* > differentiation, > admittedly in a very artificial way. > > Now that I think of it, when I've run or played in a > game in which the > characters were designed, rather than created using > the RQIII character > generation system, there's never been a problem with > excessive skill > redundancy. Of course, those characters were also > usually more powerful than > the standard starting RQIII character anyway. > > I'm not sure what conclusion to draw here. The RQ > system in this regard > isn't broken. A good character design system, one > that allows a pretty fine > level of specialization, would help reduce the > likelihood of problems - but > ultimately it's up to the GM to make sure that > everyone in the game gets a > fair amount of focus and action. > > I don't know that we should try to forestall every > bad GMing choice with a > new rule. That way lies madness. Unless, as in the > case of a character > design system, the rule is actually needed and > enhances the system in other > ways. > I have found this problem only in beginner players, and they outgrow it after playing awhile. It seems that as the character advances in skills and abilities, there develops areas of specialty almost automatically. Of course, the Mythworld requirement of a trade and a religion (either of which can be ignored, but at a severe penalty of a lack of skills each gives a character before play begins) has something to do with this, but I noticed the same specialization when playing RQ2 before Mythworld was ever developed. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 01:18:19 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Settings and Scenario ideas, was Hello World In-Reply-To: <4016.196.8.104.37.1158137444.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <20060913151819.37545.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: ...(Hmm, also I re > read my version of The > Fortress on the weekend and was reminded that some > semi nude scenes > (breasts) had been sensured with really badly drawen > bra's. Still peeved > re that). > > Tony I have been working on a series of booklets on various historical cultures which would be suitable for role-playing characters (not so regimented that individuals could not strike out on their own). I have a bit over 30 in various stages of completion. Over a third of these would be "top-free" as a normal costume and over half would have public nudity under some conditions (baths and gymnasia, for instance). Strangly, this is not limited to tropics - 19th century photos show Inuit topless in the summer. And, I did not select these cultures for this factor. It seems that we are a long way from the realism the National Geographic achieved in the 1880s! Come on, if you have seen two, you have seen them all. Grow up. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Sep 14 01:50:58 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:50:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <450803F0.1020109@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20060913155058.62481.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I think the point you're missing is only if the GM allows it... "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, experience check!" "What were you reading?" "The bar snacks menu..." "Forget it..." Compared to... "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, experience check!" "What were you reading?" "The bar snacks menu at the Uz bar in the Rubble" "Go for it my son..." Cheers, Ash --- Lance Dyas wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: > > How does a "small amount of reading count as a > large > > amount of reading" then? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > Use it once get a check box advance > and so you get better faster at a skill you rarely > use than ones you use > all the time. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 02:09:21 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:09:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic/Weapons In-Reply-To: <20060913123943.1E175BDD266@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060913160921.66692.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Someone (I've lost track): > Yes my weapon should be magic if I am a mage.... and > unless magic doesnt > advance correctly or is intrinsically a sucky > weapon... I shouldnt need > steel It depends entirely on the setting and the style of game. In Glorantha, even the hardened fighters use magic, and lots of it, but they also use weapons. In Discworld, the wizards use magic and rarely use weapons, but Rincewind always says that a sock with a brick in it works better than a lot of magic and Dean Rustrum (?) uses a hunting crossbow to deadly effect. If you are facing an equally poweful wizard and have the option of running him through with a sword, then you'd probably take it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/c21e4077/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 02:23:12 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:23:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aptitude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45083070.50907@gmail.com> I too have his Cd's & even (horrors, I'm old) vinyl lp's. It is amazing how he's still topical. Another musical humorist bit that is good inspiration for gaming is Anna Russel's "Description of Wagner's Ring-Cycle". takk, Sven Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Sorry; blasphemy! I have 3 of his CD's and he is so.... fun, isn't > quite the word; he's what I think a good "fool"in the royal courts > were like; oosing with irony, sarkasm and crazy stories! > > >> From: Tal Meta >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aptitude >> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:18:30 -0400 >> >> Bjorn Stolen wrote: >>> -Ever heard of Tom Lehrer? Scientist, Lecturer AND stand-up-pianist >>> from the 50's and 60's? >> >> I hardly think it fair to call the Professor merely a 'stand up >> pianist'; he was a comedian extraordinaire! >> >> -- >> talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine >> AIM, WIM - talmeta >> A Proud Howard Family Affiliate since 1987! >> Homepage - >> >> i don't want to listen but it's all to clear >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 02:30:10 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:30:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <20060913151849.C6286BDEAED@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060913163010.7145.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > Maybe the real issue is PC differentiation. That's not a problem for every > group, of course. But in some campaigns, a PC without a strong and > party-exclusive area of speciality (in a skill or ability that's needed by > the group) can find themselves with nothing to do. This is a big problem and I have seen it in my current campaign. We have a shaman, a fighter and a scout. The scout tends not to do a lot unless there is some scouting or trading to do, despite my best efforts. > This problem is exacerbated when a party starts out at a relatively low > skill level. Since all the PCs go through pretty much the same things as > they develop their skills, they're less likely to develop strong > differentiation. Class-based games basically *force* differentiation, > admittedly in a very artificial way. So do cults. All our PCs are Praxian nomads. One started as an Apprentice Shaman, the others started just as Nomads. They joined different cults - Daka Fal, Storm Bull and Herald. That meant they tried to specialise in different areas and they have very different skills (at 50%-75%). Of course, limiting experience rolls pushes people into specialising. > Now that I think of it, when I've run or played in a game in which the > characters were designed, rather than created using the RQIII character > generation system, there's never been a problem with excessive skill > redundancy. Of course, those characters were also usually more powerful than > the standard starting RQIII character anyway. If you design a character, you generally have an idea of what kind of character it's going to be, so you concentrate on certain areas. If you have a limited number of points to build a character with, you will specialise. > I'm not sure what conclusion to draw here. The RQ system in this regard > isn't broken. A good character design system, one that allows a pretty fine > level of specialization, would help reduce the likelihood of problems - but > ultimately it's up to the GM to make sure that everyone in the game gets a > fair amount of focus and action. RQ2 and RQ3 make it easier to have more generic characters than RQM. In RQ2/3 you get as many ticks as you've succeeded skills in, then you get an unlimited number of experience gains. So, everyone tries a Spot Traps, Riding, Jumping, First Aid, Weapon Skill and overcoming POW. > Anyone who doesn't have access could also join the > Yahoo BRPs group and download it from the files > section. > > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/brpsystem/ Oh, great, another group to join. When will it ever end? Thanks for the info. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/f38493e0/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 03:59:35 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:59:35 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: <450633E1.20603@gmail.com> References: <450633E1.20603@gmail.com> Message-ID: The new map is great, and I can't thank you enough. The underground waterfall wasn't something I'd originally planned, but it doesn't really affect the adventure at all. Now I just need to find the time to write the whole adventure up nicely before October 16th. :D Speaking of which, I wonder what format I should use for the scenario? For example, there are cave trolls in the scenario; I could include RQIII cave trolls, or just say "standard cave trolls with the following unusual qualities"), and let the GM pull them out of whatever version of RQ s/he is using. How would people feel about that sort of thing? ->Peter On 9/12/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > BTW Peter, was the revisions on the map to your satisfaction? > takk, > Sven > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > The funny thing is that the list has been going on practically forever. > I've never traced the lineage, but as far as I can remember the basic > membership has been online, active, and "RQ-listing" since before RQ3 went > out of print - although under different moderators, software, and names. > > It would be interesting to see a geneology of sorts for the list. Did the > old RuneQuest list split into this one and the Glorantha list when the > Gloranthan "scholars" came online? I can't remember. > > Swenson of Swenstown ("do not wait"), huh? Glad you found us! > > ->Peter > > On 9/11/06, Anders Swenson < anders at california.com > wrote: > > > > I am amazed to discover a mailing list for RQ. I am currently in Ray > > Turney's > > highly variant campaign (we call it RayQuest) based in the lunar empire > > and > > at the more or less runelord level. > > > > I hope to interest some of my local players in going back and trying RQ > > again, and may communicate any notable successes to this forum. > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/0ad2e890/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 04:11:51 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:11:51 +0100 Subject: Firearms for RQ was Re: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609130650m26e06cfw95bfd2025f4725ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/d07e1ac7/attachment.html From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Thu Sep 14 05:29:51 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:29:51 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic/Weapons In-Reply-To: <20060913160921.66692.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200609131929.PAA12086@alexander.cnc.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/d628ec82/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Thu Sep 14 05:32:25 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:32:25 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic/Weapons In-Reply-To: <200609131929.PAA12086@alexander.cnc.net> Message-ID: <8C8A58279D69C5A-888-33FB@MBLK-R06.sysops.aol.com> A kludge that even D&D itself no longer has, as wizards can use any weapon and wear any armour if they put the training and effort into it. Devin -----Original Message----- From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Magic/Weapons Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: Someone (I've lost track): > Yes my weapon should be magic if I am a mage.... and > unless magic doesnt > advance correctly or is intrinsically a sucky > weapon... I shouldnt need > steel It depends entirely on the setting and the style of game. In Glorantha, even the hardened fighters use magic, and lots of it, but they also use weapons. In Discworld, the wizards use magic and rarely use weapons, but Rincewind always says that a sock with a brick in it works better than a lot of magic and Dean Rustrum (?) uses a hunting crossbow to deadly effect. That would be ARCHCHANCECELLOR Mustrum Ridcully you're referring to, I believe. But, point taken, and let us not forget Gandalf's rather adept use of Glamdring, not to mention his being a good rider (another physical skill which some might deny to brainy-wizardy types). IMO the whole Wizards can't use weapons (or metal, or whatever) is little more than a hold-over from a klugey attempt at character balancing from the D&D character class rules. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/16b1eb22/attachment.html From davidakeys at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 05:49:52 2006 From: davidakeys at hotmail.com (David Keys) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:49:52 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules Message-ID: Hi Bjorn, Do you have a copy of your armour points versus different attack types that you could send me? I was planning to do something similar and like to see yours, given your real-world experience in melee. Many thanks, David >From: "Bjorn Stolen" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:26:47 +0000 > >I've done that in my Glorantha setting; dividing between bashing, > >piercing, cutting, chopping and grappeling. (A friend of mine allso > >have acid/fire as a different damage type, and to use it in > >modern/futuristic settings, one could add some other types > >(high-impact damage and HEAT/laser-damage, for instance). Making > >good rules for auto-fire is what I've found to be the biggest > >nightmare, not to make good damage and armor-rules. > > > >Every type of armor have different protection-values >against the > >different damage-types. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with A modern flack-vest could for instance > >have 9-AP against bashing/chopping, 10-AP against piercing, 15 AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 8-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 6-AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"viking chainmail" could for > >instance have 3AP against bashing/chopping, 7AP against piercing, 15 > >AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 4-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"Gamberson" could for instance > >have 5-AP against bashing/chopping, 3-AP against piercing, 6-AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 2-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0-AP against >HEAT/laser. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/2dd630ee/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 06:09:49 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:09:49 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hello world In-Reply-To: References: <450633E1.20603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609131309p721a78ag96281072ff4a1507@mail.gmail.com> Generic is good enough. Less work for you and any GM worth his/her salt will change an adventure to suit his/her purposes. David On 9/13/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > Speaking of which, I wonder what format I should use for the scenario? For > example, there are cave trolls in the scenario; I could include RQIII cave > trolls, or just say "standard cave trolls with the following unusual > qualities"), and let the GM pull them out of whatever version of RQ s/he is > using. How would people feel about that sort of thing? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/56fc4631/attachment.html From anders at california.com Thu Sep 14 08:00:31 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:00:31 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Too too complex! (Rayquest secrets revealed) In-Reply-To: <20060913151849.C6286BDEAED@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: First of all, how do I get out of digest mode so I can answer individual postings more easily? Now. I was talking it over with my son, who was born about the same time as RQ, and we agreed that MRQ would be a good basis for a Petal Throne campaign, as soon as the magic is worked out in MRQ. More in future postings. As for bookkeeeping... In Rayquest, we don't. (you all remember that RayQuest is the highly variant RQ developed by RQ creator Ray Turney for our local campaign) All the heros typically begin battle with a casting of a sorcery spell called Cushion Impact, which is good against one blow that overcomes armor. For the second good blow, the victem must make a save on Con or have to roll on an incapacitation table. The best result on THAT table is being out of the combat until it ends. It gets worse, the result of several bad rolls is permanant death. I have a character in one of the Lunar hells, awaiting rescue. With only 4 or 5 guys, it gets much to hot, heavy, and argumentative to want to do serious bookkeeping. Also, it's not very true to the heroic spirit of the combat. We discarded the stepped D100 of RQ2 in favor of a D20. On the hero plane, which is merely an option for this levelled group, we use the same skill numbers but roll a D30. At the end of a session, a brave player rolls 2D6 for the number of checks for the day, which are assigned by player choice and rolled normally. If the brave player rolls under 6, he is roundly reviled. --Anders From rog_benham at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 08:58:01 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:58:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060913/f7582492/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Sep 14 10:40:36 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <8C8A58279D69C5A-888-33FB@MBLK-R06.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C8A58279D69C5A-888-33FB@MBLK-R06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4508A504.2080608@inetnebr.com> Complaints about a long ago game that inspired rq which only allowed overly focused characters I guess is a valid offshoot from complaints that the BRP system has a built in automatic JOT effect but it is still missing the point... the repercussions for the old runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old "weapon" caddy effect. It is nice that your character can be versatile.. Fate is very heavy handed in this regard forces versatility you absolutely have to put advancement into support/supplementary/auxilliary or even unrelated skills inorder to advance your focus skills... its also nice to be able to have characters with more focus. I guess my question is was this addressed.. in the latest RQ RQIV the unreleased web hack... had like 3 or 4 different answers ... . even one that was basically a lame GM adjucation ... to some that I rather liked.. I had my own overly complex hack that I abandoned. From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Sep 14 11:09:20 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:09:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <20060913155058.62481.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060913155058.62481.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4508ABC0.8060402@inetnebr.com> Ashley Munday wrote: > I think the point you're missing is only if the GM > allows it... > > "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, experience > check!" > > "What were you reading?" > > "The bar snacks menu..." > > "Forget it..." > > Compared to... > > "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, experience > check!" > > "What were you reading?" > > "The bar snacks menu at the Uz bar in the Rubble" > > "Go for it my son..." > > Cheers, > > Ash Maybe but his read pavic is 5% and that is quite an accomplishment.. .particularly if you make sure he takes long enough doing it to annoy other characters and inspires other roleplaying. From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Sep 14 13:03:25 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:03:25 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules References: Message-ID: <00f901c6d7aa$58bf9300$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Another way to approach this is to assign points of Piercing to weapons vs different armors. This can range from 1 point for a bodkin point arrow to 10 points for a laser. Then the armor, depending on the era, gets an impervious rating. I cannot see giving Kevlar a 10 point rating and plate armor a 7 points rating, or whatever. The armors should have about the same rating, just different weapons from different eras have more or less chance to pierce the armor. Sorry, can't get into this any further, have to leave the computer for a couple of hours. keep pluggin' Steve Perirn ----- Original Message ----- From: David Keys To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:49 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules Hi Bjorn, Do you have a copy of your armour points versus different attack types that you could send me? I was planning to do something similar and like to see yours, given your real-world experience in melee. Many thanks, David >From: "Bjorn Stolen" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:26:47 +0000 > >I've done that in my Glorantha setting; dividing between bashing, > >piercing, cutting, chopping and grappeling. (A friend of mine allso > >have acid/fire as a different damage type, and to use it in > >modern/futuristic settings, one could add some other types > >(high-impact damage and HEAT/laser-damage, for instance). Making > >good rules for auto-fire is what I've found to be the biggest > >nightmare, not to make good damage and armor-rules. > > > >Every type of armor have different protection-values >against the > >different damage-types. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with A modern flack-vest could for instance > >have 9-AP against bashing/chopping, 10-AP against piercing, 15 AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 8-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 6-AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"viking chainmail" could for > >instance have 3AP against bashing/chopping, 7AP against piercing, 15 > >AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 4-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0AP against HEAT/laser. > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"Gamberson" could for instance > >have 5-AP against bashing/chopping, 3-AP against piercing, 6-AP > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 2-AP against > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0-AP against >HEAT/laser. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060913/5727a810/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 14 19:28:28 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:28:28 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar Message-ID: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday in our game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway Bestiary but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. Think I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 strength bonus as I recall. Any thoughts? Tony From lorgryt at comcast.net Thu Sep 14 20:10:25 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:10:25 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060914025259.01c09e70@comcast.net> One easy fix is to use the bear by dropping 1D6 from SIZ and adding 1D6 to CON and STR, give it a Gore of 1D6 base and Dodge (or Defense) of 35%. Armor 2 to 5 depending on if it is a "Hunted Beast" or just a pig. That should add about 2 HP to your locations. This is based on Pendragon's Boar. However, the stats you have, raised or lowered for specimen, seem usable. Bo At 02:28 AM 9/14/2006, you wrote: >Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush >Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday in our >game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway Bestiary >but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. Think >I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts >head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 >strength bonus as I recall. > >Any thoughts? >Tony >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lorgryt at comcast.net Thu Sep 14 20:25:23 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:25:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> References: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060914032424.01be8c28@comcast.net> Better source, Tony: Call of Cthulhu 5.6, page 179, Bush Pigs. Bo At 02:28 AM 9/14/2006, you wrote: >Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush >Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday in our >game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway Bestiary >but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. Think >I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts >head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 >strength bonus as I recall. > >Any thoughts? >Tony >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 20:42:05 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:42:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <20060914101059.18EE8BE6D00@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060914104205.86090.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Tony: > Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush > Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday in our > game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway Bestiary > but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. Think > I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts > head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 > strength bonus as I recall. RQ2 Tuskers are: STR 3D6+12 CON 1D6+12 SIZ 4D6+12 POW 3D6 DEX 1D6 Move 10 Armour 4 point skin Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% On average, wild boar should probably be a bit smaller and more dextrous. Perhaps: STR 4D6+6 CON 2D6+6 SIZ 5D6+6 POW 3D6 DEX 2D6 Move 10 Armour 2 point skin Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% Bad Tempered 90%, Aggressive 75%, Track by Smell 70% See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/9d8bccb2/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Sep 14 20:45:27 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:45:27 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Too too complex! (Rayquest secrets revealed) Message-ID: <497.8e42c4d.323a8cc7@aol.com> Is Rayquest the same thing as Fire & Sword? It sounds similar, and has the same author. Any chance of rules updates on the Fire & Sword web site ( _www.orion-forever.com/firesword/_ (http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/) )? Michael Hoxie From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 21:40:34 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:40:34 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My rules are based on my subjective impression, and I don't have the numbers with mee to work, but as I'm flattered by people showing interrest, I'll post my armor values -as I remember them: Armor: Sturdy clothes/thin leather: 1ap vs bashing, 1 ap vs cutting, 0 ap vs piercing Textile armor(gamberson): 2 ap vs bashing, 2 ap vs cutting, 1 ap vs piercing Thick tectile armor (panzara): 4 ap vs bashing, 4ap vs cutting, 2 ap vs piercing Linothorax (layers of textiles glued together): 3ap vs bashing, 4ap vs cutting, 3ap vs piercing Hard leather: 1ap vs bashing, 2 ap vs cutting, 1ap vs piercing Cuirbouilli: 2ap vs bashing, 3 ap vs cutting, 2 ap vs piercing Rings* +1 to bashing, +4 to cutting, +2 to piercing Bezainted* +2 to bashing, +4 to cutting, +4 to piercing Scales* +4 to bashing, @ to cutting, @/+6 to piercing Lamellar* +5 to bashing, @ to cutting, @/+6 to piercing Plate* +6 to bashing, @ to cutting, @/+7 to piercing * = must have some other armor beneath to rivet/sew on to @ = defeats attack, attack-damage is halved (if cutting) or reduced by 1 (if stabbing/chopping) and pitted against the bashing AP >From: "David Keys" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: >Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:49:52 +0100 > >Hi Bjorn, > >Do you have a copy of your armour points versus different attack types that >you could send me? I was planning to do something similar and like to see >yours, given your real-world experience in melee. > >Many thanks, > >David > > > >From: "Bjorn Stolen" > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] re: Hello World > >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:26:47 +0000 > > >I've done that in my Glorantha setting; dividing between bashing, > > >piercing, cutting, chopping and grappeling. (A friend of mine allso > > >have acid/fire as a different damage type, and to use it in > > >modern/futuristic settings, one could add some other types > > >(high-impact damage and HEAT/laser-damage, for instance). Making > > >good rules for auto-fire is what I've found to be the biggest > > >nightmare, not to make good damage and armor-rules. > > > > > >Every type of armor have different protection-values > >against the > > >different damage-types. > > > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with A modern flack-vest could for instance > > >have 9-AP against bashing/chopping, 10-AP against piercing, 15 AP > > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 8-AP against > > >"firearm-projectiles", and 6-AP against HEAT/laser. > > > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"viking chainmail" could for > > >instance have 3AP against bashing/chopping, 7AP against piercing, 15 > > >AP against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 4-AP against > > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0AP against HEAT/laser. > > > > > >A Gloranthan equipped with (only) a"Gamberson" could for instance > > >have 5-AP against bashing/chopping, 3-AP against piercing, 6-AP > > >against cutting, 0-AP against grappeling, 2-AP against > > >"firearm-projectiles", and 0-AP against > >HEAT/laser. >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Thu Sep 14 22:21:50 2006 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:21:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 12, Issue 35 In-Reply-To: <20060913180009.1960BBE02E4@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060913180009.1960BBE02E4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550609140521i4e46eebah581dab08e48a6b58@mail.gmail.com> > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:59:35 -0400 > From: "Peter Maranci" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Hello world > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > The new map is great, and I can't thank you enough. The underground > waterfall wasn't something I'd originally planned, but it doesn't really > affect the adventure at all. > > Now I just need to find the time to write the whole adventure up nicely > before October 16th. :D > > Speaking of which, I wonder what format I should use for the scenario? For > example, there are cave trolls in the scenario; I could include RQIII cave > trolls, or just say "standard cave trolls with the following unusual > qualities"), and let the GM pull them out of whatever version of RQ s/he > is > using. How would people feel about that sort of thing? > > ->Peter Ultimately you are doing the RQ community (WTF that is) a favour. So write it up as you wish. Off the top my head I'd suggest put in the stats for the version you are going to use and then add a comment along the lines of 'or game statistics for a standard in whatever version of RQ you are using'. That way it is immediately ready for you to use in your game and of maximum value to others without you having to go through the ball ache of writing stats out for 6 different flavours of the same game. Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/d8e1612c/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Thu Sep 14 22:36:43 2006 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:36:43 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms Message-ID: <50a0ed550609140536u323d7176t378bcad1e1c23849@mail.gmail.com> Allocating damage codes to far future weapons has been a challenge in RQ and RQ-like games and one which no one seems to have met (yet). The least satisfactory option seems to be die code escalation where we end up with 28d8+12 for a mega-zub-death-cannon Ideas which I have seen and liked: AP value for weapons (as Steve Perrin) has just posted A Random multiplier according to tech level. So: Pistol d8, Carbine d10, Rifle d12, Cannon d20 with Cordiate xd3, Gauss xd4, Laser xd6, Plasma xd8, etc, etc Improved Critical chance fro more modern weapons. i.e. Blackpowder pistol 1d10, Cordite pistol d10 but Cordite scores a Critical on 1/10 of skill not 1/20 Hope some of that helps Alan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/91f13656/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 22:55:26 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:55:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <4508A504.2080608@inetnebr.com> References: <8C8A58279D69C5A-888-33FB@MBLK-R06.sysops.aol.com> <4508A504.2080608@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609140555v26f26awd3505eee69e2f521@mail.gmail.com> On 9/13/06, Lance Dyas wrote: > > (snip)... the repercussions for the old > runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" > being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old > "weapon" caddy effect. > IMO players only drift into the 'weapon caddy' effect when they are insufficiently threatened. My players avoid combat if at all possible, and if forced into it, would never grab for any weapon with which they have anything less than a maximal chance to kill their opponent as quickly as possible. If they want to learn a new weapon, they train in it until it's worth bringing out in combat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/473567e3/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 22:58:43 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:58:43 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <4508ABC0.8060402@inetnebr.com> References: <20060913155058.62481.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4508ABC0.8060402@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609140558g51017042y107ea6022f109138@mail.gmail.com> > > > "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, experience > > check!" > > > > "What were you reading?" > > > > "The bar snacks menu at the Uz bar in the Rubble" > > > > "Forget it..." > Maybe but his read pavic is 5% and that is quite an accomplishment.. > .particularly > if you make sure he takes long enough doing it to annoy other characters > and inspires > other roleplaying. > I'd give him a break, as long as he was confident enough in his success to eat whatever he'd ordered. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/09fc50b9/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Sep 14 23:04:09 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:04:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609140555v26f26awd3505eee69e2f521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > >>On 9/13/06, Lance Dyas wrote: >>(snip)... the repercussions for the old >>runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" >>being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old >>"weapon" caddy effect. >> > >IMO players only drift into the 'weapon caddy' effect when they are insufficiently threatened. > >My players avoid combat if at all possible, and if forced into it, would never grab for any weapon with which they have anything less than a maximal >chance to kill their opponent as quickly as possible. > >If they want to learn a new weapon, they train in it until it's worth bringing out in combat. The RQIII rules are pretty unambiguous: experience checks are awarded _at the GM's discretion_ so I'm afraid I have no truck with this "weapon" caddy idea (or "tick hunting") - if the character is getting away with more than reasonable warrior precautions against weapon breakage, it's because the GM's being lax, not a rules problem. Cheers, Nick Middleton From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 00:28:27 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <4449.196.8.104.37.1158226108.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <20060914142827.81324.qmail@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a > Wild Boar and/or Bush > Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use > one last saturday in our > game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of > the Gateway Bestiary > but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up > stats on the fly. Think > I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP > in FQ and HQ, 6pts > head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with > tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 > strength bonus as I recall. > > Any thoughts? > Tony Mythworld Bestiary has stats for both pig and javalina, including actual running speeds, life cycle chronology, population densities, etc. for all listed critters. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 00:33:50 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:33:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <20060914125552.42FBDBE7FF6@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060914143350.15799.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Alan Richards: > Allocating damage codes to far future weapons has been a challenge in RQ and > RQ-like games and one which no one seems to have met (yet). The least > satisfactory option seems to be die code escalation where we end up with > 28d8+12 for a mega-zub-death-cannon The trouble with 28D6+12 and similar rolls is that you normally get around the average roll, so it's pointless rolling the dice in the first place. > Ideas which I have seen and liked: > > AP value for weapons (as Steve Perrin) has just posted > > A Random multiplier according to tech level. So: > Pistol d8, Carbine d10, Rifle d12, Cannon d20 > with Cordiate xd3, Gauss xd4, Laser xd6, Plasma xd8, etc, etc > > Improved Critical chance fro more modern weapons. > i.e. Blackpowder pistol 1d10, Cordite pistol d10 but Cordite scores a > Critical on 1/10 of skill not 1/20 In the few futuristic games I have run, I have tended to assume that most man-portable weapons don't do a lot of damage. So, I use the "standard" damage for rifles, shotguns, pistols, machine guns and so on. If I want energy weapons, I just ask myself if they do similar damage to the above weapons. So, a laser pistol will actually not do much more damage than a normal pistol, a phased plasma rifle will do a bit more damage than a 12 bore shotgun and so on. Where there are problems is when you get vehicle mounted/anti-vehicle/ground to air/ship to ship weapons. What I have tended to do for these is assign each class of weapon a Weapon Factor. So, if man-portable weapons have WF1, harness mounted weapons have WF2, vehicle mounted weapons have WF5, tank weapons have WF10, Starship weapons have WF50 and so on (I can't remember the numbers I used). Then, I apply multipliers/dvisors to damage and APs depending on the relative WFs. So, a man shooting an armoured truck has WF1 vs WF5, so he divides the damage done by 5, or the truck has 5xAPs against man-portable weapons. A Starship has WF50, so multiplies damage done to an individual person by 50 - Ship-mounted blasters should disintegrate a man. Starship to Starship combat is WF50 vs WF50 and cancels out. Starship vs Tank has WF50 vs WF10, so the Starship does 5x damage and the tank's damage is reduced by a factor of 5. What this means is that you can use low figures for weapon damage and armour and yet keep them effective. Similarly, HPs are reduced for the vehicle/starship. So, two Starships (WF50 AP10 HP10) fight, using 2D6+6 Blasters, combat is as normal. If one starship is attacked by a Tank (WF10 AP 15 HP 20 Gun 3D6), the Starship actually does (2D6+6) x 5 damage to the tank and the tank does (3D6) / 5 damage to the Starship. Clearly the tank would lose. But, some ships have different WF weapons, so a Starship might have WF50 weapons for shooting at other Starships, but WF10 anti-tank weapons and WF2 anti-personnel weapons. I used rules to make it harder to hit smaller things with bigger weapons as well. Obviously, such relative values are not to everyone's taste, but I found them quick and easy to use in combat. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/5f3ec0c5/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 01:32:21 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:32:21 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Discussion of RuneQuest rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609140832u6afd9ba4m94fbe872649c7ec8@mail.gmail.com> The Palladium Weapons and Armor book is probably useful here, as it has cut/chop/pierce/impact AP for every piece of armor you could possibly imagine. On 9/14/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > My rules are based on my subjective impression, and I don't have the > numbers > with mee to work, but as I'm flattered by people showing interrest, I'll > post my armor values -as I remember them: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/d7a03564/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 15 01:38:13 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:38:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609140558g51017042y107ea6022f109138@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060914153813.40989.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Steve, You appear to have misquoted me a bit, which dents the argument I was making! If a character does something under threat of something nasty happening he or she gets an experience check. If someone reads the bar snacks menu somewhere on the shadow plateau and avoids eating a vat of elf gonads and dwarf beards all marinated in moth entrails, spider venom and nitric acid, he gets an experience check. Cheers, Ash --- Styopa wrote: > > > > > "I've just made my Read Pavic roll! Cool, > experience > > > check!" > > > > > > "What were you reading?" > > > > > > "The bar snacks menu at the Uz bar in the > Rubble" > > > > > > "Forget it..." > > Maybe but his read pavic is 5% and that is quite > an accomplishment.. > > .particularly > > if you make sure he takes long enough doing it to > annoy other characters > > and inspires > > other roleplaying. > > > > > I'd give him a break, as long as he was confident > enough in his success to > eat whatever he'd ordered. :) > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 15 01:41:18 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:41:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Settings and Scenario ideas, was Hello World In-Reply-To: <20060913151819.37545.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4016.196.8.104.37.1158137444.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> <20060913151819.37545.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <26586.196.8.104.37.1158248478.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Thanks Paul. I amsure with modern means and the availibility of topless items a kid/prude whatever would have far better ways to obtain the "gratitious boob scene". Jeez, will the Fantasy/RPG industry alwayts be stuck in the kiddie market? I have two stories that I hope to submit to Black Gate inter alia but after reading some feedback on a mildly disturbing but though provocative story wonder if my viloent, semi sexual, low magic content will make the grade.... Tony >> Paul wrote> > It seems that we are a long way from the realism the > National Geographic achieved in the 1880s! Come on, > if you have seen two, you have seen them all. Grow > up. > > Paul Cardwell > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From IQuinn at surewest.net Fri Sep 15 02:04:02 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:04:02 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609140555v26f26awd3505eee69e2f521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003501c6d817$664c1f30$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> I agree; what we call "dot-quest" is only an issue when the party is faced with Trollkin armed with single sticks, and if they take such a relaxed attitude towards the battle then they really are not pushing themselves to the point where they would learn from the experience anyway. Besides, in the heat of battle switching weapons should give the opponent a decent attack bonus on top of the free un-parried attack. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Styopa Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:55 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. On 9/13/06, Lance Dyas wrote: (snip)... the repercussions for the old runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old "weapon" caddy effect. IMO players only drift into the 'weapon caddy' effect when they are insufficiently threatened. My players avoid combat if at all possible, and if forced into it, would never grab for any weapon with which they have anything less than a maximal chance to kill their opponent as quickly as possible. If they want to learn a new weapon, they train in it until it's worth bringing out in combat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/e035be2c/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Sep 15 02:07:37 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:07:37 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades Message-ID: <20060914160802.55E77BE9FE1@mini.thinbits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: thomas zunder To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:29:48 +0100 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades > I like RQ PCs the way they are: renaissance men and women. > Many players don't. They like a clearer definition between types. When new players are introduced to our group, they would ask everybody 'what character do you play?' So my pals would go: 'a merchant', 'a Sartarite warrior', 'a Praxian warrior', 'a Troll', 'an Uroxi' -- leaving me with 'uh... no particular type!' because I tried to have a PC with good skills in every area. Gianni From anders at california.com Fri Sep 15 02:43:59 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:43:59 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] (Rayquest secrets revealed) Message-ID: >Is Rayquest the same thing as Fire & Sword? It sounds similar, >and has the same author. Any chance of rules updates on the >Fire & Sword web site ( _www.orion-forever.com/firesword/_ >(http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/) )? >Michael Hoxie Rayquest is the successor game to Fire and Sword. Due to corruption issues with our email list, the list was taken into a Yahoo group, and we renamed the game 'Rayquest', because Ray is the arbitor the rules, and because some parts of the game are a long distance from Runequest. The old Orion-forever site is not being maintained. --Anders From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 03:02:36 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:02:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <20060914104205.86090.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060914104205.86090.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45098B2C.2030008@gmail.com> You forgot one stat: TASTE 2D6+6 -- especially with stone ground mustard or as Bacon Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > Tony: > > > Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush > > Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday > in our > > game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway > Bestiary > > but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. > Think > > I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts > > head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 > > strength bonus as I recall. > RQ2 Tuskers are: > STR 3D6+12 CON 1D6+12 SIZ 4D6+12 POW 3D6 DEX 1D6 > Move 10 > Armour 4 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > On average, wild boar should probably be a bit smaller and more > dextrous. Perhaps: > STR 4D6+6 CON 2D6+6 SIZ 5D6+6 POW 3D6 DEX 2D6 > Move 10 > Armour 2 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > Bad Tempered 90%, Aggressive 75%, Track by Smell 70% > > See Ya > > Simon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/4b98a5ee/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 03:24:15 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:24:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <20060914143350.15799.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060914143350.15799.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4509903F.6070504@gmail.com> There is some credence too this concept in that my blackpowder rifle (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded flintlock) has more brutal stopping power to a person than does my neighbors deer rifle. He's hit deer & they keep on going & he has to track them down & shoot them again (though most people around here think he's some kind of great bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits once in the body or head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial rock. His advantage is that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid firing ability actually doesn't come into play. Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot nowadays is less likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 years ago & is less likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We know have to resort to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & the like to do the same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even portable laser weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & past damage. I think they will go thru a phase of being heavier during which time current weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become the replacement when they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have used, however the concept of the different armor effects. Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > ...snip... > In the few futuristic games I have run, I have tended to assume that > most man-portable weapons don't do a lot of damage. So, I use the > "standard" damage for rifles, shotguns, pistols, machine guns and so > on. If I want energy weapons, I just ask myself if they do similar > damage to the above weapons. So, a laser pistol will actually not do > much more damage than a normal pistol, a phased plasma rifle will do a > bit more damage than a 12 bore shotgun and so on. > ...snip... From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 07:58:23 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:58:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <003501c6d817$664c1f30$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> References: <56e64e7a0609140555v26f26awd3505eee69e2f521@mail.gmail.com> <003501c6d817$664c1f30$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609141458k4cfe06d0kfd5e47dbc17d4e7@mail.gmail.com> "weapon caddy"?!? I've always found a high Dodge and an enspelled morningstar is pretty much all I've ever needed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/d3f73f5c/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 12:56:30 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <4509903F.6070504@gmail.com> References: <20060914143350.15799.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> <4509903F.6070504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609141956k531246a5l4d882caa2aafe782@mail.gmail.com> W.e.l.l.l.l.l.l..... It's off topic, so I doubt it's worth debating at length but yes, in the sense that yes, a .54 rifled musket ball (225gr) has, what, about 1000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle? Further, that half-inch ball is unlikely to punch through an animal target so it will discharge that energy fully into the target. But let's not kid ourselves; aside from safety, light weight, ease of use, rate of fire, accuracy, and range (all of which are enormous advantages to the modern rifle....but setting them aside), your unremarkable .30/06 round has nearly 3000 foot pounds at the muzzle. Moreover, at 100m the .54 caliber ball will be down to 500 ft lbs, while the .30/06 is maybe 2400. So perhaps you're right in the very narrow sense that IF the shooter is so close to the target that 'punchthrough' with the smaller, faster round is a likely result, then yes, the blackpowder gun might be more likely to get a knockdown. (Of course this is also ignoring the possibility of hydrostatic shock, common to high-velocity rounds, which can distribute trauma lethally around a body even rather far from the point of penetration.) On 9/14/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > > There is some credence too this concept in that my blackpowder rifle > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded flintlock) has more brutal > stopping power to a person than does my neighbors deer rifle. He's hit > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them down & shoot them again > (though most people around here think he's some kind of great > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits once in the body or > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial rock. His advantage is > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid firing ability > actually doesn't come into play. > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot nowadays is less > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 years ago & is less > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We know have to resort > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & the like to do the > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even portable laser > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & past damage. I think > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during which time current > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become the replacement when > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have used, however the > concept of the different armor effects. > > Sven > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/e8793dcc/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 14:01:40 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:01:40 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0609141956k531246a5l4d882caa2aafe782@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060914143350.15799.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> <4509903F.6070504@gmail.com> <56e64e7a0609141956k531246a5l4d882caa2aafe782@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <450A25A4.90107@gmail.com> My experience in the service 30+ years ago was that most fire-fights were under 7 yards & over really fast. Also most soldiers didn't make well-aimed placed shots but resorted to the "Spray & Pray" technique. I have enough scars & experiences as well as looking at historical references, that lead me to feel that though what you say is true about fpe at the muzzle & hydrostatic shock, the end result will be little difference in the damage. I've also seen M16 rounds deflect off of philodendron leaves. For Example, an experiment by Frederik der Grosse in the 18th ce showed that the average platoon in his army firing on at a platoon size target, inflicted around 10 hits per volley. Roughly 9%. Where as according to what the Pentagon was talking about in 'Nam was a rate of one casualty inflicted per 10,000 rounds expended in combat. Way world of difference. Since RPG combat is usually about averages, I think that a supportable case can be made for keeping the damage comparable. That's why I have a house variant rule that I've used for decades that has marksmanship(sniper), combat shooting, & SpecForce shooting as separate martial arts. I'm not saying your wrong, but rather it's whether you look at individual effects or averages for your design. I could make a case for either way, personally. thanks for the input, Sven Styopa wrote: > W.e.l.l.l.l.l.l..... > > It's off topic, so I doubt it's worth debating at length but yes, in > the sense that yes, a .54 rifled musket ball (225gr) has, what, about > 1000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle? Further, that half-inch > ball is unlikely to punch through an animal target so it will > discharge that energy fully into the target. > > But let's not kid ourselves; aside from safety, light weight, ease of > use, rate of fire, accuracy, and range (all of which are enormous > advantages to the modern rifle....but setting them aside), your > unremarkable .30/06 round has nearly 3000 foot pounds at the muzzle. > > Moreover, at 100m the .54 caliber ball will be down to 500 ft lbs, > while the .30/06 is maybe 2400. > > So perhaps you're right in the very narrow sense that IF the shooter > is so close to the target that 'punchthrough' with the smaller, faster > round is a likely result, then yes, the blackpowder gun might be more > likely to get a knockdown. > (Of course this is also ignoring the possibility of hydrostatic shock, > common to high-velocity rounds, which can distribute trauma lethally > around a body even rather far from the point of penetration.) > > On 9/14/06, *Sven Lugar* > wrote: > > There is some credence too this concept in that my blackpowder rifle > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded flintlock) has more brutal > stopping power to a person than does my neighbors deer rifle. > He's hit > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them down & shoot them > again > (though most people around here think he's some kind of great > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits once in the body or > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial rock. His > advantage is > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid firing ability > actually doesn't come into play. > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot nowadays is less > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 years ago & is > less > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We know have to resort > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & the like to do the > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even portable laser > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & past damage. I > think > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during which time current > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become the replacement when > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have used, however the > concept of the different armor effects. > > Sven > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060914/5fd14d94/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 19:41:21 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:41:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy/Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <20060915025653.5AA36BEF31D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060915094121.32489.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote:Send RQ-Rules mailing list submissions to rq-rules at crashbox.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rq-rules-request at crashbox.com You can reach the person managing the list at rq-rules-owner at crashbox.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of RQ-Rules digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. (Robert Hoffman) 2. Re: Re: Master of all Trades (Gianni) 3. (Rayquest secrets revealed) (Anders Swenson) 4. Re: Re: Wild Boar (Sven Lugar) 5. Re: Re: Super duper firearms (Sven Lugar) 6. Re: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. (David Smart) 7. Re: Re: Super duper firearms (Styopa) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:04:02 -0700 From: "Robert Hoffman" Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" Message-ID: <003501c6d817$664c1f30$6401a8c0 at QUINNLAND> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree; what we call "dot-quest" is only an issue when the party is faced with Trollkin armed with single sticks, and if they take such a relaxed attitude towards the battle then they really are not pushing themselves to the point where they would learn from the experience anyway. Besides, in the heat of battle switching weapons should give the opponent a decent attack bonus on top of the free un-parried attack. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Styopa Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:55 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. On 9/13/06, Lance Dyas wrote: (snip)... the repercussions for the old runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old "weapon" caddy effect. IMO players only drift into the 'weapon caddy' effect when they are insufficiently threatened. My players avoid combat if at all possible, and if forced into it, would never grab for any weapon with which they have anything less than a maximal chance to kill their opponent as quickly as possible. If they want to learn a new weapon, they train in it until it's worth bringing out in combat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/e035be2c/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:07:37 +0200 From: "Gianni" Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades To: rq-rules at crashbox.com, tom at zunder.org.uk Message-ID: <20060914160802.55E77BE9FE1 at mini.thinbits.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ----- Original Message ----- From: thomas zunder To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:29:48 +0100 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades > I like RQ PCs the way they are: renaissance men and women. > Many players don't. They like a clearer definition between types. When new players are introduced to our group, they would ask everybody 'what character do you play?' So my pals would go: 'a merchant', 'a Sartarite warrior', 'a Praxian warrior', 'a Troll', 'an Uroxi' -- leaving me with 'uh... no particular type!' because I tried to have a PC with good skills in every area. Gianni ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:43:59 -0700 From: "Anders Swenson" Subject: [Rq-rules] (Rayquest secrets revealed) To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" >Is Rayquest the same thing as Fire & Sword? It sounds similar, >and has the same author. Any chance of rules updates on the >Fire & Sword web site ( _www.orion-forever.com/firesword/_ >(http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/) )? >Michael Hoxie Rayquest is the successor game to Fire and Sword. Due to corruption issues with our email list, the list was taken into a Yahoo group, and we renamed the game 'Rayquest', because Ray is the arbitor the rules, and because some parts of the game are a long distance from Runequest. The old Orion-forever site is not being maintained. --Anders ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:02:36 -0700 From: Sven Lugar Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Wild Boar To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Message-ID: <45098B2C.2030008 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You forgot one stat: TASTE 2D6+6 -- especially with stone ground mustard or as Bacon Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > Tony: > > > Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush > > Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday > in our > > game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway > Bestiary > > but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. > Think > > I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts > > head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 > > strength bonus as I recall. > RQ2 Tuskers are: > STR 3D6+12 CON 1D6+12 SIZ 4D6+12 POW 3D6 DEX 1D6 > Move 10 > Armour 4 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > On average, wild boar should probably be a bit smaller and more > dextrous. Perhaps: > STR 4D6+6 CON 2D6+6 SIZ 5D6+6 POW 3D6 DEX 2D6 > Move 10 > Armour 2 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > Bad Tempered 90%, Aggressive 75%, Track by Smell 70% > > See Ya > > Simon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/4b98a5ee/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:24:15 -0700 From: Sven Lugar Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Message-ID: <4509903F.6070504 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed There is some credence too this concept in that my blackpowder rifle (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded flintlock) has more brutal stopping power to a person than does my neighbors deer rifle. He's hit deer & they keep on going & he has to track them down & shoot them again (though most people around here think he's some kind of great bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits once in the body or head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial rock. His advantage is that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid firing ability actually doesn't come into play. Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot nowadays is less likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 years ago & is less likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We know have to resort to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & the like to do the same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even portable laser weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & past damage. I think they will go thru a phase of being heavier during which time current weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become the replacement when they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have used, however the concept of the different armor effects. Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > ...snip... > In the few futuristic games I have run, I have tended to assume that > most man-portable weapons don't do a lot of damage. So, I use the > "standard" damage for rifles, shotguns, pistols, machine guns and so > on. If I want energy weapons, I just ask myself if they do similar > damage to the above weapons. So, a laser pistol will actually not do > much more damage than a normal pistol, a phased plasma rifle will do a > bit more damage than a 12 bore shotgun and so on. > ...snip... ------------------------------ David Smart: > "weapon caddy"?!? From my description of players in past campaigns (http://www.soltakss.com/players1.html): "Trog was a Minotaur who rode on a Triceratops. His forte was to tick as many weapons in combat as he could. He would attack with a battle axe and mace, tick one attack and the other parry, then attack with the second and parry with the first. Then he would change to a morning star and spear, or sword, always trying to get the best combination. Because he had an INT of 7 or 8 we allowed him to do this as he never made gain rolls." He actually had a weapons caddy, a big bag with his main weapons in. He wanted a person to pick them out for him, but they kept dying. Styopa : > But let's not kid ourselves; aside from safety, light weight, ease of use, > rate of fire, accuracy, and range (all of which are enormous advantages to > the modern rifle....but setting them aside), your unremarkable .30/06 round > has nearly 3000 foot pounds at the muzzle. > > Moreover, at 100m the .54 caliber ball will be down to 500 ft lbs, while the > .30/06 is maybe 2400. There's no doubting, in my mind, that modern weapons are better then old-fashioned weapons, they are not a lot better. If you shot me with a musket, I'd not be much happier than if you shot me with a modern rifle. > So perhaps you're right in the very narrow sense that IF the shooter is so > close to the target that 'punchthrough' with the smaller, faster round is a > likely result, then yes, the blackpowder gun might be more likely to get a > knockdown. > (Of course this is also ignoring the possibility of hydrostatic shock, > common to high-velocity rounds, which can distribute trauma lethally around > a body even rather far from the point of penetration.) I've never used hydrostatic shock in games, mainly because there was an article somewhere about modern weapons that said it existed but then ignored it completely. The original point was that futuristic weapons would not necessarily do more damage than modern or ancient weapons. A laser pistol might be more useful on a spaceship where it won't punch holes in the hull, but it wouldn't do more damage than a modern pistol. Energy weapons might be light and have a large number of rounds, but they wouldn't do more damage than a good rifle. After all, dead is dead, whether it is by an arrow, musket ball, .45 shell, 12 bore cartridge, blaster shot or phased plasma ball. Personal weapons are designed to inflict a certain amount of damage against an opponent, they need to penetrate what armour is common and do enough damage to incapacitata or kill. Once they do that, there's no need to make them more powerful. More reliable, yes. Lighter, yes. Easier to use, yes. More rounds, yes. More powerful, no. So, in gaming terms, once you get past the 3D6 or 2D10 damage, there's not much point having more damage. Sometimes you need less powerful weapons. I'm sure I read a story where some opponents had personal energy shields that stopped any attacks with a high-energy content, so they blocked laser weapons, high velocity shells and such like. The answer? Throw a dagger at them. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/1e80afe6/attachment.html From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Fri Sep 15 19:59:38 2006 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:59:38 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy/Superduper firearms In-Reply-To: <20060915094121.32489.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8A272B526CFFC04F9F920A28986EECD65677C4@GBMK-EXCH4.eu.uis.unisys.com> That was in Dune the film. And there was special weaponry that fired some kind of darts that slowed when reaching the shield ________________________________ De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Simon Phipp Envoy? : vendredi 15 septembre 2006 11:41 ? : rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet : [Rq-rules] Re: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy/Superduper firearms rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote:Send RQ-Rules mailing list submissions to rq-rules at crashbox.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rq-rules-request at crashbox.com You can reach the person managing the list at rq-rules-owner at crashbox.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of RQ-Rules digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. (Robert Hoffman) 2. Re: Re: Master of all Trades (Gianni) 3. (Rayquest secrets revealed) (Anders Swenson) 4. Re: Re: Wild Boar (Sven Lugar) 5. Re: Re: Super duper firearms (Sven Lugar) 6. Re: Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. (David Smart) 7. Re: Re: Super duper firearms (Styopa) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:04:02 -0700 From: "Robert Hoffman" Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" Message-ID: <003501c6d817$664c1f30$6401a8c0 at QUINNLAND> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree; what we call "dot-quest" is only an issue when the party is faced with Trollkin armed with single sticks, and if they take such a relaxed attitude towards the battle then they really are not pushing themselves to the point where they would learn from the experience anyway. Besides, in the heat of battle switching weapons should give the opponent a decent attack bonus on top of the free un-parried attack. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Styopa Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:55 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. On 9/13/06, Lance Dyas wrote: (snip)... the repercussions for the old runequest 2 and 3 games without custom rules resulted in "everyone" being a Renaissance dude or dudette and also encouraged the bad old "weapon" caddy effect. IMO players only drift into the 'weapon caddy' effect when they are insufficiently threatened. My players avoid combat if at all possible, and if forced into it, would never grab for any weapon with which they have anything less than a maximal chance to kill their opponent as quickly as possible. If they want to learn a new weapon, they train in it until it's worth bringing out in combat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/e035be2c/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:07:37 +0200 From: "Gianni" Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades To: rq-rules at crashbox.com, tom at zunder.org.uk Message-ID: <20060914160802.55E77BE9FE1 at mini.thinbits.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ----- Original Message ----- From: thomas zunder To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:29:48 +0100 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades > I like RQ PCs the way they are: renaissance men and women. > Many players don't. They like a clearer definition between types. When new players are introduced to our group, they would ask everybody 'what character do you play?' So my pals would go: 'a merchant', 'a Sartarite warrior', 'a Praxian warrior', 'a Troll', 'an Uroxi' -- leaving me with 'uh... no particular type!' because I tried to have a PC with good skills in every area. Gianni ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:43:59 -0700 From: "Anders Swenson" Subject: [Rq-rules] (Rayquest secrets revealed) To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" >Is Rayquest the same thing as Fire & Sword? It sounds similar, >and has the same author. Any chance of rules updates on the >Fire & Sword web site ( _www.orion-forever.com/firesword/_ >(http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/) )? >Michael Hoxie Rayquest is the successor game to Fire and Sword. Due to corruption issues with our email list, the list was taken into a Yahoo group, and we renamed the game 'Rayquest', because Ray is the arbitor the rules, and because some parts of the game are a long distance from Runequest. The old Orion-forever site is not being maintained. --Anders ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:02:36 -0700 From: Sven Lugar Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Wild Boar To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Message-ID: <45098B2C.2030008 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You forgot one stat: TASTE 2D6+6 -- especially with stone ground mustard or as Bacon Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > Tony: > > > Does anyone have/know of any published stats for a Wild Boar and/or Bush > > Pig and/or Warthog. RQ II or III. I wanted to use one last saturday > in our > > game and couldnae find any stats. Have a PDF copy of the Gateway > Bestiary > > but that was no help either. Ended up rustling up stats on the fly. > Think > > I went for roughly 2 pts armour plus about 5 pts HP in FQ and HQ, 6pts > > head and 4 pts legs. Also had a gore attack with tusks, 1D12 + 1D6 > > strength bonus as I recall. > RQ2 Tuskers are: > STR 3D6+12 CON 1D6+12 SIZ 4D6+12 POW 3D6 DEX 1D6 > Move 10 > Armour 4 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > On average, wild boar should probably be a bit smaller and more > dextrous. Perhaps: > STR 4D6+6 CON 2D6+6 SIZ 5D6+6 POW 3D6 DEX 2D6 > Move 10 > Armour 2 point skin > Gore SR8 (2D6+2D6) 50% > Trample SR8 (4D6) 75% > > Bad Tempered 90%, Aggressive 75%, Track by Smell 70% > > See Ya > > Simon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060914/4b98a5ee/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:24:15 -0700 From: Sven Lugar Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Message-ID: <4509903F.6070504 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed There is some credence too this concept in that my blackpowder rifle (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded flintlock) has more brutal stopping power to a person than does my neighbors deer rifle. He's hit deer & they keep on going & he has to track them down & shoot them again (though most people around here think he's some kind of great bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits once in the body or head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial rock. His advantage is that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid firing ability actually doesn't come into play. Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot nowadays is less likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 years ago & is less likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We know have to resort to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & the like to do the same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even portable laser weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & past damage. I think they will go thru a phase of being heavier during which time current weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become the replacement when they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have used, however the concept of the different armor effects. Sven Simon Phipp wrote: > ...snip... > In the few futuristic games I have run, I have tended to assume that > most man-portable weapons don't do a lot of damage. So, I use the > "standard" damage for rifles, shotguns, pistols, machine guns and so > on. If I want energy weapons, I just ask myself if they do similar > damage to the above weapons. So, a laser pistol will actually not do > much more damage than a normal pistol, a phased plasma rifle will do a > bit more damage than a 12 bore shotgun and so on. > ...snip... ------------------------------ David Smart: > "weapon caddy"?!? >From my description of players in past campaigns (http://www.soltakss.com/players1.html): "Trog was a Minotaur who rode on a Triceratops. His forte was to tick as many weapons in combat as he could. He would attack with a battle axe and mace, tick one attack and the other parry, then attack with the second and parry with the first. Then he would change to a morning star and spear, or sword, always trying to get the best combination. Because he had an INT of 7 or 8 we allowed him to do this as he never made gain rolls." He actually had a weapons caddy, a big bag with his main weapons in. He wanted a person to pick them out for him, but they kept dying. Styopa : > But let's not kid ourselves; aside from safety, light weight, ease of use, > rate of fire, accuracy, and range (all of which are enormous advantages to > the modern rifle....but setting them aside), your unremarkable .30/06 round > has nearly 3000 foot pounds at the muzzle. > > Moreover, at 100m the .54 caliber ball will be down to 500 ft lbs, while the > .30/06 is maybe 2400. There's no doubting, in my mind, that modern weapons are better then old-fashioned weapons, they are not a lot better. If you shot me with a musket, I'd not be much happier than if you shot me with a modern rifle. > So perhaps you're right in the very narrow sense that IF the shooter is so > close to the target that 'punchthrough' with the smaller, faster round is a > likely result, then yes, the blackpowder gun might be more likely to get a > knockdown. > (Of course this is also ignoring the possibility of hydrostatic shock, > common to high-velocity rounds, which can distribute trauma lethally around > a body even rather far from the point of penetration.) I've never used hydrostatic shock in games, mainly because there was an article somewhere about modern weapons that said it existed but then ignored it completely. The original point was that futuristic weapons would not necessarily do more damage than modern or ancient weapons. A laser pistol might be more useful on a spaceship where it won't punch holes in the hull, but it wouldn't do more damage than a modern pistol. Energy weapons might be light and have a large number of rounds, but they wouldn't do more damage than a good rifle. After all, dead is dead, whether it is by an arrow, musket ball, .45 shell, 12 bore cartridge, blaster shot or phased plasma ball. Personal weapons are designed to inflict a certain amount of damage against an opponent, they need to penetrate what armour is common and do enough damage to incapacitata or kill. Once they do that, there's no need to make them more powerful. More reliable, yes. Lighter, yes. Easier to use, yes. More rounds, yes. More powerful, no. So, in gaming terms, once you get past the 3D6 or 2D10 damage, there's not much point having more damage. Sometimes you need less powerful weapons. I'm sure I read a story where some opponents had personal energy shields that stopped any attacks with a high-energy content, so they blocked laser weapons, high velocity shells and such like. The answer? Throw a dagger at them. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/89a63727/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 20:47:47 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:47:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Silly Me! In-Reply-To: <20060915094159.ACB94BF1969@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060915104747.85623.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Oops! Sorry about including the first half of a Digest in a reply. It's one of the things that really annoys me and I did it myself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/104d9cca/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 21:49:37 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:49:37 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spacecraft In-Reply-To: <20060915104747.85623.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/438ffa74/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 15 22:44:03 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:44:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <450A25A4.90107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060915124403.31924.qmail@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Watcha all, Hydrostatic shock doesn't exist - it's a myth. The US and UK armies spent a large amount of time on it in the late 80s, early 90s and found pretty conclusively that there were no shock waves of any note produced in a hit body. Which was a bit of a laugh as they were trying to justify all the cash they'd spent on research on high velocity rounds. Likewise the idea that the amound of energy left in a body matters. Nope, what matters is causing the target to loose blood or hitting the right nerve. You can stick someone with a sword or shoot 'em but the mechanism of death is pretty simple - blood loss. As they say, 250 (ish, can't remember the exact number in the UK trial) shot Larry the Lamb's don't lie. Cheers, Ash --- Sven Lugar wrote: > My experience in the service 30+ years ago was that > most fire-fights > were under 7 yards & over really fast. Also most > soldiers didn't make > well-aimed placed shots but resorted to the "Spray & > Pray" technique. I > have enough scars & experiences as well as looking > at historical > references, that lead me to feel that though what > you say is true about > fpe at the muzzle & hydrostatic shock, the end > result will be little > difference in the damage. I've also seen M16 rounds > deflect off of > philodendron leaves. For Example, an experiment by > Frederik der Grosse > in the 18th ce showed that the average platoon in > his army firing on at > a platoon size target, inflicted around 10 hits per > volley. Roughly 9%. > Where as according to what the Pentagon was talking > about in 'Nam was a > rate of one casualty inflicted per 10,000 rounds > expended in combat. Way > world of difference. Since RPG combat is usually > about averages, I think > that a supportable case can be made for keeping the > damage comparable. > That's why I have a house variant rule that I've > used for decades that > has marksmanship(sniper), combat shooting, & > SpecForce shooting as > separate martial arts. I'm not saying your wrong, > but rather it's > whether you look at individual effects or averages > for your design. I > could make a case for either way, personally. > thanks for the input, > Sven > > Styopa wrote: > > W.e.l.l.l.l.l.l..... > > > > It's off topic, so I doubt it's worth debating at > length but yes, in > > the sense that yes, a .54 rifled musket ball > (225gr) has, what, about > > 1000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle? > Further, that half-inch > > ball is unlikely to punch through an animal target > so it will > > discharge that energy fully into the target. > > > > But let's not kid ourselves; aside from safety, > light weight, ease of > > use, rate of fire, accuracy, and range (all of > which are enormous > > advantages to the modern rifle....but setting them > aside), your > > unremarkable .30/06 round has nearly 3000 foot > pounds at the muzzle. > > > > Moreover, at 100m the .54 caliber ball will be > down to 500 ft lbs, > > while the .30/06 is maybe 2400. > > > > So perhaps you're right in the very narrow sense > that IF the shooter > > is so close to the target that 'punchthrough' with > the smaller, faster > > round is a likely result, then yes, the > blackpowder gun might be more > > likely to get a knockdown. > > (Of course this is also ignoring the possibility > of hydrostatic shock, > > common to high-velocity rounds, which can > distribute trauma lethally > > around a body even rather far from the point of > penetration.) > > > > On 9/14/06, *Sven Lugar* > > wrote: > > > > There is some credence too this concept in > that my blackpowder rifle > > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded > flintlock) has more brutal > > stopping power to a person than does my > neighbors deer rifle. > > He's hit > > deer & they keep on going & he has to track > them down & shoot them > > again > > (though most people around here think he's > some kind of great > > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock > hits once in the body or > > head & they usually flip & drop like a > proverbial rock. His > > advantage is > > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more > rapid firing ability > > actually doesn't come into play. > > > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that > being shot nowadays is less > > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 > or 200 years ago & is > > less > > likely to result in a severed limb > immediately. We know have to resort > > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw > rounds", & the like to do the > > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that > even portable laser > > weapons & the like, will be on a par with > current & past damage. I > > think > > they will go thru a phase of being heavier > during which time current > > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then > become the replacement when > > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, > & have used, however the > > concept of the different armor effects. > > > > Sven > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 15 23:47:57 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:47:57 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar Message-ID: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Thanks Simon Bo and Paul for the comments. Firstly, doh! forgot about both my mythworld box plus the tuskers in Glorantha Bestiary (Note to self, drink less beer when GMing.....) Also, Sven, what can is say, ha ha, good one! :) Well it didn't come to much in my adventure. The boar was already wounded and true as nuts, I had to pick the one character with decent armour which took most of the low damage I rolled. Anywayt, the party did have a good feast that night. smoked teh ribs for supposidly future usage but then rsome orcs arrived and ate them. (The ribs, not the party). Tony From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 02:39:03 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:39:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> Hmmm maybe we can add the TASTEY: stat for all the beastiary creatures: like TAS: Manitcores in Meat-sauce 1D8 TAS: Canine: 1D6 (+2D6 if the character is Vietnamese or Hmong) postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Thanks Simon Bo and Paul for the comments. > > Firstly, doh! forgot about both my mythworld box plus the tuskers in > Glorantha Bestiary (Note to self, drink less beer when GMing.....) > > Also, Sven, what can is say, ha ha, good one! :) > > Well it didn't come to much in my adventure. The boar was already wounded > and true as nuts, I had to pick the one character with decent armour which > took most of the low damage I rolled. Anywayt, the party did have a good > feast that night. smoked teh ribs for supposidly future usage but then > rsome orcs arrived and ate them. (The ribs, not the party). > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Sep 16 02:56:29 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:56:29 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> At 09:39 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: >Hmmm maybe we can add the TASTEY: stat for all the beastiary creatures: >like >TAS: Manitcores in Meat-sauce 1D8 >TAS: Canine: 1D6 (+2D6 if the character is Vietnamese or Hmong) Hmmm... that is kind of racist... I am sure you did not mean it that way. How about "TAS: Canine: 3D6 (-2D6 if the character is not Vietnamese or Hmong)." By the way, I am Tsalagi, and we traditionally ate dog as well, though I haven't. Lorgryt http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ A forum... like others... ==== If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 16 02:58:29 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:58:29 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar Message-ID: <20060915165832.23713.qmail@ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/951678ce/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 03:17:15 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <4509903F.6070504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060915171715.40616.qmail@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Sven Lugar wrote: > There is some credence too this concept in that my > blackpowder rifle > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded > flintlock) has more brutal > stopping power to a person than does my neighbors > deer rifle. He's hit > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them > down & shoot them again > (though most people around here think he's some kind > of great > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits > once in the body or > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial > rock. His advantage is > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid > firing ability > actually doesn't come into play. > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot > nowadays is less > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 > years ago & is less > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We > know have to resort > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & > the like to do the > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even > portable laser > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & > past damage. I think > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during > which time current > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become > the replacement when > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have > used, however the > concept of the different armor effects. > > Sven The mushroom effect might also be a factor. I know my antique .54 carbine can make a three inch hole in a floating can, and I use a small amount of type metal with the pure lead in my (spherical) bullets. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 16 03:37:54 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Master of all Trades In-Reply-To: <20060914160802.55E77BE9FE1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060915173754.89058.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > When new players are introduced to our group, they > would ask everybody 'what > character do you play?' > So my pals would go: 'a merchant', 'a Sartarite > warrior', 'a Praxian > warrior', 'a Troll', 'an Uroxi' -- leaving me with > 'uh... no particular > type!' because I tried to have a PC with good skills > in every area. Reminds me of my old model-building days. When asked what subjects I modeled, I would reply, "Whatever no one else is doing." I think at least in Mythworld, the answer is usually name, species, trade, religion, followed by a gender-specific pronoun and some interesting detail, usually rank if knight and/or priest. If they want any more details, they will ask specific questions. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 03:57:26 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:57:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> Message-ID: <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> I served along side the Hmong 35 years ago, eaten with them, & like them a lot, but they did eat some weird stuff, not that I could taste the difference since it was so heavily seasoned. What I meant is that if the PC is Hmong or Vietnamese, they can cook it better than sods like me that's why I gave them a plus bonus. Also the Manticores in meat-sauce comes from an incident in the late 70's when I was renting a room & a stall (for my horse) from Katherine Kurtz. She had gotten a frozen package of "Manticotti in Meat-sauce" & I was so tired during an all night RQ session I was GM'ing that I read it as "Manticores in Meat-sauce". BTW, I like your signature. takk, Sven Bo Whitten wrote: > At 09:39 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: > >> Hmmm maybe we can add the TASTEY: stat for all the beastiary creatures: >> like >> TAS: Manitcores in Meat-sauce 1D8 >> TAS: Canine: 1D6 (+2D6 if the character is Vietnamese or Hmong) >> > > Hmmm... that is kind of racist... I am sure you did not mean it that way. > > How about "TAS: Canine: 3D6 (-2D6 if the character is not Vietnamese or Hmong)." By the way, I am Tsalagi, and we traditionally ate dog as well, though I haven't. > > > Lorgryt > http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ > A forum... like others... > ==== > If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060915/252de039/attachment.html From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Sep 16 04:58:26 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:58:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> Like I said, I am sure it was never meant the way it looked! LOL At 10:57 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: >Also the Manticores in meat-sauce comes from an incident in the late 70's when I was renting a room & a stall (for my horse) from Katherine Kurtz. She had gotten a frozen package of "Manticotti in Meat-sauce" & I was so tired during an all night RQ session I was GM'ing that I read it as "Manticores in Meat-sauce". You got to love the "meat sauce" ... what kind of meat??? :) Lorgryt http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ A forum... like others... ==== If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 05:13:36 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:13:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609151213t614d0082xb8fa75f2742414c4@mail.gmail.com> And what's the TASTEY: stat for mock pork? Inquiring trolls want to know... On 9/15/06, Bo Whitten wrote: > > Like I said, I am sure it was never meant the way it looked! LOL > > At 10:57 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: > >Also the Manticores in meat-sauce comes from an incident in the late 70's > when I was renting a room & a stall (for my horse) from Katherine Kurtz. She > had gotten a frozen package of "Manticotti in Meat-sauce" & I was so tired > during an all night RQ session I was GM'ing that I read it as "Manticores in > Meat-sauce". > > You got to love the "meat sauce" ... what kind of meat??? :) > > Lorgryt > http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ > A forum... like others... > ==== > If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060915/ee9faaf1/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 06:21:55 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:21:55 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> Message-ID: <450B0B63.2010608@gmail.com> Like in the service "Mystery Meat" probably.... In both Boot & BUDS we did notice that anytime the pigeons were fewer on the grinder, there was "Chicken" on the menu, LOL Bo Whitten wrote: > Like I said, I am sure it was never meant the way it looked! LOL > > At 10:57 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: > >> Also the Manticores in meat-sauce comes from an incident in the late 70's when I was renting a room & a stall (for my horse) from Katherine Kurtz. She had gotten a frozen package of "Manticotti in Meat-sauce" & I was so tired during an all night RQ session I was GM'ing that I read it as "Manticores in Meat-sauce". >> > > You got to love the "meat sauce" ... what kind of meat??? :) > > Lorgryt > http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ > A forum... like others... > ==== > If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060915/c978e6f6/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 06:22:56 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:22:56 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0609151213t614d0082xb8fa75f2742414c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <450AE986.6070700@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915115722.01b53388@comcast.net> <1c92296e0609151213t614d0082xb8fa75f2742414c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <450B0BA0.6040604@gmail.com> 2D6+1??? David Smart wrote: > And what's the TASTEY: stat for mock pork? Inquiring trolls want to > know... > > On 9/15/06, *Bo Whitten* > wrote: > > Like I said, I am sure it was never meant the way it looked! LOL > > At 10:57 AM 9/15/2006, you wrote: > >Also the Manticores in meat-sauce comes from an incident in the > late 70's when I was renting a room & a stall (for my horse) from > Katherine Kurtz. She had gotten a frozen package of "Manticotti in > Meat-sauce" & I was so tired during an all night RQ session I was > GM'ing that I read it as "Manticores in Meat-sauce". > > You got to love the "meat sauce" ... what kind of meat??? :) > > Lorgryt > http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ > A forum... like others... > ==== > If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060915/a81c6f6d/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Sat Sep 16 14:16:17 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:16:17 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> Message-ID: <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Seems to me there's already a rule like that. APP is normally 3D6 for most species, but also subjective according to the beholder; normally if you're looking at someone of a very different species, you knock 10 off their effective APP. Anyway, for the TAS characteristic of foods/recipes, most edible things should have a culture-specific 3D6 value, and people from other cultures may suffer a subjective penalty, just reflecting that they're not used to that weird foreign food. Once someone became familiar with a particular cuisine, the penalty could be reduced or even eliminated. As an aside, I'm not sure that's an accurate way to model it. From my bigoted human eyes, I don't know if I could tell the difference between a troll with APP 3 and one with APP 18, and if I could, I'm not at all certain I'd think the 18 was better-looking. Maybe there could instead be a sort of familiarity rating for subjective traits like APP. If you're completely unfamiliar with a species, then they just don't have an APP characteristic you can appreciate at all. "Hey, it's a slug, you seen one, you seen 'em all!" A little bit familiar, you get to recognize 1D6 of its inherent APP. Somewhat more, you can read 2D6, and when you're a native, you can discern the whole APP value. On 15-Sep-06, at 10:56 AM, Bo Whitten wrote: > > > How about "TAS: Canine: 3D6 (-2D6 if the character is not Vietnamese > or Hmong)." By the way, I am Tsalagi, and we traditionally ate dog as > well, though I haven't. > > > Lorgryt > http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ > A forum... like others... > ==== > If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Sep 16 14:43:07 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:43:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450B80DB.8090000@inetnebr.com> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > The RQIII rules are pretty unambiguous: experience checks are awarded _at > the GM's discretion_ so I'm afraid I have no truck with this "weapon" caddy > idea (or "tick hunting") - That is classically called a game rule isnt broken if a good GM can fix it. philosophy. .In that case mayhaps we could all go play D&D1 ;-) Actually you dont need the tick hunting to get the JOT effect.. "it only takes one use to get a tick".... "and the "most likely skills to get a successful advance are those which you have less character emphasis on because they start out lowest" Nobody has to try to get the send in the clones effect.. even if they start relatively distinct.. their lower skills advance faster till shazam... From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 16 17:25:03 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:25:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I haven't really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled things like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base characteristic, it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show that the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. Just thought you might be interested... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cantine" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar > Seems to me there's already a rule like that. APP is normally 3D6 for most > species, but also subjective according to the beholder; normally if you're > looking at someone of a very different species, you knock 10 off their > effective APP. > > Anyway, for the TAS characteristic of foods/recipes, most edible things > should have a culture-specific 3D6 value, and people from other cultures > may suffer a subjective penalty, just reflecting that they're not used to > that weird foreign food. Once someone became familiar with a particular > cuisine, the penalty could be reduced or even eliminated. > > As an aside, I'm not sure that's an accurate way to model it. From my > bigoted human eyes, I don't know if I could tell the difference between a > troll with APP 3 and one with APP 18, and if I could, I'm not at all > certain I'd think the 18 was better-looking. Maybe there could instead be > a sort of familiarity rating for subjective traits like APP. If you're > completely unfamiliar with a species, then they just don't have an APP > characteristic you can appreciate at all. "Hey, it's a slug, you seen one, > you seen 'em all!" A little bit familiar, you get to recognize 1D6 of its > inherent APP. Somewhat more, you can read 2D6, and when you're a native, > you can discern the whole APP value. > > On 15-Sep-06, at 10:56 AM, Bo Whitten wrote: >> >> >> How about "TAS: Canine: 3D6 (-2D6 if the character is not Vietnamese or >> Hmong)." By the way, I am Tsalagi, and we traditionally ate dog as well, >> though I haven't. >> >> >> Lorgryt >> http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ >> A forum... like others... >> ==== >> If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Sep 16 17:39:13 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:39:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <450B80DB.8090000@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20060916073913.31851.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> "That is classically called a game rule isnt broken if a good GM can fix it." No, it's an example of how in an RPG the GM does more than any aspect of the rules to set the character of the game. If something matters to the GM the game will reflect it. Cheers, Ash --- Lance Dyas wrote: > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > The RQIII rules are pretty unambiguous: > experience checks are awarded _at > > the GM's discretion_ so I'm afraid I have no truck > with this "weapon" caddy > > idea (or "tick hunting") - > That is classically called a game rule isnt broken > if a good GM can fix > it. philosophy. .In that case mayhaps we > could all go play D&D1 ;-) > > Actually you dont need the tick hunting to get the > JOT effect.. "it only > takes one use to get a tick".... "and the "most > likely > skills to get a successful advance are those which > you have less > character emphasis on because they start out > lowest" > Nobody has to try to get the send in the clones > effect.. even if they > start relatively distinct.. their lower skills > advance faster till shazam... > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Sep 16 21:55:56 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:55:56 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060916045228.01b538e0@comcast.net> I agree with you, Steve. I had added it to RQ along with CHA, and both seemed to loose focus. In the end I replaced CHA with a Leadership skill... then decided it made more sense to have a seduction skill of some kind as well as a fashion skill. That has always seemed to work better. As for MRQ and CHA, I think they have put it back into play appropriately. Lorgryt At 12:25 AM 9/16/2006, you wrote: >One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I haven't really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. > >APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled things like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base characteristic, it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show that the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. > >Just thought you might be interested... > >Steve Perrin > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cantine" >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:16 PM >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar > > >>Seems to me there's already a rule like that. APP is normally 3D6 for most species, but also subjective according to the beholder; normally if you're looking at someone of a very different species, you knock 10 off their effective APP. >> >>Anyway, for the TAS characteristic of foods/recipes, most edible things should have a culture-specific 3D6 value, and people from other cultures may suffer a subjective penalty, just reflecting that they're not used to that weird foreign food. Once someone became familiar with a particular cuisine, the penalty could be reduced or even eliminated. >> >>As an aside, I'm not sure that's an accurate way to model it. From my bigoted human eyes, I don't know if I could tell the difference between a troll with APP 3 and one with APP 18, and if I could, I'm not at all certain I'd think the 18 was better-looking. Maybe there could instead be a sort of familiarity rating for subjective traits like APP. If you're completely unfamiliar with a species, then they just don't have an APP characteristic you can appreciate at all. "Hey, it's a slug, you seen one, you seen 'em all!" A little bit familiar, you get to recognize 1D6 of its inherent APP. Somewhat more, you can read 2D6, and when you're a native, you can discern the whole APP value. >> >>On 15-Sep-06, at 10:56 AM, Bo Whitten wrote: >>> >>> >>>How about "TAS: Canine: 3D6 (-2D6 if the character is not Vietnamese or Hmong)." By the way, I am Tsalagi, and we traditionally ate dog as well, though I haven't. >>> >>> >>>Lorgryt >>>http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ >>>A forum... like others... >>>==== >>>If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>RQ-Rules mailing list >>>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Sep 16 22:01:51 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 05:01:51 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <20060916073913.31851.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <450B80DB.8090000@inetnebr.com> <20060916073913.31851.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060916045630.01c213d0@comcast.net> This is also one of the things that makes a good game experience. Each game has a character that reflects the people who play it instead of a prepackaged blandness that can not be tasted. I have run systems and played in games that were homogenized to the point that it was like eating gruel every time we played... While it is true that the rules in RQ can be abused it is also true that the people playing it are equally responsible to keep the game fun, not just the GM. Fixed or Broken, all rules sets need work to fit any group and be the kind of game they love as a group. The more "unbroken" the rules the more likely at least one player is dissatisfied with the game. Lorgryt At 12:39 AM 9/16/2006, you wrote: >"That is classically called a game rule isnt broken if >a good GM can fix it." > >No, it's an example of how in an RPG the GM does more >than any aspect of the rules to set the character of >the game. If something matters to the GM the game will >reflect it. > >Cheers, > >Ash From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Sep 16 22:58:26 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:58:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Did the new RQ address the JOT weapon caddy effect. In-Reply-To: <20060916073913.31851.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060916073913.31851.qmail@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <450BF4F2.6060902@inetnebr.com> The significant part of the previous post was that you don't need anyone doing obviously bogus behavior to get a detrimental effect.... which indicates that the advancement rule has a break in it. Ashley Munday wrote: > "That is classically called a game rule isnt broken if > a good GM can fix it." > > No, it's an example of how in an RPG the GM does more > than any aspect of the rules to set the character of > the game. If something matters to the GM the game will > reflect it. > > Cheers, > > Ash > And I still think the fans have buried their collective heads in the sand like D&D fans do about ambiguous hitpoints.... > --- Lance Dyas wrote: > > >> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> >>> The RQIII rules are pretty unambiguous: >>> >> experience checks are awarded _at >> >>> the GM's discretion_ so I'm afraid I have no truck >>> >> with this "weapon" caddy >> >>> idea (or "tick hunting") - >>> >> That is classically called a game rule isnt broken >> if a good GM can fix >> it. philosophy. .In that case mayhaps we >> could all go play D&D1 ;-) >> >> Actually you dont need the tick hunting to get the >> JOT effect.. "it only >> takes one use to get a tick".... "and the "most >> likely >> skills to get a successful advance are those which >> you have less >> character emphasis on because they start out >> lowest" >> Nobody has to try to get the send in the clones >> effect.. even if they >> start relatively distinct.. their lower skills >> advance faster till shazam... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rog_benham at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 23:18:12 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:18:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060916/93a26ce1/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Sep 17 00:08:51 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060916140851.75035.qmail@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Roger Benham wrote: Since there are clearly people far more experienced not only at firing guns but real combat, how long does it really take to reload a modern rifle or flintlock, and how much longer does it take under fire? An ex-British Army friend of mine, sharpshooter and NI vet said it was a minimum of 20 seconds and that was experienced, and with a modern rifle. Since thats the best part of two rounds and not stressed under fire, I'm trying to implement that. I realise there is more to loading a gun than simply ramming a new magazine in- you have to clear the old one, get the new on, load it, cock the gun then aim it again. It seems more time consuming in the real world, and it's very easy to model in the gameworld. ***** My rule of thumb for someone in practice, 30 seconds for a flintlock, 20 seconds for a caplock. I have no idea regarding earlier forms (matchlock, wheellock, etc.). As for fixed ammunition, I defer to those with more experience, as mine is limited to a .22 target pistol with only one clip. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Sep 17 06:06:29 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:06:29 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms References: Message-ID: <004c01c6d9cb$98debb00$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> I believe the high-end British standard for muzzle-loaded muskets was five shots in one minute (I think that's what they said in an episode of Sharpe's rifles I saw recently.). That would imply one shot for every RQ2 round. For really good musketeers. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Benham To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms Since there are clearly people far more experienced not only at firing guns but real combat, how long does it really take to reload a modern rifle or flintlock, and how much longer does it take under fire? An ex-British Army friend of mine, sharpshooter and NI vet said it was a minimum of 20 seconds and that was experienced, and with a modern rifle. Since thats the best part of two rounds and not stressed under fire, I'm trying to implement that. I realise there is more to loading a gun than simply ramming a new magazine in- you have to clear the old one, get the new on, load it, cock the gun then aim it again. It seems more time consuming in the real world, and it's very easy to model in the gameworld. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Cardwell Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT) >--- Sven Lugar wrote: > > > There is some credence too this concept in that my > > blackpowder rifle > > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded > > flintlock) has more brutal > > stopping power to a person than does my neighbors > > deer rifle. He's hit > > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them > > down & shoot them again > > (though most people around here think he's some kind > > of great > > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits > > once in the body or > > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial > > rock. His advantage is > > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid > > firing ability > > actually doesn't come into play. > > > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot > > nowadays is less > > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 > > years ago & is less > > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We > > know have to resort > > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & > > the like to do the > > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even > > portable laser > > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & > > past damage. I think > > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during > > which time current > > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become > > the replacement when > > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have > > used, however the > > concept of the different armor effects. > > > > Sven > >The mushroom effect might also be a factor. I know my >antique .54 carbine can make a three inch hole in a >floating can, and I use a small amount of type metal >with the pure lead in my (spherical) bullets. > >__________________________________________________ >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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Windows LiveT Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060916/99744114/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 06:08:03 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:08:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <20060916140851.75035.qmail@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060916140851.75035.qmail@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <450C59A3.7010801@gmail.com> About 20 years ago, as an experiment, my friends & I made up 25 paper cartridges each for a flintlock musket (not rifle) in the old Military style. We went to the range & used 50 yd targets & followed the "Quick-loading" procedure of the British Army manual (Napoleonic issue). We then timed each other & fired "in our own time". I got mine off in a hair over 5 minutes & all but 1 in the black. - The rest ranged from my time to a bit over 6 minutes, shooting the same or slightly worse. Admittedly we were not under the pressure of a battlefield, nor under the pressure of firing under commands. That put us in the range of 4 to 5 rounds per minute or 12 to 15 seconds a round. Admittedly we, didn't patch but merely spat the ball down the barrel & tapped the butt on the ground. Patching & ramming would add a little time to that & probably put us in the 3 rounds a minute range. - I would love to hear of others peoples experiments with this since my friends & I were all re-enacter nuts. takk, Sven Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Roger Benham wrote: > > Since there are clearly people far more experienced > not only at firing guns but real combat, how long does > it really take to reload a modern rifle or flintlock, > and how much longer does it take under fire? An > ex-British Army friend of mine, sharpshooter and NI > vet said it was a minimum of 20 seconds and that was > experienced, and with a modern rifle. Since thats the > best part of two rounds and not stressed under fire, > I'm trying to implement that. > > I realise there is more to loading a gun than simply > ramming a new magazine in- you have to clear the old > one, get the new on, load it, cock the gun then aim it > again. It seems more time consuming in the real > world, and it's very easy to model in the gameworld. > > ***** > > My rule of thumb for someone in practice, 30 seconds > for a flintlock, 20 seconds for a caplock. I have no > idea regarding earlier forms (matchlock, wheellock, > etc.). As for fixed ammunition, I defer to those with > more experience, as mine is limited to a .22 target > pistol with only one clip. > > Paul Cardwell > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 06:42:05 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:42:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: <004c01c6d9cb$98debb00$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <004c01c6d9cb$98debb00$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <450C619D.3010300@gmail.com> Historically Steve, the average amongst most trained armies was 2 rounds a minute, with 3 rounds amongst well trained veterans using "timed fire" Elite companies (voltigers, light companies in the British & Portugese armies, Jaegers, & Rifle regiments) were around 4 to 5 rounds per minute "firing in their own time". I believe in "Sharpes Eagle", Sharpe replies to the Colonel's demand to know what makes a good soldier; "the ability to fire 3 rounds a minute in any weather". Yeah, I'm a Sharpes fan & used to wear the Green-Jacket in a re-enactor regiment as well as FotER back when I was young & skinny. I too would model it as 1 shot per every RQ2 round for elites, alternating rounds for average trained troops, & 1 per 3 rounds for non-trained shooters. Here is I model it using "Martial Art" skills in my house rules: - (remember MA are skills that are compared against the basing shooting skill roll. - always only compared on first roll of the round) Quick-draw -- enhances the Side-arms & Long-arms skills -- It usually applies to side-arms such as the Colt Revolver. Success means that the weapon clears the leather & fires at the Quick Strike Rank --1 & gets a second shot on QSR+1 if the weapon is capable of a second shot. Failing the quickdraw but making his to hit chance means that the holster was cleared on the QSR+1 with a --20% chance to hit & no second shot. Failing both means a miss & gun is still holstered but maybe drawn normally next turn. A fumble causes a discharge in the holster & the closest body location takes an automatic hit. May also be used to get a rapid shot off in subsequent melee rounds & may not be used in conjunction with other martial arts. Combat Shooting -- enhances the Side-Arms & Long-arms skills -- It involves all modern firearms as used by a trained soldier. Success allows for a second attack at full % to hit immediately if the weapon has a round in it, else the reloading time is halved, Special allows shifting Hit location by 1, fumble stops firing immediately to clear weapon & doubles reload time. May also do opportunity fire in a roughly 30degree arc to front instead of multiple shots. Marksman Shooting: -- enhances the Side-Arms & Long-arms skills -- Success allows the character to shift the hit location roll by 3, Special by 4, Critical halves reload time, fumble doubles reload time. May also do opportunity fire in a roughly 30degree arc to front. SpecFor shooting (modern weapons only - very specialized & rare training): - enhances Side-Arms & Long-arms skills - always allows 2 shots per round except on a fumble & always allows to reserve at least 1 shot for opportunity fire in 45 degree arc, Success allows character to shift hit-location by 1, & take an extra shot if possible or halve reload time. Special success allows for shifting hit location by 2, Critical success allows for shifting hit location by 3, fumble stops firing immediately to clear weapon & doubles reload time.) takk my friend, Sven Steve Perrin wrote: > I believe the high-end British standard for muzzle-loaded muskets was > five shots in one minute (I think that's what they said in an episode > of Sharpe's rifles I saw recently.). That would imply one shot for > every RQ2 round. For really good musketeers. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Roger Benham > *To:* rq-rules at crashbox.com > *Sent:* Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:18 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms > > > > Since there are clearly people far more experienced not only at > firing guns but real combat, how long does it really take to > reload a modern rifle or flintlock, and how much longer does it > take under fire? An ex-British Army friend of mine, sharpshooter > and NI vet said it was a minimum of 20 seconds and that was > experienced, and with a modern rifle. Since thats the best part > of two rounds and not stressed under fire, I'm trying to implement > that. > > I realise there is more to loading a gun than simply ramming a new > magazine in- you have to clear the old one, get the new on, load > it, cock the gun then aim it again. It seems more time consuming > in the real world, and it's very easy to model in the gameworld. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: /Paul Cardwell / > Reply-To: /"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > / > To: /"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." / > Subject: /Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms/ > Date: /Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT)/ > >--- Sven Lugar wrote: > > > > > There is some credence too this concept in that my > > > blackpowder rifle > > > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded > > > flintlock) has more brutal > > > stopping power to a person than does my neighbors > > > deer rifle. He's hit > > > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them > > > down & shoot them again > > > (though most people around here think he's some kind > > > of great > > > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits > > > once in the body or > > > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial > > > rock. His advantage is > > > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid > > > firing ability > > > actually doesn't come into play. > > > > > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot > > > nowadays is less > > > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 > > > years ago & is less > > > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We > > > know have to resort > > > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & > > > the like to do the > > > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even > > > portable laser > > > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & > > > past damage. I think > > > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during > > > which time current > > > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become > > > the replacement when > > > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have > > > used, however the > > > concept of the different armor effects. > > > > > > Sven > > > >The mushroom effect might also be a factor. I know my > >antique .54 carbine can make a three inch hole in a > >floating can, and I use a small amount of type metal > >with the pure lead in my (spherical) bullets. > > > >__________________________________________________ > >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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Windows Live^(TM) Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it > for free! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060916/6861180e/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 18:44:22 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In Norway, we have a firing-drill where we shoot on a 200m range (With the H&K G3-rifle) with 10 shots, divided on 3 magazines (one in the gun w. 4 shots, and 2 magazines in the magasine-belt, 3rnds each). You have 1 minute to shoot all 10 rounds, and in order to get "bronze", you have to get over 75 points. To get "silver"; you have to get over 80 points and to get "gold", you need to get over 90 points. During this drill, you obvious need some time to place the shots. I've never drilled the time used to change magazine, but if you count the rounds (NOT EASY UNDER STRESS), so that you change mag. when the last cartridge from the mag. is in the chamber-when you change mag; I think it is doeable in 2-3 seconds (depending on wether you just drop the spent mag. or save it and depending on how tight the next mag. is stuck in your mag.belt. >From: "Roger Benham" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:18:12 +0100 > > > > > > > > >Since there are clearly people far more experienced not only at firing guns >but real combat, how long does it really take to reload a modern rifle or >flintlock, and how much longer does it take under fire? An ex-British Army >friend of mine, sharpshooter and NI vet said it was a minimum of 20 seconds >and that was experienced, and with a modern rifle.? Since thats the best >part of two rounds and not stressed under fire, I'm trying to implement >that. > >I realise there is more to loading a gun than simply ramming a new magazine >in- you have to clear the old one, get the new on, load it, cock the gun >then aim it again.? It seems more time consuming in the real world, and >it's very easy to model in the gameworld. > > > > > > >From:??Paul Cardwell >Reply-To:??"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To:??"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject:??Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Super duper firearms >Date:??Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:17:15 -0700 (PDT) > >--- Sven Lugar wrote: > > > > > There is some credence too this concept in that my > > > blackpowder rifle > > > (Lyman Great Plains 54 caliber - lefthanded > > > flintlock) has more brutal > > > stopping power to a person than does my??neighbors > > > deer rifle. He's hit > > > deer & they keep on going & he has to track them > > > down & shoot them again > > > (though most >people around here think he's some kind > > > of great > > > bwana-hunter. Bullshite!). An old flintlock hits > > > once in the body or > > > head & they usually flip & drop like a proverbial > > > rock. His advantage is > > > that his weapon is lighter weight. The more rapid > > > firing ability > > > actually doesn't come into play. > > > > > > Likewise battlefield statistics show that being shot > > > nowadays is less > > > likely to be instantly fatal than it was 100 or 200 > > > years ago & is less > > > likely to result in a severed limb immediately. We > > > know have to resort > > > to using "tumbling rounds", "eagle-claw rounds", & > > > the like to do the > > > same kind of horrific damage. So I think that even > > > portable >laser > > > weapons & the like, will be on a par with current & > > > past damage. I think > > > they will go thru a phase of being heavier during > > > which time current > > > weaponry will still be pre-eminent, & then become > > > the replacement when > > > they become lighter & less clumsy. I do like, & have > > > used, however the > > > concept of the different armor effects. > > > > > > Sven > > > >The mushroom effect might also be a factor.??I know my > >antique .54 carbine can make a three inch hole in a > >floating can, and I use a small amount of type metal > >with the pure lead in my (spherical) bullets. > > > >__________________________________________________ > >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 > >Windows Live? Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From slposey at concentric.net Mon Sep 18 06:16:05 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:16:05 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> Steve Perrin wrote: > One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest > experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I > haven't really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that > sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. > > APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea > at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by > making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled things > like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base characteristic, > it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show > that the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a > better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. > > Just thought you might be interested... This parallels my own thinking pretty closely. One of the few things I really appreciate about what was done with the D20/OGL core rules is they made a concerted effort NOT to allow any of the core characteristics to become "throw away" stats. CHA in particular now has some significant in-game effects; in particular it's the foundation characteristic for skills and abilities related to communication or interpersonal influence. It also reflects not only the force of personality, but also its strength and serves as something like "willpower" for resisting things like charms and torture. Now, you can argue that stretches the everyday definition of "charisma" to (or beyond) the breaking point; given that there's no direct relationship between the two (a charismatic person isn't necessarily going to be particularly strong-willed) but I can see the logic to it from a game rules perspective myself . Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Sep 18 15:36:15 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:36:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net><007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> Message-ID: <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that what we were calling CHA was really another name for POW. This is a perfectly logical and reasonable idea, but we lost sight of the fact that this made POW the uber characteristic. Suddenly everything depended on POW. So the best idea from my current point of view is to definitively split the two characteristics, put all the communication and such skills (and effects on things like Stealth and Command) into CHA, and keep POW just for magical usage. POW is how good magically you are, CHA is how good with people skills and the like you are. And it can have an effect on magic. For instance, CHA would be the measure of how many spirits a Shaman can deal with. POW might govern what size of spirit can be dealt with, but CHA is the number of spirits. And so forth. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP > Steve Perrin wrote: >> One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest >> experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I haven't >> really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that >> sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. >> >> APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea >> at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by >> making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled things >> like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base characteristic, >> it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show that >> the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a >> better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. >> >> Just thought you might be interested... > > This parallels my own thinking pretty closely. > > One of the few things I really appreciate about what was done > with the D20/OGL core rules is they made a concerted effort NOT > to allow any of the core characteristics to become "throw away" > stats. > > CHA in particular now has some significant in-game effects; in > particular it's the foundation characteristic for skills and > abilities related to communication or interpersonal influence. > > It also reflects not only the force of personality, but also its > strength and serves as something like "willpower" for resisting > things like charms and torture. > > Now, you can argue that stretches the everyday definition of > "charisma" to (or beyond) the breaking point; given that there's > no direct relationship between the two (a charismatic person > isn't necessarily going to be particularly strong-willed) but I > can see the logic to it from a game rules perspective myself . > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 23:53:22 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:53:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <450AD727.9000104@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <1c92296e0609180653k457bc114sa8c2bf396165804d@mail.gmail.com> Oh, I like that! *scribblescribblescribble* On 9/18/06, Steve Perrin wrote: > > One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that what we > were calling CHA was really another name for POW. > > This is a perfectly logical and reasonable idea, but we lost sight of the > fact that this made POW the uber characteristic. Suddenly everything > depended on POW. > > So the best idea from my current point of view is to definitively split > the > two characteristics, put all the communication and such skills (and > effects > on things like Stealth and Command) into CHA, and keep POW just for > magical > usage. POW is how good magically you are, CHA is how good with people > skills > and the like you are. And it can have an effect on magic. For instance, > CHA > would be the measure of how many spirits a Shaman can deal with. POW might > govern what size of spirit can be dealt with, but CHA is the number of > spirits. > > And so forth. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Posey" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP > > > > Steve Perrin wrote: > >> One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest > >> experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I > haven't > >> really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that > >> sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. > >> > >> APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea > >> at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by > >> making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled > things > >> like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base > characteristic, > >> it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show > that > >> the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a > >> better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. > >> > >> Just thought you might be interested... > > > > This parallels my own thinking pretty closely. > > > > One of the few things I really appreciate about what was done > > with the D20/OGL core rules is they made a concerted effort NOT > > to allow any of the core characteristics to become "throw away" > > stats. > > > > CHA in particular now has some significant in-game effects; in > > particular it's the foundation characteristic for skills and > > abilities related to communication or interpersonal influence. > > > > It also reflects not only the force of personality, but also its > > strength and serves as something like "willpower" for resisting > > things like charms and torture. > > > > Now, you can argue that stretches the everyday definition of > > "charisma" to (or beyond) the breaking point; given that there's > > no direct relationship between the two (a charismatic person > > isn't necessarily going to be particularly strong-willed) but I > > can see the logic to it from a game rules perspective myself . > > > > Stephen Posey > > slposey at concentric.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060918/b64098ca/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Sep 19 13:24:52 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:24:52 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net><007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> Steve Perrin wrote: > One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that > what we were calling CHA was really another name for POW. I always figured all attributes combined are CHA Pow = force of personality Dex = litheness and grace Str = muscularity can impress and influence Con = health makes hair skin teeth nicer and who wants to talk to the guy coughing all the time Int = perceptive and talks well, remembers everyones names Size = little guys get no respect Charism is a god given gift and all your main attributes are just that Charism's Course if your Size excedes your Dex Size may be a penalty in modern times... though to medievals it never would be... big is beautiful. From StevenDLeary at comcast.net Tue Sep 19 13:51:27 2006 From: StevenDLeary at comcast.net (Steven Leary) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:51:27 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net><007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: Hmmm, The way I have implemented it is similar to you, save that: Cha = Force of personality The reason being is that you don't have to be graceful, muscular, in good health or intelligent to have a great charisma. Simply look at the Big Five of the WW II period for examples. Power (Life Force, Soul) is then a sum or average of the other stats, depending on the type of game I'm playing. If a sum, I usually call it Soul, and its used to power spells and to act as Sanity! SDLeary On 18 Sep , 06, at 8:24 PM, Lance Dyas wrote: > Steve Perrin wrote: >> One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that >> what we were calling CHA was really another name for POW. > I always figured all attributes combined are CHA > Pow = force of personality > Dex = litheness and grace > Str = muscularity can impress and influence > Con = health makes hair skin teeth nicer and who wants to talk to > the guy coughing all the time > Int = perceptive and talks well, remembers everyones names > Size = little guys get no respect > > Charism is a god given gift and all your main attributes are just > that Charism's > > Course if your Size excedes your Dex Size may be a penalty in > modern times... > though to medievals it never would be... big is beautiful. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Sep 19 18:23:47 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:23:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net><007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <450FA913.1030907@inetnebr.com> Steven Leary wrote: > Hmmm, > > The way I have implemented it is similar to you, save that: > > Cha = Force of personality > > The reason being is that you don't have to be graceful, muscular, in > good health or intelligent to have a great charisma. > Simply look at the Big Five of the WW II period for examples. I would have given them all a very high Power, intuitively correct no? and if you allow Power to be like it is in Stormbringer it might be reasonable for there Power attributes to be Off the board. 25 to 35 even ;-). everyone of them have high intelligence probably 15 or so. Read up on multiple intelligence theory... on the other hand dont that just leads one to the idea we should ditch intelligence ;-) Dexterity becomes a form of Intelligence among other things. How about we give a social skill lets call it Charisma (perhaps the wrong name) The skill of exploiting your attributes to the utmost and de-emphasizing limitations to improve ones influence. Simple examples one has bad breath ( he avoids face to face) another has bad health .. he hides being a cripple. In game terms this social skill would allow one to influence and interact based on the better of your mutiple stats... instead of the average? Other people may be enlisted to enhance your Charisma skill thats what political aides and and attaches do. In general interactions are contextual those guys get reputations and political elan and similar tools to enhance their interaction and influence capabilities. Now I have the song Cult of Personality running through my head.... ooh thats not bad > > Power (Life Force, Soul) is then a sum or average of the other stats, > depending on the type of game I'm playing. If a sum, I usually call it > Soul, and its used to power spells and to act as Sanity! > > SDLeary > > On 18 Sep , 06, at 8:24 PM, Lance Dyas wrote: > >> Steve Perrin wrote: >>> One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that >>> what we were calling CHA was really another name for POW. >> I always figured all attributes combined are CHA >> Pow = force of personality >> Dex = litheness and grace >> Str = muscularity can impress and influence >> Con = health makes hair skin teeth nicer and who wants to talk to the >> guy coughing all the time >> Int = perceptive and talks well, remembers everyones names >> Size = little guys get no respect >> >> Charism is a god given gift and all your main attributes are just >> that Charism's >> >> Course if your Size excedes your Dex Size may be a penalty in modern >> times... >> though to medievals it never would be... big is beautiful. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Sep 19 18:35:48 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:35:48 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <450FA913.1030907@inetnebr.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za><450AD727.9000104@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net><007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> <450FA913.1030907@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <450FABE4.9070803@inetnebr.com> Lance Dyas wrote: > Steven Leary wrote: >> Hmmm, >> >> The way I have implemented it is similar to you, save that: >> >> Cha = Force of personality >> >> The reason being is that you don't have to be graceful, muscular, in >> good health or intelligent to have a great charisma. >> Simply look at the Big Five of the WW II period for examples. > I would have given them all a very high Power, intuitively correct no? > and if you allow Power to be like it is in Stormbringer it might be > reasonable > for there Power attributes to be Off the board. 25 to 35 even ;-). > everyone of them have high intelligence probably 15 or so. > > Read up on multiple intelligence theory... on the other hand dont that > just > leads one to the idea we should ditch intelligence ;-) Dexterity > becomes > a form of Intelligence among other things. > > How about we give a social skill lets call it Charisma (perhaps the > wrong name) > > The skill of exploiting your attributes to the utmost and > de-emphasizing limitations > to improve ones influence. > Simple examples one has bad breath ( he avoids face to face) another > has bad health .. > he hides being a cripple. In game terms this social skill would > allow one to influence and interact based on the better of your > mutiple stats... > instead of the average? Reacting to myself I know bad form... but if one wanted the skill to be more complex you could require a skill rolll for each attribute one wanted to remove from the formula. > Other people may be enlisted to enhance your > Charisma skill thats what political aides and and attaches do. > > In general interactions are contextual those guys get reputations and > political elan > and similar tools to enhance their interaction and influence > capabilities. > > Now I have the song Cult of Personality running through my head.... > ooh thats not bad >> >> Power (Life Force, Soul) is then a sum or average of the other stats, >> depending on the type of game I'm playing. If a sum, I usually call >> it Soul, and its used to power spells and to act as Sanity! >> >> SDLeary >> >> On 18 Sep , 06, at 8:24 PM, Lance Dyas wrote: >> >>> Steve Perrin wrote: >>>> One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that >>>> what we were calling CHA was really another name for POW. >>> I always figured all attributes combined are CHA >>> Pow = force of personality >>> Dex = litheness and grace >>> Str = muscularity can impress and influence >>> Con = health makes hair skin teeth nicer and who wants to talk to >>> the guy coughing all the time >>> Int = perceptive and talks well, remembers everyones names >>> Size = little guys get no respect >>> >>> Charism is a god given gift and all your main attributes are just >>> that Charism's >>> >>> Course if your Size excedes your Dex Size may be a penalty in modern >>> times... >>> though to medievals it never would be... big is beautiful. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RQ-Rules mailing list >>> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > . > From mason.bruce at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 19:28:21 2006 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:28:21 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <450FABE4.9070803@inetnebr.com> References: <27861.196.8.104.37.1158328077.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <7.0.1.0.0.20060915095346.01b37b48@comcast.net> <19BFDA2A-453A-11DB-8931-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <007a01c6d961$3a417020$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450DAD05.6010306@concentric.net> <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> <450F6304.1060700@inetnebr.com> <450FA913.1030907@inetnebr.com> <450FABE4.9070803@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <5f3990080609190228r133979c4xf9d161020b04673d@mail.gmail.com> I agree that CHArisma is a more 'fundamental' characteristic than APPeal. If it is to be used to refer to something like "Social Intelligence" i.e. your ability to relate to (and be related to by) members of your own species and thereby influence them then you can fine tune it. You could have high CHArisma simply through stunning beauty (Helen of Troy), great command of rhetoric (Churchill), high status and position (any head of state), immense gift for comedy (Peter Sellers), and so on. In a sense, CHA to the mundane world could be what POW is to the spiritual world. Sometimes these will be related; for example spiritual entities might well be influenced by how CHArismatic their summoner is. One of the things I like about MRQ is the use of characteristics as the skill base. I think, however, that they should have systematised it and created skill families. If the base for every skill is the sum of two characteristics they could say, for example, that the "Athletics" family of skills start with a base of STR+DEX, that the "Brawn" family are STR+SIZ, "Endurance" is STR+CON and so on. You could also have skill families called "Pure [stat]" which are based on just their stat. E.g. Pure Dex skills start at DEX+DEX. Finally individual skills could have modifiers (e.g. sneakin' could be Pure Dex-SIZ). There's a neatness about this which I like. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060919/3a770378/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Sep 19 20:55:50 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:55:50 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP In-Reply-To: <002101c6dae4$5c27d1f0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: I agree with Steve. We (us 5 playing RQ3 where I live) tried to divide it the following way: APP = apperance, but allso "the ability to make people getting a good impression of you; subterfuge" POP = charisma, leadership; "the ability to impose once meanings on others; manipulation" >From: "Steve Perrin" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP >Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:36:15 -0700 > >One of the reasons that RQ3 went from CHA to APP was the idea that what we >were calling CHA was really another name for POW. > >This is a perfectly logical and reasonable idea, but we lost sight of the >fact that this made POW the uber characteristic. Suddenly everything >depended on POW. > >So the best idea from my current point of view is to definitively split the >two characteristics, put all the communication and such skills (and effects >on things like Stealth and Command) into CHA, and keep POW just for magical >usage. POW is how good magically you are, CHA is how good with people >skills and the like you are. And it can have an effect on magic. For >instance, CHA would be the measure of how many spirits a Shaman can deal >with. POW might govern what size of spirit can be dealt with, but CHA is >the number of spirits. > >And so forth. > >Steve Perrin > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:16 PM >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Wild Boar and APP > > >>Steve Perrin wrote: >>>One of the interesting things that came out of the Mongoose RuneQuest >>>experience was the concept that CHA should count for something. I haven't >>>really read the final result as yet, but I think a lot of that >>>sensibility stayed around, which I am in favor of. >>> >>>APP, on the other hand, was probably a mistake. Seemed like a good idea >>>at the time, but I think a lot of successor systems have done better by >>>making it an Advantage or trait or skill or feat variously titled things >>>like Appearance, Appeal, Attractiveness, etc. Not a base characteristic, >>>it is just something the player can tack on to his character to show that >>>the person is particularly handsome or beautiful. I think this is a >>>better idea, and I will probably alter SPQR to follow this concept. >>> >>>Just thought you might be interested... >> >>This parallels my own thinking pretty closely. >> >>One of the few things I really appreciate about what was done >>with the D20/OGL core rules is they made a concerted effort NOT >>to allow any of the core characteristics to become "throw away" >>stats. >> >>CHA in particular now has some significant in-game effects; in >>particular it's the foundation characteristic for skills and >>abilities related to communication or interpersonal influence. >> >>It also reflects not only the force of personality, but also its >>strength and serves as something like "willpower" for resisting >>things like charms and torture. >> >>Now, you can argue that stretches the everyday definition of >>"charisma" to (or beyond) the breaking point; given that there's >>no direct relationship between the two (a charismatic person >>isn't necessarily going to be particularly strong-willed) but I >>can see the logic to it from a game rules perspective myself . >> >>Stephen Posey >>slposey at concentric.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 22 19:17:54 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:17:54 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Tarsh War Message-ID: <1120.155.239.185.142.1158916674.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Picked up a brand new copy of tarsh war at what passes for my local games shop. It was secreted away between old defunct gear like earth dawn etc. Still, a nice price at ZAR30 (rougly USD4 or GBP2) Tony From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Sep 23 07:32:31 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:32:31 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tarsh War Message-ID: <20060922213304.46B3AC4ABFB@mini.thinbits.net> Hi > Picked up a brand new copy of tarsh war at what passes for my local games > shop. It was secreted away between old defunct gear like earth dawn etc. > Still, a nice price at ZAR30 (rougly USD4 or GBP2) Lucky you. I own it myself, and I find it is a very well-written supplement. Moreover, there isn't much about Tarsh in official material -- which is a shame, since Tarsh is so close to where most PC's come from -- so it is very useful. Gianni From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Sep 23 08:12:33 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:12:33 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] SRD, OGL.... How's it work? Message-ID: <20060922221251.73F55C4B461@mini.thinbits.net> All-- I've downloaded the MRQ SRD, but I'm still unsure as to how this "open gaming licence" thing works (I've never been into d20, so this is new to me). If I write, say, a rolegame about Imperial China using the rules in the SRD do I have to: a) reference the rules without copying them, or b) copy the rules within the text of my rolegame? Or maybe there's even option c) re-write the rules and mix them with my own? Help! Cheers, Gianni From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Sep 23 21:12:58 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:12:58 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tarsh War In-Reply-To: <20060922213304.46B3AC4ABFB@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060922213304.46B3AC4ABFB@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <451516BA.6070109@zunder.org.uk> > Lucky you. I own it myself, and I find it is a very well-written supplement. > Moreover, there isn't much about Tarsh in official material -- which is a > shame, since Tarsh is so close to where most PC's come from -- so it is very > useful. > The Unspoken Word publications about Tarsh are very good and even though they are for HeroQuest they provide all you need to get a good idea of how to run a Tarsh RQ game. Nearly all the cults are in official publications (GoG) and can be used as is. The bulk of the background can be copied and used easily as handouts etc. From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Sep 23 21:25:55 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:25:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] SRD, OGL.... How's it work? In-Reply-To: <20060922221251.73F55C4B461@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060922221251.73F55C4B461@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <451519C3.50905@zunder.org.uk> IMHO it's: OGL game, just add the OGL at the end or beginning of the book/publication and do not mention RuneQuest or anything not in the SRD. You must say which bits of the publication are 'Open Content' and everything re-used from the SRD (or other OGL sources) must be shown as 'Open Content'. You can include parts that are *not *open, those stay within the copyright of the document. Therefore you can take the SRD, reformat and publish it as a game called OpenQuest. That's what Mongoose and others do with the WOTC SRD, they basically publish it as a game. Since you can mix and match then you can also take the SRD, re-use or change it and publish a variant game. Mongoose and others also do that in their OGL games. I think that here you need to be careful to leave 'open' all that derives from the OGL SRD. A simple approach is to OGL the lot and only make closed anything that is a trademark or fiction or a scenario. RuneQuest publication. This is covered by the RQ trademark licence. Basically you need to not create a new game using the RQ trademark, not anything to do with Glorantha, nor tell people how to generate characters. Plus Mongoose want to vet the final thing before publication, Matt said they would be applying European standards, not Bible Belt America. So, we could take the SRD, rewrite it to what we like, publish it as OpenQuest under the OGL and put it on shelves. Can't see the point actually. Or you could write a book of advanced rules, house rules, tweaks, alternative magic, and sell it under OGL providing you don't mention RQ, or mention RQ but don't mention Glorantha or detail character generation. Now, this is my interpretation and I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice, I'd like to hear if others agree, and I'd like to suggest that in doubt, refer to a legally qualified individual or ask Mongoose. Now.. if rpg ideas can't be copyrighted/patented then of course on could write a new game, that happened to be very similar to other games that we like to play, using new words and not plagiarising, release it under a Creative Commons licence, and there would be a free, open percentile based rpg out there for anyone to use.. I am not advocating that BTW, but Greg/Mongoose/Charlie may have opened a can of worms that actually benefits us all. I think open licencing of game engines generates interest, enthusiasm and activity. That wouldn't be bad at all. From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Sep 24 00:44:52 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:44:52 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: SRD, OGL.... How's it work? Message-ID: <45154864.1060604@brinkdata.se> Gianni skrev: > > All-- > > I've downloaded the MRQ SRD, but I'm still unsure as to > how this "open gaming licence" thing works (I've never > been into d20, so this is new to me). OGL is unfortunately not a very easy legal text to digest. It contains grammatical errors, ambiguities and some parts are dubious from a legal POW (a European legal POW that is). Whenever someone asks how to use the OGL I usually reply by asking: Why do you think you need it?. The first thing one need to realize is that the OGL is firmly rooted in US contract and copyright law. Parts of the license might be invalid or unlawful in other jurisdictions. The GPL suffers from similar problems; in France for example it was deemed necessary to create a new license (See http://www.cecill.info/faq.en.html#gpl). Another thing one should know is that when the licensor (the one who issues the license) and the licensee live in different countries the applicable *contract law* might not be what either or even both parties assume. Let's take the Mongoose SRD as an example. Mongoose is a U.K. company. If A (who lives in France) becomes a licensee, then the contract law (according to EC law) becomes French law. The question would then become whether OGL is a valid legal document under French law, it very well might not... If A lives outside Europe and the US then things becomes quite a bit more uncertain... The next issue is what copyright law that applies. After all if the Mongoose SRD is obviously not copyright protected then why use the OGL? For works published in Europe the rule is that it's the copyright law of the country in which the work has been published that applies. When it comes to works published on the internet the deciding factor (from a European POW) is an aggregate of the domain name, the nationality of the domain owner, the language of the website and the physical location of the webserver. If all of these points to the same jurisdiction then there's no problem, but if they point in different directions things get trickier. IMO (being a law-school student), under at least Scandinavian copyright law, the texts of the Mongoose SRD clearly falls below the necessary level of originality required for copyright protection. I would be surprised if a French or German court came to another conclusion, what opinion a U.K. court would have is more uncertain, and even more so what opinion an US court might have. In any case a game system, i.e. the ideas that makes up a game cannot be copyright protected. If one describes those ideas with ones own words there cannot be a copyright infringement. So my question to you, Gianni, is: Why do you think you need the OGL? > If I write, say, a rolegame about Imperial China using > the rules in the SRD > > Do I have to: > a) reference the rules without copying them, or To do this you never need a license... > b) copy the rules within the text of my rolegame? Provided that you believe that the Mongoose SRD is copyright protected, you would need a license to do this. > Or maybe there's even option c) re-write the rules and > mix them with my own? No need for a license if you do this. See Tom Zunder's mail for how you include the license with your work. /Peter Brink From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Sep 25 07:04:01 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:04:01 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: SRD, OGL.... How's it work? Message-ID: <20060924210422.956EDC5F97F@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all, [Peter] > So my question to you, Gianni, is: Why do you think you need the OGL? Well, my idea is to re-write my BRPS-based Imperial China rolegame (http://www.basicrps.com/chine/) to be fully MRQ-compatible. I would also like to benefit from interest in MRQ [if there ever is such a thing] to attract interest to my rolegame. Further to what you wrote in your e-mail: *my web-site is in Norway *the language of my rolegame is French *my nationality is French I understand I could simply not mention MRQ and just use the rules. But I _want_ to mention MRQ. So -- to answer your question -- that's why I think I need the OGL. [Tom] > you could write a book of advanced rules, house rules, > tweaks, alternative magic, and sell it under OGL providing you don't > mention RQ, or mention RQ but don't mention Glorantha or detail > character generation Well, I certainly would mention RQ, would not mention Glorantha, would either (a) not mention character creation -- and suppose the reader already owns the MRQ rules -- or (b) use an alternate method for generating PC's. Cheers, Gianni From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Sep 25 09:37:09 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:37:09 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] SRD, OGL.... How's it work? In-Reply-To: <20060924210422.956EDC5F97F@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060924210422.956EDC5F97F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <451716A5.4000509@brinkdata.se> Gianni skrev: > Hi all, > > [Peter] >> So my question to you, Gianni, is: Why do you think you need the OGL? > > Well, my idea is to re-write my BRPS-based Imperial China rolegame > (http://www.basicrps.com/chine/) to be fully MRQ-compatible. I would also > like to benefit from interest in MRQ [if there ever is such a thing] to > attract interest to my rolegame. > > Further to what you wrote in your e-mail: > *my web-site is in Norway > *the language of my rolegame is French > *my nationality is French > > I understand I could simply not mention MRQ and just use the rules. But I > _want_ to mention MRQ. So -- to answer your question -- that's why I think I > need the OGL. But you don't need the OGL for that! If you use the words "Mongoose" and "Runequest" outside a business context those words are not (according to European trademark law) trademarks anymore - they are just words. Private, non-commercial websites need not care about trademark laws. Now, if you plan to sell a pdf-product or a book, then you need to be a bit more careful. You can still refer to any trademark "where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts...", provided that the use is "in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters", as the EC trademark directive puts it. /Peter Brink From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Sep 26 01:15:17 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:15:17 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: SRD, OGL.... How's it work? In-Reply-To: <20060924210422.956EDC5F97F@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060924210422.956EDC5F97F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: > > Well, I certainly would mention RQ, would not mention Glorantha, > would either > (a) not mention character creation -- and suppose the reader > already owns the > MRQ rules -- or (b) use an alternate method for generating PC's. If you want to use the RuneQuest trademark you have to clear it with Mongoose, and cannot do b:, that is not allowed. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Sep 26 18:05:38 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:05:38 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/gloranthan gear on eBay Message-ID: <41383.196.8.104.37.1159257938.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> IKs ee Greg Stafford is flogging off some of his RQ rarities on eBay. Glroanthan coin, funny covered rulebooks etc.... Tony From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Sep 26 20:41:54 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:41:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] APP/CHA/POW In-Reply-To: <20060922213314.2954BC4AC54@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060926104154.69066.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Steven Leary: > The way I have implemented it is similar to you, save that: > Cha = Force of personality > The reason being is that you don't have to be graceful, muscular, in > good health or intelligent to have a great charisma. Simply look at > the Big Five of the WW II period for examples. > > Power (Life Force, Soul) is then a sum or average of the other stats, > depending on the type of game I'm playing. If a sum, I usually call > it Soul, and its used to power spells and to act as Sanity! I've never really understood how CHA and POW can be confused. In my games, APP is a measure of your physical attractiveness, CHA is a measure of your charisma and POW is a measure of your magical strength. So, someone could be really attractive but have the personality of dishwater, so would have a high APP and low CHA. Someone else could be pug ugly but be a leader of men and have people follow him to hell and back, having a low APP and high CHA. There is a slight overlap, perhaps, between APP and CHA, but not a lot. There is no overlap, in my opinion, between POW and CHA as they are entirely different. All "In my Opinion", of course. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060926/0d839b88/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Sep 26 22:26:26 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:26:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ SRD and publishing gear under the OGL Message-ID: <7046.196.8.104.37.1159273586.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> There was some talk regarding usage of the name runequest in published gear (I think Gianni started the thread?) A while back someone mentioned that Otherworld has already published runequest gear. http://www.otherworlds.cx/rqadventures.html Perhaps they could be asked about how they went about interpretung all the rules etc of this method of publication? Tony From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 27 01:38:01 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:38:01 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/gloranthan gear on eBay In-Reply-To: <41383.196.8.104.37.1159257938.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <41383.196.8.104.37.1159257938.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0609260838q12b3a285qe110242c3d007afb@mail.gmail.com> link to all of Greg's sales: http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmrissaries On 9/26/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > IKs ee Greg Stafford is flogging off some of his RQ rarities on eBay. > Glroanthan coin, funny covered rulebooks etc.... > Tony > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060926/f36233ca/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 27 16:32:37 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:32:37 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear Message-ID: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> I was just thinking. If one were to go the Mongoose OGL route and poublish a RQ suppliment, say an adventure module. What is to stop one publishing conversions to RQ III/II as an appendix or from publishing NPC and monster stats in both formats. Tony From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Sep 27 18:05:06 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:05:06 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: >I was just thinking. If one were to go the Mongoose OGL route and poublish >a RQ suppliment, say an adventure module. What is to stop one publishing >conversions to RQ III/II as an appendix or from publishing NPC and monster >stats in both formats. Nothing technically - but then, there is nothing to stop you publishing an MRQ (or any other game) supplement now, irrespective of OGL or STL, provided you don't infringe Mongoose or Issaries or whoever's copyrights or Trademarks. I suspect however that Mongoose / Issaries would take a keen interest in what _exactly_ you included (especially if you are charging for it), as might Chaosium (since the _text_ of RQIII and possible II remains their copyright as far as I can tell). What action they could take if they objected I'm not sure, but Mongoose at least HAVE taken recourse to the courts in the past when they felt it necessary, so it would be dangerously naive to assume they wouldn't pursue legal redress. Bottom line, as ever: DON'T rely on internet mailing lists for advice, get professional legal advice and politely ASK Mongoose if what is planned is OK by them. They may well refuse to comment (as that's the safer legal option) or refuse permission without explanation if there's ANY ambiguity they are unhappy about in the proposal (as that's the cost effective option from their PoV) but either way it would be better to find out BEFORE committing money, time and effort to a project that might get cancelled, or even get one in to legal trouble... Cheers, Nick Middleton From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 27 18:35:54 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:35:54 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: References: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <18295.196.8.104.37.1159346154.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Very true what you say about professional opinions. Enmd of day its a pipe dream for me, I am one of them typoes who starts loits of stuff but hardly finishes, so for me to just get material on my site is a big enough challenge. Can't ever imagine actually going through wioth publishing an "official" product. > > Nothing technically - but then, there is nothing to stop you publishing an > MRQ (or any other game) supplement now, irrespective of OGL or STL, > provided you don't infringe Mongoose or Issaries or whoever's copyrights > or > Trademarks. > > I suspect however that Mongoose / Issaries would take a keen interest in > what _exactly_ you included (especially if you are charging for it), as > might Chaosium (since the _text_ of RQIII and possible II remains their > copyright as far as I can tell). What action they could take if they > objected I'm not sure, but Mongoose at least HAVE taken recourse to the > courts in the past when they felt it necessary, so it would be dangerously > naive to assume they wouldn't pursue legal redress. > > Bottom line, as ever: DON'T rely on internet mailing lists for advice, get > professional legal advice and politely ASK Mongoose if what is planned is > OK by them. They may well refuse to comment (as that's the safer legal > option) or refuse permission without explanation if there's ANY ambiguity > they are unhappy about in the proposal (as that's the cost effective > option > from their PoV) but either way it would be better to find out BEFORE > committing money, time and effort to a project that might get cancelled, > or > even get one in to legal trouble... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 27 18:36:47 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:36:47 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Next session Message-ID: <19430.196.8.104.37.1159346207.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Hi Guys When next did we say we were gonna play? I acxe so I can plan propoerly, need to design the town etc T From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 27 18:58:18 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:58:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Next session In-Reply-To: <19430.196.8.104.37.1159346207.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <19430.196.8.104.37.1159346207.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47804.196.8.104.37.1159347498.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Sorry lads, wrong list. > Hi Guys > > When next did we say we were gonna play? I acxe so I can plan propoerly, > need to design the town etc > T > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 27 21:43:19 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:43:19 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451A63D7.80102@brinkdata.se> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com skrev: > > Bottom line, as ever: DON'T rely on internet mailing lists for advice, get > professional legal advice and politely ASK Mongoose if what is planned is > OK by them. They may well refuse to comment (as that's the safer legal > option) or refuse permission without explanation if there's ANY ambiguity > they are unhappy about in the proposal (as that's the cost effective option > from their PoV) but either way it would be better to find out BEFORE > committing money, time and effort to a project that might get cancelled, or > even get one in to legal trouble... > If anyone on this list contemplates doing a *commercial* publication (i.e. publishing a pfd-product or printed product for, some kind of, monetary gain) then you should definitively not rely on the opinion's voiced on this list - get legal advice. That being said, some legal issues are not that complex and the general public should not have to seek out a lawyer in order to know what he or she can and cannot do. Private usage of trademarks in the European Union *is* such an issue. If you: 1) live in the European Union and 2) publish a work in the European Union (i.e. on a webserver situated in one of the member states) and 3) uses or refers to a trademark and 4) this usage is *not* done in the course of trade 5) then that usage falls outside the scope of the European trademark laws (as well as the member states' laws) This follows from the first sentence of art. 5 p.1 of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to Approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), which reads: "The registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade:". Usage which falls outside the course of trade are therefore not covered by the law, i.e. the trade mark owner is not allowed to do anything about them. In the U.K. Trademark Act of 1994 this is expresses in art. 10 p. 1 as: "Infringement of registered trade mark. 10.- (1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.". In Sweden we have chosen to make it very clear in our Trademark Act of 1960. In art. 1: "1. By means of registration in accordance with this Act a trader shall be entitled to acquire an exclusive right in a trademark as a special symbol for the purpose of distinguishing the goods which he offers for sale in his business from those offered by others.". A final example, the Germans have expressed it as follows in their Trade Mark Law of 1994. Art. 14 p. 2 reads: "(2) Third parties shall be prohibited from using in the course of trade, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark,...". That being said, do note that my comments are only of use in the EC, and only for usage *outside the course of trade*. /Peter Brink From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Sep 27 22:52:07 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:52:07 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <451A63D7.80102@brinkdata.se> References: <451A63D7.80102@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <19645.196.8.104.37.1159361527.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Peter Brink wrote: >> > > If anyone on this list contemplates doing a *commercial* publication > (i.e. publishing a pfd-product or printed product for, some kind of, > monetary gain) then you should definitively not rely on the opinion's > voiced on this list - get legal advice. That being said, some legal > issues are not that complex and the general public should not have to > seek out a lawyer in order to know what he or she can and cannot do. > Private usage of trademarks in the European Union *is* such an issue. > > If you: > 1) live in the European Union and > 2) publish a work in the European Union (i.e. on a webserver situated in > one of the member states) and > 3) uses or refers to a trademark and > 4) this usage is *not* done in the course of trade > 5) then that usage falls outside the scope of the European trademark > laws (as well as the member states' laws) Thanks Peter,, makes things quite clear. I also found this site which applies to me more than anyone else on the list I suspect: http://www.cyberlawsa.co.za/cyberlaw/cybertext/chapter3.htm Tony From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Sep 27 23:06:39 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:06:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <451A63D7.80102@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <20060927130639.99411.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Peter, That's handy to know! It's made me think of sticking some links to my Glorantha notes back on my web-site. I was always worried about putting something up that claiming that HeroQuest was a trademark of Issaries inc. when the trademark in the UK is held by Hasbro! Cheers, Ash --- Peter Brink wrote: > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com skrev: > > > > Bottom line, as ever: DON'T rely on internet > mailing lists for advice, get > > professional legal advice and politely ASK > Mongoose if what is planned is > > OK by them. They may well refuse to comment (as > that's the safer legal > > option) or refuse permission without explanation > if there's ANY ambiguity > > they are unhappy about in the proposal (as that's > the cost effective option > > from their PoV) but either way it would be better > to find out BEFORE > > committing money, time and effort to a project > that might get cancelled, or > > even get one in to legal trouble... > > > > If anyone on this list contemplates doing a > *commercial* publication > (i.e. publishing a pfd-product or printed product > for, some kind of, > monetary gain) then you should definitively not rely > on the opinion's > voiced on this list - get legal advice. That being > said, some legal > issues are not that complex and the general public > should not have to > seek out a lawyer in order to know what he or she > can and cannot do. > Private usage of trademarks in the European Union > *is* such an issue. > > If you: > 1) live in the European Union and > 2) publish a work in the European Union (i.e. on a > webserver situated in > one of the member states) and > 3) uses or refers to a trademark and > 4) this usage is *not* done in the course of trade > 5) then that usage falls outside the scope of the > European trademark > laws (as well as the member states' laws) > > This follows from the first sentence of art. 5 p.1 > of the First Council > Directive of 21 December 1988 to Approximate the > laws of the Member > States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), which > reads: "The > registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor > exclusive rights > therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent > all third parties > not having his consent from using in the course of > trade:". Usage which > falls outside the course of trade are therefore not > covered by the law, > i.e. the trade mark owner is not allowed to do > anything about them. > > In the U.K. Trademark Act of 1994 this is expresses > in art. 10 p. 1 as: > "Infringement of registered trade mark. > 10.- > (1) A person infringes a registered trade mark > if he uses in the > course of trade a sign which is identical with the > trade mark in > relation to goods or services which are identical > with those for which > it is registered.". > > In Sweden we have chosen to make it very clear in > our Trademark Act of > 1960. In art. 1: > "1. By means of registration in accordance with this > Act a trader shall > be entitled to acquire an exclusive right in a > trademark as a special > symbol for the purpose of distinguishing the goods > which he offers for > sale in his business from those offered by others.". > > A final example, the Germans have expressed it as > follows in their Trade > Mark Law of 1994. Art. 14 p. 2 reads: > "(2) Third parties shall be prohibited from using in > the course of > trade, without the consent of the proprietor of the > trade mark,...". > > That being said, do note that my comments are only > of use in the EC, and > only for usage *outside the course of trade*. > > /Peter Brink > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Sep 27 23:14:02 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:14:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <451A791A.2040201@zunder.org.uk> postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > I was just thinking. If one were to go the Mongoose OGL route and poublish > a RQ suppliment, say an adventure module. What is to stop one publishing > conversions to RQ III/II as an appendix or from publishing NPC and monster > stats in both formats. > Tony > If it is OGL then you can't use the RuneQuest trademark. BUT you could dual stat it as much as you like as OGL, just don't use the RQ trademark. Now, Peter B is right that for personal use and indeed in a text body one could refer to RuneQuest, I am only saying how I think Mongoose and WOTC 'think' that OGL works for businesses, and therefore avoid getting them annoyed with you. I think you could say on the cover 'OGL, suitable for d100 based games' and in the main body text on the back 'This scenario is suitable for use with games that use a percentile dice like RuneQuest or others.' Peter is also right, if you don't use any or much of the SRD (and he would say you can but be careful) then you could probably not include the OGL. However, to be safe I'd say include the OGL, specify closed and open content and don't actually say 'RuneQuest' too often or at all. Look at Mongoose's own OGL games for examples. For a scenario I'd actually go and use the RQ trademark licence and have it cleared by Mongoose, since you won't be using character gen or rules, just writing an adventure. All IMHO and not legal advice etc. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -- Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk AIM: tomzunder Yahoo: tzunder MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060927/d31df37f/attachment.vcf From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Sep 27 23:48:08 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:48:08 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <451A791A.2040201@zunder.org.uk> References: <44850.196.8.104.37.1159338757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <451A791A.2040201@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <451A8118.5030303@brinkdata.se> Thomas Zunder skrev: > postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: >> I was just thinking. If one were to go the Mongoose OGL route and >> poublish >> a RQ suppliment, say an adventure module. What is to stop one publishing >> conversions to RQ III/II as an appendix or from publishing NPC and >> monster >> stats in both formats. >> Tony >> > If it is OGL then you can't use the RuneQuest trademark. > BUT you could dual stat it as much as you like as OGL, just don't use > the RQ trademark. > > Now, Peter B is right that for personal use and indeed in a text body > one could refer to RuneQuest, I am only saying how I think Mongoose and > WOTC 'think' that OGL works for businesses, and therefore avoid getting > them annoyed with you. If you use the OGL you give this right away... > > I think you could say on the cover 'OGL, suitable for d100 based games' > and in the main body text on the back 'This scenario is suitable for use > with games that use a percentile dice like RuneQuest or others.' The OGL actually prohibits the use of *any* trade mark to indicate compatibility, not just the licensor's. So if one would use the OGL then one couldn't do this. One would have to write "This scenario is suitable for use with games that use a percentile dice". > > Peter is also right, if you don't use any or much of the SRD (and he > would say you can but be careful) then you could probably not include > the OGL. You probably meant "...use any or little of the SRD..." :) The question of whether *descriptions* of game rules are copyright protected (the rules as ideas are never protected) depend upon where you live. If you live (or plan to publish your work) outside Scandinavia, Tom's warning is warranted. Even though, IMHO, courts in continental Europe would be skeptical to copyright claims to the Mongoose SRD (and that's mainly because of how the SRD is written and not primarily because it's a game). *If you live outside Europe:* don't assume that you can copy verbatim from the SRD without permission from Mongoose (i.e. you need to use the OGL). *N.B!* If you describe an idea with your own words you are (in most jurisdictions) safe. This is how my rules repository works. People post their own house rules which are their own expressions of ideas that are partly taken from Runequest and other BRP games. The above statement about the copyright status of one's own expression of ideas (found in a published game) is AFAIK, and I do know some European IPR law, true for Europe as a whole, it should also be true in the rest of the world but don't take my word for it... > > However, to be safe I'd say include the OGL, specify closed and open > content and don't actually say 'RuneQuest' too often or at all. If you use the OGL you can't use "RuneQuest" without also agreeing to the RQ trademark license. That license btw really stinks, IMO, but I'll spare you my rants... ;) > > For a scenario I'd actually go and use the RQ trademark licence and have > it cleared by Mongoose, since you won't be using character gen or rules, > just writing an adventure. > If you are planning to sell the adventure on the net and across the globe - then I agree. /Peter Brink From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Sep 28 00:02:27 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <20060927130639.99411.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >That's handy to know! It's made me think of sticking >some links to my Glorantha notes back on my web-site. > >I was always worried about putting something up that >claiming that HeroQuest was a trademark of Issaries >inc. when the trademark in the UK is held by Hasbro! Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised _Hero Wars_ was titled _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by Hasbro that they (Hasbro) regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not contest Issaries registering it. And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the trademark _HeroQuest_ on the basis of active use, it's the LARP system 'HeroQuest' which has been running since the late eighties... Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Sep 28 00:13:11 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:13:11 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451A86F7.7010108@brinkdata.se> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com skrev: > > Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised _Hero Wars_ was titled > _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by Hasbro that they (Hasbro) > regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not contest Issaries registering > it. > > And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the trademark _HeroQuest_ on the > basis of active use, it's the LARP system 'HeroQuest' which has been > running since the late eighties... > Don't you mix up Heroquest with Runequest? See "The Creation of Hero Wars: 1998-2000" in the "A brief history of game" column at rpg.net: http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory4.phtml Btw Issaries most likely don't own the trade mark "Runequest" in Europe. It's not registered anywhere here and based on active use and the opinion of the relevant market I'd say that Chaosium is a more probable owner than either Issaries or Mongoose... /Peter Brink From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 28 00:38:26 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:38:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: References: <20060927130639.99411.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49205.196.8.104.37.1159367906.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Nick Middleton wrote: > > Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised _Hero Wars_ was titled > _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by Hasbro that they (Hasbro) > regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not contest Issaries > registering > it. > > And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the trademark _HeroQuest_ on the > basis of active use, it's the LARP system 'HeroQuest' which has been > running since the late eighties... > Isn't HeroQuest in the Uk still produced/licenced to Milton Bradley games? As I recall it was a wee dungeon crawl mini\atures/cross borad game? From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Sep 28 00:43:27 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:43:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <49205.196.8.104.37.1159367906.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: >> Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised _Hero Wars_ was titled >> _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by Hasbro that they (Hasbro) >> regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not contest Issaries >> registering >> it. >> >> And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the trademark _HeroQuest_ on the >> basis of active use, it's the LARP system 'HeroQuest' which has been >> running since the late eighties... >> >Isn't HeroQuest in the Uk still produced/licenced to Milton Bradley games? Who owns MB? Hasbro... >As I recall it was a wee dungeon crawl mini\atures/cross board game? Correct, designed by Games Workshop - but loooong out of production (over a decade IIRC). That trademark (which Hasbro, through owning MB, owned in the US and UK) lapsed after the game went out of production. Issaries acquired it back early this decade (probably around the same time they discovered that RuneQuest was up for grabs) as Hasbro had no interest in it. The tricky aspect in the UK is that there is a LARP system called HeroQuest which has been operating under that name sinc eIIRC the mid eighties (a few years BEFORE MB/GW's minatures/boardgame). There was quite a lot of grumbling about all this on uk.games.roleplay when Issaries Ince announced they were renaming "HeroWars" 2nd edition" as "HeroQuest" IIRC... Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 01:12:03 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:12:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? Message-ID: I'm bored out of my mind, and the current thread about Mongoose RQ legalities isn't something I'm interested in (I still plan to have as little to do with MRQ as possible), so...here. I've been playing D&D for a while now, since there's no one in the immediate area who plays RQ. And I was recently surprised to realize that there's a way in which modern D&D actually offers MORE flexibility than RQ. What's more, I suspect that unlike many aspects of D&D, *this* rule is actually not unrealistic. So why not steal the concept? It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - is it really true that MRQ has feat-like rules? - but the idea of being able to trade off chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance of attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 point of damage ratio. What do you think? Has anyone already tried this? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060927/6f76a955/attachment.html From anders at california.com Thu Sep 28 01:24:33 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:24:33 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:12:03 -0400 "Peter Maranci" wrote: [snip] > So why not steal the concept? > > It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a > new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave > me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - is it really true that > MRQ has feat-like rules? - but the idea of being able to trade off > chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes > some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but > it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. > > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack > skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance of > attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 > point of damage ratio. > > What do you think? Has anyone already tried this? > ->Peter Yeah, if you forget about old style improvement checks and go with Mongoose style hero points, you could charge outrageous numbers of points for a DnD feat. --Anders From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 01:31:18 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:31:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/27/06, Anders Swenson wrote: > > Yeah, if you forget about old style improvement checks and go with > Mongoose style hero points, you could charge outrageous numbers of points > for a DnD feat. Sheesh. Really? MRQ is using an equivalent of experience points? How lame! I should have clarified, perhaps: I'm not suggesting duplicating the feat portion of the rules. I HATE the idea of having special abilities that have to be "bought" - that almost always violates common sense. If it can be done, anyone should be able to do it. Or, perhaps, it could only be done by those who've achieved mastery of their combat skills - 90% or 100%, as you please. People with lower skills could attempt it, but with a chance of failure. I realize that this WOULD complicate combat quite a bit, so at most they could be optional rules for very combat-intense campaigns. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060927/6f83e44c/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Sep 28 01:32:00 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:32:00 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451A9970.4000705@brinkdata.se> Peter Maranci skrev: > > It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a > new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave > me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - The concept of binary skills aren't that bad. There are many kinds of experience that a character may either have or not have that makes sense to portray in a similar way to feats. You could for example simplify the RQIII encumbrance system by using the rules of RQII combined with a binary skill called "Armour Proficiency". If you have it there are no negative mods when fighting in armour, otherwise there is. > is it really true that MRQ has feat-like rules? - From what I've read on the net they do... (I don't own MRQ). > but the idea of being able to trade off > chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes > some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but > it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. > > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack > skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance of > attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 > point of damage ratio. > This is one situation where a binary skill is handy. Either you know how to fight defensively or you don't, if you do you can move up to 20 percentiles from your attack skill to your parry skill. Disarm, trip, break weapon etc. can be treated in similar ways. /Peter Brink From rog_benham at hotmail.com Thu Sep 28 01:41:54 2006 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:41:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060927/45db68f0/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 01:57:10 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:57:10 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <451A9970.4000705@brinkdata.se> References: <451A9970.4000705@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: On 9/27/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > The concept of binary skills aren't that bad. There are many kinds of > experience that a character may either have or not have that makes sense to > portray in a similar way to feats. You could for example simplify the RQIII > encumbrance system by using the rules of RQII combined with a binary skill > called "Armour Proficiency". If you have it there are no negative mods when > fighting in armour, otherwise there is. But is a binary skill realistic? It feels a bit "D&D" to me. This is one situation where a binary skill is handy. Either you know how to > fight defensively or you don't, if you do you can move up to 20 percentiles > from your attack skill to your parry skill. Disarm, trip, break weapon etc. > can be treated in similar ways. > Interesting...for some reason this reminds me of an issue that I've been pondering for many years: hit locations. There have been all sorts of rules for aimed shots, and none of them have quite worked for me. Perhaps...how about this? Each 5% of attack skill sacrificed can be used to add 1 point of damage (is that too much?), or 5% to parry or Dodge skill for that round. If having a skill of 100% or more gives a special ability, such as splitting parries, this special ability CANNOT be gained by sacrificing attack skill; the Parry or Dodge must already be 100% or more. Each 5% can also be used to shift the affected hit location by 1 point on the d20 roll, with modifications to reflect body continguity. That is, it should be possible to move from the abdomen to either leg with the same amount of shifting, and likewise it should be possible to shift from the chest to the abdomen, head, or either arm (I should try to make a new table for this purpose). Obviously most of these rules would apply to melee weapons only. Perhaps some weapons should be penalized for some of these special abilities - for example, a flail should probably be harder to aim. What about missile weapons? My gut feeling is that it's harder to aim a missile weapon at a specific hit location...actually, distance should be the primary factor. I'm sure it's much easier to deliberately shoot an arrow into a specific body part from point-blank range than from 50 meters away. How could this be represented in a rule? Also, should it be possible to sacrifice missile weapon attack skill to improve a defensive skill? Is that logical? It should be fairly rare...I suppose it could make sense to concentrate more on Dodging a nearby attacker, say, thereby subtracting from your Bow attack. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060927/bc507cee/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Sep 28 04:01:49 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:01:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060927180149.83763.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Nick, Hasbro renewed the trademark in the UK to HeroQuest in August 2004 (IIRC) so whatever they're saying to Greg in the US it aint happening in the UK. Cheers, Ash PS: They actually hold three UK trademarks, one of which specifies roleplaying games, the other two cover most of the different types of games you can think of. --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >That's handy to know! It's made me think of > sticking > >some links to my Glorantha notes back on my > web-site. > > > >I was always worried about putting something up > that > >claiming that HeroQuest was a trademark of Issaries > >inc. when the trademark in the UK is held by > Hasbro! > > Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised > _Hero Wars_ was titled > _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by Hasbro > that they (Hasbro) > regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not > contest Issaries registering > it. > > And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the trademark > _HeroQuest_ on the > basis of active use, it's the LARP system > 'HeroQuest' which has been > running since the late eighties... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Sep 28 04:04:30 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:04:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <49205.196.8.104.37.1159367906.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <20060927180431.3341.qmail@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Tony, Hasbro own MB these days. Again if my memory serves me right the game you're talking about was originally designed by a couple of designers from Games Workshop. Cheers, Ash --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Nick Middleton wrote: > > > > Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised > _Hero Wars_ was titled > > _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by > Hasbro that they (Hasbro) > > regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not > contest Issaries > > registering > > it. > > > > And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the > trademark _HeroQuest_ on the > > basis of active use, it's the LARP system > 'HeroQuest' which has been > > running since the late eighties... > > > Isn't HeroQuest in the Uk still produced/licenced to > Milton Bradley games? > As I recall it was a wee dungeon crawl > mini\atures/cross borad game? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Sep 28 04:15:59 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:15:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060927181559.10502.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Nick, The trademark hasn't lapsed, it's still valid 'til 2015 (It was actually renewed last year, my memory's crap): http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=1355871 Has the details. Whoever the LARP bunch are obviously didn't do their research very well! Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >> Err, as far as I am aware the reason the revised > _Hero Wars_ was titled > >> _HeroQuest_ was because Issaries were told by > Hasbro that they (Hasbro) > >> regarded the Trademark as lapsed and would not > contest Issaries > >> registering > >> it. > >> > >> And if anyone in the UK has a claim to the > trademark _HeroQuest_ on the > >> basis of active use, it's the LARP system > 'HeroQuest' which has been > >> running since the late eighties... > >> > >Isn't HeroQuest in the Uk still produced/licenced > to Milton Bradley games? > > Who owns MB? Hasbro... > > >As I recall it was a wee dungeon crawl > mini\atures/cross board game? > > Correct, designed by Games Workshop - but loooong > out of production (over > a decade IIRC). > > That trademark (which Hasbro, through owning MB, > owned in the US and UK) > lapsed after the game went out of production. > Issaries acquired it back > early this decade (probably around the same time > they discovered that > RuneQuest was up for grabs) as Hasbro had no > interest in it. > > The tricky aspect in the UK is that there is a LARP > system called HeroQuest > which has been operating under that name sinc eIIRC > the mid eighties (a few > years BEFORE MB/GW's minatures/boardgame). There was > quite a lot of > grumbling about all this on uk.games.roleplay when > Issaries Ince announced > they were renaming "HeroWars" 2nd edition" as > "HeroQuest" IIRC... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 28 09:54:27 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060927235427.15504.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > On 9/27/06, Anders Swenson > wrote: > > > > Yeah, if you forget about old style improvement > checks and go with > > Mongoose style hero points, you could charge > outrageous numbers of points > > for a DnD feat. > > > Sheesh. Really? MRQ is using an equivalent of > experience points? How lame! More like character points in GURPS/Hero System - that is, there awarded for roleplaying/completing the mission etc. You still have skill checks and training etc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anders at california.com Thu Sep 28 10:23:00 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:23:00 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Hero points or checks? In-Reply-To: <20060927235427.15504.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > On 9/27/06, Anders Swenson > > > > > Yeah, if you forget about old style improvement checks and go with > > > Mongoose style hero points, you could charge outrageous numbers of > > > points for a DnD feat. > > > > > > Sheesh. Really? MRQ is using an equivalent of > > experience points? How lame! > > More like character points in GURPS/Hero System - that > is, there awarded for roleplaying/completing the > mission etc. You still have skill checks and training > etc Well, I've been with RQ from the memiographed beginnings, and in my view the Mongoose version needs a bit of help. Once you accept the system of Hero system like reward points, (and the necessity to hand out more of them than Mongoose says to) there;s no reason not to use them for a bit of game expansion. Since I actually have a copy of the game (and have a few xtras, let me know privately), I've been slowly reading it. (GEEZ it's hard to read basic RQ over again!) Right now in my current game of Rayquest, we roll for the number of checks you get to add to your chr at the end of each game session. What your chr does in the campaign determines the fame level and that impacts the amount of will you can apply in the Hero plane, and also impacts promotion to advanced Cult and social levels. This works because the game is very small and inbred, and a lot of stuff is on the 'we all know this' level. For a more general system, the Mongoose Hero point system works as well as any to objectify character progress. If I were using MGRQ, I'd do a combination of checks and hero points, to remind the players to 'roll play' the intended direction of the chr. In this context, allowing DnD style feats as purchaseable for maybe 5 hero points seems reasonable as part of the given scale where maybe 12 gets you an old style Rune level. Maybe one day I'll translate some of the more interesting feats to work in RQ terms. Perhaps, on the other hand, they could be better modelled as cult specialty rune spells. I plan to find out if I can mirror the Rayquest material on my web page. --Anders From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Sep 28 16:45:50 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:45:50 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25610.196.8.104.37.1159425950.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Peter Maranci wrote: > > It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a > new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave > me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - is it really true > that > MRQ has feat-like rules? - but the idea of being able to trade off > chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes > some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but > it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. > > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack > skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance > of > attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 > point of damage ratio. > I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules my group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic skill and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. Tony From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Sep 28 17:34:24 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:34:24 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451B7B00.6010500@zunder.org.uk> Peter Maranci wrote: > > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your > attack skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade > the chance of attack skill success for additional points of damage, on > a 5% or 10% to 1 point of damage ratio. I think it's good. Just do it, not as a feat but as a house rule. OR say you have to have 75% skill to do it. That's why I dislike legendary thingies, a skill triggered type would be more RQ for me. It is fun in D&D. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060928/e6bfc1c8/attachment.vcf From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Sep 28 17:38:06 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:38:06 +0100 Subject: OT Re the HeroQuest name was Re: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: <20060927181559.10502.qmail@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ashley, >The trademark hasn't lapsed, it's still valid 'til >2015 (It was actually renewed last year, my memory's >crap): > > http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=1355871 > >Has the details. Whoever the LARP bunch are obviously >didn't do their research very well! Ooh, fascinating! But, since Mark Robert's "HeroQuest" LARP has been operating under that name since 1986 (two - three years before GW/MB's use of the name) I'd tentatively suggest it's Hasbro who didn't do their research very well... ;-) Mind, this does make one wonder what Hasbro UK think they are going to do with said Trademark - or perhaps it was just one in a "block" renewal of trademarks by their legal department, and they've missed the internal memo from head office in the US? Issaries Inc FAQ would certainly suggest so: http://www.glorantha.com/news/HQ-FAQ.html specifically: "What about Games Workshop? Don't they have a trademark for Heroquest? No, not any more. The board game Heroquest is out of print and no longer available. Games Workshop allowed their U.S. trademark to lapse. Issaries, Inc. is now using the HeroQuest trademark." So in the US "HeroQuest" is registered to Issaries (or so they claim), in the UK it's registered to Hasbro but in active use by the LARP bunch and has been continuously since 1986 as far as I am aware... Suddenly, the whole MRQ/RQ/MGP/Chaosium mess doesn't look so unusual :D But this is all a long way off topic for this list, my apologies to all. Cheers, Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Sep 28 18:36:51 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:36:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451B89A3.50100@zunder.org.uk> Peter Maranci wrote: > On 9/27/06, *Anders Swenson* > wrote: > > Yeah, if you forget about old style improvement checks and go with > Mongoose style hero points, you could charge outrageous numbers of > points for a DnD feat. > > > Sheesh. Really? MRQ is using an equivalent of experience points? How lame! Yup, in *parallel* with usual experience checks. I don't mind modern xp systems, they have their points (1-5 points, prevents jack of all trades, allows player control) *but* not as well as another. Look at Conan rpg. They could have made a simpler bloodier d20. No, they added rules to make a rawer game. Look at MRQ, they continually tried to *add* rules. They are so AD&D in mindset. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060928/45ad9eda/attachment.vcf From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Sep 28 18:38:17 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:38:17 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451B89F9.6060207@zunder.org.uk> Roger Benham wrote: > > I think its a good idea. Following on from what Peter said, perhaps > its only applicable to people with skills of 100%+, they simply use > the excess over 100% to apply wherever they want. It would explain > why some Runelords are particularly nasty. > I like a game with more funk lower so I'd say 75%, which is a nice level for me, but we could go with whatever the ref likes. Peter M, why not pop it into Peter B's repository? -- Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk AIM: tomzunder Yahoo: tzunder MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060928/fbb24da8/attachment.vcf From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Fri Sep 29 01:24:41 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > > It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a > > new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave > > me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - is it really true > > that > > MRQ has feat-like rules? - but the idea of being able to trade off > > chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes > > some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but > > it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. > > > > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack > > skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance > > of > > attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 > > point of damage ratio. > > > I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a > specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. > Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules my > group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could > then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called > shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic skill > and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, > reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Sep 29 01:30:52 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:30:52 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> Message-ID: >> Peter Maranci wrote: >> >> > >> > It's based on the Power Attack and Expertise feats. I took them both for a >> > new character, and was surprised to realize how much flexibility they gave >> > me in combat. Now, the feat concept *itself* sucks - is it really true >> > that >> > MRQ has feat-like rules? - but the idea of being able to trade off >> > chance-to-hit to increase defense, or to increase damage, actually makes >> > some sense to me. My combat experience is limited to boffers in LARPs, but >> > it seems to me that both concepts would map pretty well to reality. >> > >> > So perhaps it should be possible to sacrifice up to 1/10th of your attack >> > skill and add it directly to your parry or Dodge. Or to trade the chance >> > of >> > attack skill success for additional points of damage, on a 5% or 10% to 1 >> > point of damage ratio. >> > >> I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a >> specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. >> Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules my >> group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could >> then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called >> shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic skill >> and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, >> reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. > >Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja Or the standard benefit in RQII of being a RuneLord and having Broadsword 125 - the fact that you still got to roll vs Broadsword 100, but your opponents parry was at -25... A rule that, having recently re-discovered I can't help feeling could be generalised in all sorts of ways if one wanted to... Cheers, Nick Middleton From anders at california.com Fri Sep 29 01:34:29 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:34:29 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) Stephen Posey wrote: > > ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja > Oh, the memories, the memories! --Anders From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Fri Sep 29 01:36:26 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:36:26 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609281536.LAA28981@centaur.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > > > Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja > > > Oh, the memories, the memories! > --Anders Oh indeed? Do tell, do tell! Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Sep 29 01:58:13 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:58:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Trademarks In-Reply-To: <20060928083857.0E36CC888A9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060928155813.57693.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> As fascinating (yawn!) as the discussion on who holds which Trademarks in which country is, does it really matter? I don't care who holds trademarks, who has the rights to a game and so on. If I wanted to buy RuneQuest or HeroQuest then I would be interested, but then I would take proper legal advice over it and not trust 20 web-based opinions . It's not the first time we have been treated to such an interesting discussion on Trademarks and I am sure it won't be the last, but nothing will ever be achieved by discussing who hold which trademarks. Unfortunately, as I get the RQ Digest in Digest mode, I can't choose to skip those discussions, I have to risk RSI on my Page Down finger. So, please, if you care about me not being crippled and not getting RSI, stop with the Trademark discussions. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060928/76509511/attachment.html From anders at california.com Fri Sep 29 06:58:20 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:58:20 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609281536.LAA28981@centaur.cnc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:36:26 -0600 (MDT) Stephen Posey wrote: > > ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) > > Stephen Posey wrote: >> > Oh, the memories, the memories! > > --Anders > > Oh indeed? Do tell, do tell! > Not much to say, Steve Perrin worked at Chaosium back in the day, I hung around there a lot, I don't have a lot of prepared anictdotes, sad to relate. Land of Ninja was a bit of an exploitation, once again trying to translate second party sources on medeival Japan to fit the expectations of gamers raised on DnD didn't quite work, due in part to the perceived monolithic nature of the feudal governmnet, etc. etc. I was always hoping for a D% version of BUSHIDO, it never came to pass, I should not have been suprised. --Anders From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Fri Sep 29 08:12:49 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:12:49 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609282212.SAA02586@courageux.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:36:26 -0600 (MDT) > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) > > > Stephen Posey wrote: > >> > Oh, the memories, the memories! > > > --Anders > > > > Oh indeed? Do tell, do tell! > > > Not much to say, Steve Perrin worked at Chaosium back in the day, I hung > around there a lot, I don't have a lot of prepared anictdotes, sad to relate. > > Land of Ninja was a bit of an exploitation, Is that right? I always thought LoN was one of the better concieved and executed of the AH:RQ3 supplements. > once again trying to translate > second party sources on medeival Japan to fit the expectations of gamers > raised on DnD didn't quite work, due in part to the perceived monolithic > nature of the feudal governmnet, etc. etc. I fear that will always be something of a niche market, there's only so many folks who are willing to stretch themselves for an RPG. Even gaming Glorantha to any level of consistency requires some dedication; much less the likes of "Nippon", Tekumel, Talislanta, or Jorune. Which explains the popularity of the more generic D&D settings (Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms). The "Dark Sun/Athas" setting was arguably one of the most interesting the TSaRs ever came up with, but it was also apparently one of the least popular, as evidenced by its relatively low number of materials and short life span. > I was always hoping for a D% version of BUSHIDO, it never came to pass, I > should not have been suprised. That would have been nice, but IMO the old Hume/Charrette RPG engine is sufficiently close that converting stuff isn't all THAT hard. I generally treat Bushido, Aftermath! and Daredevils as "almost-BRP" supplements. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From anders at california.com Fri Sep 29 08:45:29 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:45:29 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609282212.SAA02586@courageux.cnc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:12:49 -0600 (MDT) Stephen Posey wrote: > Is that right? I always thought LoN was one of the better concieved and > executed of the AH:RQ3 supplements. In my view, it shows from the quite lame scenarios suggested for the game, soldiars on outpost duty, etc. > Even gaming Glorantha to any level of consistency requires some dedication; > much less the likes of "Nippon", Tekumel, Talislanta, or Jorune. Now there's a rare one: EPT in D%! I am a big EPT fan, and I've been toying with an MRQ adaption. Anything has to work better than the GOO 6-stat solution! > Which explains the popularity of the more generic D&D settings (Greyhawk > and Forgotten Realms). The "Dark Sun/Athas" setting was arguably one of the > most interesting the TSaRs ever came up with, but it was also apparently > one of the least popular, as evidenced by its relatively low number of > materials and short life span. Ive always tried to run DnD in a specific game world, I'm in an Eberron campaign, and I certainly appreciate the richness. It's hard IMHO to separate the internal politics at the old TSR from any marketing based decisions. > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net --Anders From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Fri Sep 29 09:17:30 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:17:30 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609282317.TAA01305@bellerophon.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > Even gaming Glorantha to any level of consistency requires some dedication; > > much less the likes of "Nippon", Tekumel, Talislanta, or Jorune. > > Now there's a rare one: EPT in D%! I am a big EPT fan, and I've been toying > with an MRQ adaption. Anything has to work better than the GOO 6-stat > solution! I've been an avid Tekumel-phile ever since I got a copy of the original EPT back in 1980 or therabouts. I concur on the GOO system, there's something about it that just doesn't sit well with me. I've been pondering doing some BRP adaptations from Swords & Glory and Gardasiyal for a while, they remain mostly in the "thinking about it" stage for now :-/ I presume you're familar with Sandy Petersen's EPT Runequest? > > Which explains the popularity of the more generic D&D settings (Greyhawk > > and Forgotten Realms). The "Dark Sun/Athas" setting was arguably one of the > > most interesting the TSaRs ever came up with, but it was also apparently > > one of the least popular, as evidenced by its relatively low number of > > materials and short life span. > > Ive always tried to run DnD in a specific game world, I'm in an Eberron > campaign, and I certainly appreciate the richness. It's hard IMHO to separate > the internal politics at the old TSR from any marketing based decisions. Out of curiosity, what is it about Eberron that you like? I've looked a a few of the new D20 worlds (Monte Cook's "Arcana" and "Iron Heroes", Sword & Sorcery Studio's "Scarred Lands", Fantasy Flight's "Midnight"), all of them have some things to recommend them; but I haven't found one that's so compelling I just HAVE to run it. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From anders at california.com Fri Sep 29 10:05:19 2006 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:05:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609282317.TAA01305@bellerophon.cnc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:17:30 -0600 (MDT) Stephen Posey wrote: > Out of curiosity, what is it about Eberron that you like? I like the good level of consistant detail, the basic urban orientation of the human culture, and the fact that I can play a robot. And no, I may have seen Sandy's EPT RQ, but I don't recall it at this date. Is there a web soruce for it? --Anders From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Sep 29 16:49:39 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:49:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060929064939.30783.qmail@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Didn't one of the designers of Bushido work on Land of Exploitation, Sorry, Ninja with Sandy Peterson? Cheers, Ash --- Anders Swenson wrote: > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:36:26 -0600 (MDT) > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:24:41 -0600 (MDT) > > > Stephen Posey wrote: > >> > Oh, the memories, the memories! > > > --Anders > > > > Oh indeed? Do tell, do tell! > > > Not much to say, Steve Perrin worked at Chaosium > back in the day, I hung > around there a lot, I don't have a lot of prepared > anictdotes, sad to relate. > > Land of Ninja was a bit of an exploitation, once > again trying to translate > second party sources on medeival Japan to fit the > expectations of gamers > raised on DnD didn't quite work, due in part to the > perceived monolithic > nature of the feudal governmnet, etc. etc. > > I was always hoping for a D% version of BUSHIDO, it > never came to pass, I > should not have been suprised. > --Anders > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From DevinC at aol.com Fri Sep 29 16:51:41 2006 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:51:41 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? Message-ID: <534.8457b6d.324e1c7d@aol.com> In a message dated 9/28/2006 11:50:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: "Didn't one of the designers of Bushido work on Land of Exploitation, Sorry, Ninja with Sandy Peterson?" I remember Bushido. The system where, to represent peasant rabble, you were advised to take a bunch of D6 and toss them onto the gaming table. Wherever the dice landed were the peasants, and whatever number came up was the peasant's hit points. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/b8c19ccb/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Sep 29 17:48:39 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:48:39 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <20060929064939.30783.qmail@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >Didn't one of the designers of Bushido work on Land of >Exploitation, Sorry, Ninja with Sandy Peterson? Robert Charette? Who also co-created Aftermath (Daredevil! as well I think) and subsequently Shadowrun IIRC. Cheers, Nick Middleton From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 29 21:17:37 2006 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:37 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> References: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> Message-ID: <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Stephen pPsey wrote: > >>> I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a >> specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. >> Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules my >> group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could >> then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called >> shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic skill >> and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, >> reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. > > Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja > Now I am embarrased. I have land of ninja but apart from the odd browse have never read it properly. Will be sure to look into Ki and see if I can start incorporating into my game. Wanted my next character to use a katana or such anyway. Tony From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 22:21:54 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:21:54 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: I rather liked Land of Ninja; it seemed pretty well written. Never actually *played* it, though. The only Asian-themed RPG I've played is Bushido. I enjoyed it a lot, but ran up against an annoying problem: differing levels of understanding of Japanese culture. But don't get me started. :D As for Ki skills, at the time I thought they'd make a decent substitute for the HeroQuest that Chaosium had been promising for so many years and never delivered on; so I adopted them for the "Hero Skills" section of my article on HeroQuesting, which is still online at my site. http://www.runequest.org/hqskills.htm ->Peter On 9/29/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Stephen pPsey wrote: > > > >>> I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a > >> specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. > >> Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules > my > >> group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could > >> then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called > >> shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic > skill > >> and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, > >> reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. > > > > Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja > > > Now I am embarrased. I have land of ninja but apart from the odd browse > have never read it properly. Will be sure to look into Ki and see if I can > start incorporating into my game. Wanted my next character to use a katana > or such anyway. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/b0cea4d9/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Sep 29 22:35:55 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:35:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <451D132B.2000702@zunder.org.uk> I liked Lands of Ninja. -- Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk AIM: tomzunder Yahoo: tzunder MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 121 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/326653af/attachment.vcf From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Sep 30 00:57:43 2006 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <534.8457b6d.324e1c7d@aol.com> References: <534.8457b6d.324e1c7d@aol.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20060929075622.01b40c88@comcast.net> At 11:51 PM 9/28/2006, you wrote: >I remember Bushido. The system where, to represent peasant rabble, you were advised to take a bunch of D6 and toss them onto the gaming table. Wherever the dice landed were the peasants, and whatever number came up was the peasant's hit points. > >Devin I have been playing Bushido as long as I have been playing RuneQuest (since 1978) and I don't remember that... good idea, but not in the books. (maybe in the Phoenix version... I will have to go look). Lorgryt http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ A forum... like others... ==== If you are so Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome? From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Sat Sep 30 01:49:56 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:49:56 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609291549.LAA27717@centaur.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:17:30 -0600 (MDT) > Stephen Posey wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what is it about Eberron that you like? > > I like the good level of consistant detail, the basic urban orientation of > the human culture, and the fact that I can play a robot. I didn't realize from the descriptions I'd seen that there was a "techno" angle to it. > And no, I may have seen Sandy's EPT RQ, but I don't recall it at this \ > date. Is there a web soruce for it? Sure, you can pick a recent version on Tekumel.com: http://www.tekumel.com/gaming_unofficialrules.html Someone on one of the BRP related lists (sorry, I'm drawing a blank on whom just now) recently sent me some additional BRP-Tekumel related stuff. I'll forward all that to you sometime soon also. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Sat Sep 30 01:54:42 2006 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:54:42 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609291554.LAA04546@centaur.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:17:30 -0600 (MDT) > Stephen Posey wrote: > > And no, I may have seen Sandy's EPT RQ, but I don't recall it at this > date. Is there a web soruce for it? BTW, if you're interested in things Tekumel, you might also care to join the Tekumel Yahoo group. It's open both to general discussions of Tekumel source material and of rule system represntations. Some good old guard Tekumel RPGers there, and the Professor himself is known to post on the odd occasion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tekumel/ Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From tiggermb at verizon.net Sat Sep 30 09:08:19 2006 From: tiggermb at verizon.net (tiggermb at verizon.net) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group Message-ID: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Greeting all! After looking on the web I found an active Runequest rules list!. I am amazed! And I found that a new version of Runequest were recently published. Double amazing! Anyways ? I started looking up Runequest stuff on the web because I was recently convinced to join a D+D group after a 10-15 year hiatus where I only role-played once a year (maybe even less) at conventions or similar special occasions. None of us are completely familiar with D+D 3.5, so we spend a lot of time looking up some rules Playing this weekly game had me look through my old roleplaying stuff, and there I found my AH RQIII box set. Ah ,The memories! ? most of my actual play experience was with RQII rules, but I bought the box set when it came out after our RQII group broke up. Over the last 20 years I have only played it a few times, but there are aspects to the combat system that I really enjoy. As many people have noted, the magic system tends to get fiddled with a bit, but since I have not played in a long time I am not thinking about the shortcomings of the system. Looking at the box set, and looking at RQIII I was thinking to myself ? ?I could run an RQ adventure for our group and we would spend less time looking up rules than we do now?. So I asked the group if they might be interested in a One-Shot RQ adventure. I got a very unenthusiastic positive response. Which leads me to where I am now; Trying to make an introductory adventure that will allow people to learn the RQ system and not be overwhelmed. So far I have the following ideas. 1) Pre-Gen Characters. This is a one-shot, and will be more like a tournament. Pre Gen characters will give me a better control over the game. 2) Spirit magic only. Sorcery is a tough to use system, and many of the divine spells mimic spirit spells. The adventure starts out with the characters stripped of all items in a slave pen. Yes it?s heavily inspired the old AD+D Slavers modules, but this allows for a great build up of the combat rules. Characters start out fighting hand to hand, simple ?roll the dice to hit, and roll the dice to dodge?. After a couple of fights, character gets a weapon and the player learns the parry rules, and also learns the encumbrance rules. After a couple more encounters the players get armor and learn the rules for armor and about fatigue. SO ? the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a newbie RQ group. Well ? that?s a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am coming from so future posts might make more sense. I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save those for later. Thanks in advance all! MB From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sat Sep 30 09:24:37 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:24:37 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group In-Reply-To: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <000001c6e41e$6f015d30$0201a8c0@laptop2> I'd ignore the fatigue rules. Unless book-keeping is a favored activity of your group. -- Joe SO - the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a newbie RQ group. Well - that's a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am coming from so future posts might make more sense. I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save those for later. Thanks in advance all! MB From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Sep 30 09:29:54 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:29:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group In-Reply-To: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <004e01c6e41f$2e11dec0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> General suggestion; -if you're dealing with pre-gen characters make sure they have an assortment of mid level skills, so you can use situational modifiers and not have a bunch of missed rolls. If starting with hand to hand give them 60%+ with punch or grapple and 40%+ with kick. It will also demonstrate the contrast once they get those new weapons. -give them plenty of obstacles as opportunity to attempt a variety of skills (ie give them lots of dots / ticks). -give piecemeal armor and be explicit about damage to specific hit locations and the side effects if any. Maybe an opponent has a wound from an earlier battle that they can try to exploit. -make the first battle quick and let them roll to go up early to see the improvements, and maybe a round of training on top of that. -as for rules, I would ignore encumbrance for the first session since the lightly armored characters will not likely get fatigued. Just some thoughts. Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of tiggermb at verizon.net Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:08 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group Greeting all! After looking on the web I found an active Runequest rules list!. I am amazed! And I found that a new version of Runequest were recently published. Double amazing! Anyways - I started looking up Runequest stuff on the web because I was recently convinced to join a D+D group after a 10-15 year hiatus where I only role-played once a year (maybe even less) at conventions or similar special occasions. None of us are completely familiar with D+D 3.5, so we spend a lot of time looking up some rules. Playing this weekly game had me look through my old roleplaying stuff, and there I found my AH RQIII box set. Ah ,The memories! - most of my actual play experience was with RQII rules, but I bought the box set when it came out after our RQII group broke up. Over the last 20 years I have only played it a few times, but there are aspects to the combat system that I really enjoy. As many people have noted, the magic system tends to get fiddled with a bit, but since I have not played in a long time I am not thinking about the shortcomings of the system. Looking at the box set, and looking at RQIII I was thinking to myself - "I could run an RQ adventure for our group and we would spend less time looking up rules than we do now". So I asked the group if they might be interested in a One-Shot RQ adventure. I got a very unenthusiastic positive response. Which leads me to where I am now; Trying to make an introductory adventure that will allow people to learn the RQ system and not be overwhelmed. So far I have the following ideas. 1) Pre-Gen Characters. This is a one-shot, and will be more like a tournament. Pre Gen characters will give me a better control over the game. 2) Spirit magic only. Sorcery is a tough to use system, and many of the divine spells mimic spirit spells. The adventure starts out with the characters stripped of all items in a slave pen. Yes it's heavily inspired the old AD+D Slavers modules, but this allows for a great build up of the combat rules. Characters start out fighting hand to hand, simple "roll the dice to hit, and roll the dice to dodge". After a couple of fights, character gets a weapon and the player learns the parry rules, and also learns the encumbrance rules. After a couple more encounters the players get armor and learn the rules for armor and about fatigue. SO - the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a newbie RQ group. Well - that's a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am coming from so future posts might make more sense. I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save those for later. Thanks in advance all! MB _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Sep 30 10:17:33 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:17:33 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group In-Reply-To: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: I would consentrate on the story, and not expose the characters to the rules at all, just rolling the dice. If you were to focus on playability, I'd skip the fatigue-rules and drop shamans. Sourcery is actually quite simple, it's just a problem becoming good (as it takes long time to become good) I'd try to focus on mood and setting, let them play low-level characters (peassants in a farmstead, or somthing), letting them have to cope with a cattletheft or somthing like that by not-so-competent thieves. (If you play Glorantha, I'd recomend Broos or trollkin as the "enemy" as they are (can be) easy opposition combat/tactic-wise, and that they are quite special compared to other RPG's) >From: >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group >Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:08:19 -0500 (CDT) > >Greeting all! > >After looking on the web I found an active Runequest rules list!. I am >amazed! And I found that a new version of Runequest were recently >published. Double amazing! > >Anyways ? I started looking up Runequest stuff on the web because I was >recently convinced to join a D+D group after a 10-15 year hiatus where I >only role-played once a year (maybe even less) at conventions or similar >special occasions. None of us are completely familiar with D+D 3.5, so we >spend a lot of time looking up some rules? > >Playing this weekly game had me look through my old roleplaying stuff, and >there I found my AH RQIII box set. Ah ,The memories! ? most of my actual >play experience was with RQII rules, but I bought the box set when it came >out after our RQII group broke up. Over the last 20 years I have only >played it a few times, but there are aspects to the combat system that I >really enjoy. As many people have noted, the magic system tends to get >fiddled with a bit, but since I have not played in a long time I am not >thinking about the shortcomings of the system. Looking at the box set, and >looking at RQIII I was thinking to myself ? ?I could run an RQ adventure >for our group and we would spend less time looking up rules than we do >now?. So I asked the group if they might be interested in a One-Shot RQ >adventure. I got a very unenthusiastic positive response. > >Which leads me to where I am now; Trying to make an introductory adventure >that will allow people to learn the RQ system and not be overwhelmed. So >far I have the following ideas. > >1) Pre-Gen Characters. This is a one-shot, and will be more like a >tournament. Pre Gen characters will give me a better control over the game. > >2) Spirit magic only. Sorcery is a tough to use system, and many of the >divine spells mimic spirit spells. > >The adventure starts out with the characters stripped of all items in a >slave pen. Yes it?s heavily inspired the old AD+D Slavers modules, but this >allows for a great build up of the combat rules. Characters start out >fighting hand to hand, simple ?roll the dice to hit, and roll the dice to >dodge?. After a couple of fights, character gets a weapon and the player >learns the parry rules, and also learns the encumbrance rules. After a >couple more encounters the players get armor and learn the rules for armor >and about fatigue. > >SO ? the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or >NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think >make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What >things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a >newbie RQ group. > >Well ? that?s a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am >coming from so future posts might make more sense. > >I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save those >for later. > >Thanks in advance all! > >MB > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 12:33:03 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:33:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group In-Reply-To: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> References: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: Hi, MB! Welcome! As it happens, I wrote an introductory RQ adventure that pretty much matches what you're talking about. I designed it to be run at conventions, for people who were totally unfamiliar with the system and didn't have much time to have it explained to them; I used a simplified version of the rules, and pre-generated characters. The pre-gens are designed as little booklets, a single sheet to be folded in half. One of the four "pages" has a simplified introduction to Glorantha (although I no longer support that world), another "page" sketches out a simplified version of RQ, and the other two are about the character. It's on my website - pre-gens, maps, the works - at http://www.runequest.org/tkam.htm . Or you can download the whole thing zipped into a single package from http://www.runequest.org/tkam.zip . I realize that you probably want to design your own adventure, but maybe you can get some useful ideas from mine. By the way, this list has been around, in one form or another for...it must have been over eleven years, at least. And there's not just one, but actually THREE versions of RuneQuest either currently on the market or soon to become so; in addition to Mongoose RuneQuest, Chaosium has published the RQIII rulebooks as Basic RolePlaying monographs. They're the complete text of the original works, except that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced throughout with "Basic Roleplaying", and all references to Glorantha have been removed. Also, Chaosium is going to be bringing out a multi-genre edition of Basic Roleplaying, utilizing rules from every iteration of BRP - including RQ. It's closer to the RQ system than Mongoose RQ is, in my opinion. Chaosium hasn't announced a publication date yet, but the books are pretty well along in playtest. ->Peter On 9/29/06, tiggermb at verizon.net wrote: > > Greeting all! > > After looking on the web I found an active Runequest rules list!. I am > amazed! And I found that a new version of Runequest were recently > published. Double amazing! > > Anyways ? I started looking up Runequest stuff on the web because I was > recently convinced to join a D+D group after a 10-15 year hiatus where I > only role-played once a year (maybe even less) at conventions or similar > special occasions. None of us are completely familiar with D+D 3.5, so we > spend a lot of time looking up some rules? > > Playing this weekly game had me look through my old roleplaying stuff, and > there I found my AH RQIII box set. Ah ,The memories! ? most of my actual > play experience was with RQII rules, but I bought the box set when it came > out after our RQII group broke up. Over the last 20 years I have only played > it a few times, but there are aspects to the combat system that I really > enjoy. As many people have noted, the magic system tends to get fiddled with > a bit, but since I have not played in a long time I am not thinking about > the shortcomings of the system. Looking at the box set, and looking at RQIII > I was thinking to myself ? "I could run an RQ adventure for our group and we > would spend less time looking up rules than we do now". So I asked the group > if they might be interested in a One-Shot RQ adventure. I got a very > unenthusiastic positive response. > > Which leads me to where I am now; Trying to make an introductory adventure > that will allow people to learn the RQ system and not be overwhelmed. So far > I have the following ideas. > > 1) Pre-Gen Characters. This is a one-shot, and will be more like a > tournament. Pre Gen characters will give me a better control over the game. > > 2) Spirit magic only. Sorcery is a tough to use system, and many of the > divine spells mimic spirit spells. > > The adventure starts out with the characters stripped of all items in a > slave pen. Yes it's heavily inspired the old AD+D Slavers modules, but this > allows for a great build up of the combat rules. Characters start out > fighting hand to hand, simple "roll the dice to hit, and roll the dice to > dodge". After a couple of fights, character gets a weapon and the player > learns the parry rules, and also learns the encumbrance rules. After a > couple more encounters the players get armor and learn the rules for armor > and about fatigue. > > SO ? the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or > NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think > make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What > things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a > newbie RQ group. > > Well ? that's a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am > coming from so future posts might make more sense. > > I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save > those for later. > > Thanks in advance all! > > MB > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/a29e9a7a/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 30 12:47:08 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:47:08 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group References: <30740150.578741159571299096.JavaMail.root@vms172.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <002401c6e43a$b9111b60$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> And if you go to my website, www.perrinworlds.com, you'll see my SPQR rules, which are probably more complex than you are looking for at the moment...:) Steve Perrin, who had something to do with RuneQuest... ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Introduction: What do you do with a newbie group Hi, MB! Welcome! As it happens, I wrote an introductory RQ adventure that pretty much matches what you're talking about. I designed it to be run at conventions, for people who were totally unfamiliar with the system and didn't have much time to have it explained to them; I used a simplified version of the rules, and pre-generated characters. The pre-gens are designed as little booklets, a single sheet to be folded in half. One of the four "pages" has a simplified introduction to Glorantha (although I no longer support that world), another "page" sketches out a simplified version of RQ, and the other two are about the character. It's on my website - pre-gens, maps, the works - at http://www.runequest.org/tkam.htm . Or you can download the whole thing zipped into a single package from http://www.runequest.org/tkam.zip . I realize that you probably want to design your own adventure, but maybe you can get some useful ideas from mine. By the way, this list has been around, in one form or another for...it must have been over eleven years, at least. And there's not just one, but actually THREE versions of RuneQuest either currently on the market or soon to become so; in addition to Mongoose RuneQuest, Chaosium has published the RQIII rulebooks as Basic RolePlaying monographs. They're the complete text of the original works, except that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced throughout with "Basic Roleplaying", and all references to Glorantha have been removed. Also, Chaosium is going to be bringing out a multi-genre edition of Basic Roleplaying, utilizing rules from every iteration of BRP - including RQ. It's closer to the RQ system than Mongoose RQ is, in my opinion. Chaosium hasn't announced a publication date yet, but the books are pretty well along in playtest. ->Peter On 9/29/06, tiggermb at verizon.net wrote: Greeting all! After looking on the web I found an active Runequest rules list!. I am amazed! And I found that a new version of Runequest were recently published. Double amazing! Anyways ? I started looking up Runequest stuff on the web because I was recently convinced to join a D+D group after a 10-15 year hiatus where I only role-played once a year (maybe even less) at conventions or similar special occasions. None of us are completely familiar with D+D 3.5, so we spend a lot of time looking up some rules? Playing this weekly game had me look through my old roleplaying stuff, and there I found my AH RQIII box set. Ah ,The memories! ? most of my actual play experience was with RQII rules, but I bought the box set when it came out after our RQII group broke up. Over the last 20 years I have only played it a few times, but there are aspects to the combat system that I really enjoy. As many people have noted, the magic system tends to get fiddled with a bit, but since I have not played in a long time I am not thinking about the shortcomings of the system. Looking at the box set, and looking at RQIII I was thinking to myself ? "I could run an RQ adventure for our group and we would spend less time looking up rules than we do now". So I asked the group if they might be interested in a One-Shot RQ adventure. I got a very unenthusiastic positive response. Which leads me to where I am now; Trying to make an introductory adventure that will allow people to learn the RQ system and not be overwhelmed. So far I have the following ideas. 1) Pre-Gen Characters. This is a one-shot, and will be more like a tournament. Pre Gen characters will give me a better control over the game. 2) Spirit magic only. Sorcery is a tough to use system, and many of the divine spells mimic spirit spells. The adventure starts out with the characters stripped of all items in a slave pen. Yes it's heavily inspired the old AD+D Slavers modules, but this allows for a great build up of the combat rules. Characters start out fighting hand to hand, simple "roll the dice to hit, and roll the dice to dodge". After a couple of fights, character gets a weapon and the player learns the parry rules, and also learns the encumbrance rules. After a couple more encounters the players get armor and learn the rules for armor and about fatigue. SO ? the question to people here is, what rules would people recommend or NOT recommend for a newbie RQ group? What variants of rules do you think make things easier? (Especially in the realm of fatigue or magic). What things do you think would be particularly fun/useful to do with (or to) a newbie RQ group. Well ? that's a lot to write to start out with. It tells you where I am coming from so future posts might make more sense. I also have a couple more general RQ rules questions, but I will save those for later. Thanks in advance all! MB _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/18ccb66a/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Sat Sep 30 11:47:56 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:47:56 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? In-Reply-To: <451D132B.2000702@zunder.org.uk> References: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net> <4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <451D132B.2000702@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: On 29-Sep-06, at 6:35 AM, Thomas Zunder wrote: > I liked Lands of Ninja. > Boku mo. From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Sep 30 12:51:17 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:51:17 -0700 Subject: RRe: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? References: <200609281524.LAA17462@courageux.cnc.net><4372.196.8.104.37.1159528657.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <000001c6e458$187fee10$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> During the MRQ playtests, I came up with the idea of -30 increments to skills to get special results. I'm thinking about incorporating it into SPQR. For a lot of exotic maneuvers, I used two skills. One was Martial Arts from RQ3, which I used to let PCs do exotic things with extra damage, more successful parries, etc. One was Maneuver, which was suggested to me by Roderick Robertson in the course of a playtest. This is what I used for allowing PCs to move and fight, keep out of the hands of pursuers, cause knockback, and so forth. One of the reasons I haven't done the Skills chapter in SPQR yet is that I haven't formulated all the possibilities in my mind. Perhaps I'll combine the ideas of the special skills and the -30 increments into one general skill... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Heresy: D&D concepts in RQ? I rather liked Land of Ninja; it seemed pretty well written. Never actually *played* it, though. The only Asian-themed RPG I've played is Bushido. I enjoyed it a lot, but ran up against an annoying problem: differing levels of understanding of Japanese culture. But don't get me started. :D As for Ki skills, at the time I thought they'd make a decent substitute for the HeroQuest that Chaosium had been promising for so many years and never delivered on; so I adopted them for the "Hero Skills" section of my article on HeroQuesting, which is still online at my site. http://www.runequest.org/hqskills.htm ->Peter On 9/29/06, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: Stephen pPsey wrote: > >>> I have always been quite keen on a player being able to learn a >> specialised skill which when used coudl enhance the combat experience. >> Methinks it goes back to a home breweed/hybrid of Top Secret SI rules my >> group used back in 1991. Someone who say knew how to use a sword could >> then go on to specialise in a specific tactic, like disarm, or called >> shot. The tactic when used was rolled against instead of the basic skill >> and if success was achived that is where the exp was allocated. Hmm, >> reminds me a bit of harnmaster come to think of it. > > Also sounds a bit like "Ki" skills from RQ3: Land of Ninja > Now I am embarrased. I have land of ninja but apart from the odd browse have never read it properly. Will be sure to look into Ki and see if I can start incorporating into my game. Wanted my next character to use a katana or such anyway. Tony _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060929/e802f354/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Sep 30 22:56:54 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:56:54 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] More on publishing RQ gear In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451E6996.8040904@inetnebr.com> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> I was just thinking. If one were to go the Mongoose OGL route and poublish >> a RQ suppliment, say an adventure module. What is to stop one publishing >> conversions to RQ III/II as an appendix or from publishing NPC and monster >> stats in both formats. >> > > Nothing technically - but then, there is nothing to stop you publishing an > MRQ (or any other game) supplement now, irrespective of OGL or STL, > provided you don't infringe Mongoose or Issaries or whoever's copyrights or > Trademarks. > > Yes copyright law is actually less stringent than most of these "OPEN" licenses in return the licenses let you use trademarked logos and things like that...but restrict what content you can replace etc..