From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Jan 4 19:28:17 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:28:17 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Arms Law Message-ID: <33732.196.8.104.31.1167899297.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Hi all, wishing everyone the best for MMVII. To start the years debates, I have a wee query regarding an ancient text I picked up, ICE's Arms Law, circa 1980. Yes, I know technically this is rolemaster, but I suspect this was probarbly their first publication and the predecessor to rolemaster. Anyway, my question: The index inside referrs to a book of tables (section 8 of the index). My copy is missing such info. Does anyone here perhaps have the volume in question and if so, will you be willing to scan said tables for me? Regards Tony From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Jan 4 22:18:22 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:18:22 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Arms Law In-Reply-To: <33732.196.8.104.31.1167899297.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <33732.196.8.104.31.1167899297.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <459CE27E.1080405@brinkdata.se> postmaster at runequest.za.org skrev: > Hi all, wishing everyone the best for MMVII. > > To start the years debates, I have a wee query regarding an ancient text I > picked up, ICE's Arms Law, circa 1980. Yes, I know technically this is > rolemaster, but I suspect this was probarbly their first publication and > the predecessor to rolemaster. > > Anyway, my question: > > The index inside referrs to a book of tables (section 8 of the index). My > copy is missing such info. Does anyone here perhaps have the volume in > question and if so, will you be willing to scan said tables for me? > > Regards > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Jan 4 22:27:13 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:27:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Arms Law In-Reply-To: <33732.196.8.104.31.1167899297.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <33732.196.8.104.31.1167899297.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <459CE491.40907@brinkdata.se> postmaster at runequest.za.org skrev: > Hi all, wishing everyone the best for MMVII. > > To start the years debates, I have a wee query regarding an ancient text I > picked up, ICE's Arms Law, circa 1980. Yes, I know technically this is > rolemaster, but I suspect this was probarbly their first publication and > the predecessor to rolemaster. > > Anyway, my question: > > The index inside referrs to a book of tables (section 8 of the index). My > copy is missing such info. Does anyone here perhaps have the volume in > question and if so, will you be willing to scan said tables for me? > Well, if you have access to the usenet group alt.binaries.e-book.rpg you may be able to find a copy (or two)... Another option is to visit rpgnow and buy a pdf copy, they are fairly cheap ($5) (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=7494&). /Peter Brink From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 02:07:34 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 07:07:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Arms Law In-Reply-To: <459CE491.40907@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <20070104150734.64528.qmail@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Before Rolemaster was combined into a single book, it was sold as a box set that included 3 booklets: Arms Law (combat system), Character Law (character gen and campaign rules), Spell Law (magic system). I have all three, but I don't have a scanner to copy anyhting. Greg --- Peter Brink wrote: > postmaster at runequest.za.org skrev: > > Hi all, wishing everyone the best for MMVII. > > > > To start the years debates, I have a wee query > regarding an ancient text I > > picked up, ICE's Arms Law, circa 1980. Yes, I know > technically this is > > rolemaster, but I suspect this was probarbly their > first publication and > > the predecessor to rolemaster. > > > > Anyway, my question: > > > > The index inside referrs to a book of tables > (section 8 of the index). My > > copy is missing such info. Does anyone here > perhaps have the volume in > > question and if so, will you be willing to scan > said tables for me? > > > > Well, if you have access to the usenet group > alt.binaries.e-book.rpg you > may be able to find a copy (or two)... Another > option is to visit rpgnow > and buy a pdf copy, they are fairly cheap ($5) > (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=7494&). > > /Peter Brink > _______________________________________________ > 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 peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Jan 7 07:19:30 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:19:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> I've posted a few more suggestions on how to convert other games to BRP at my site recipes.rollspelshornan.se. a) How to convert D&D spells (http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se/Conversions/DnDSpells) and b) How to convert GURPS spells (http://recipes.rollspelshornan.se/Conversions/GurpsMagic) Comments are welcome (as always). /Peter Brink From gazza666 at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 12:40:14 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:40:14 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/07, Peter Brink wrote: > I've posted a few more suggestions on how to convert other games to BRP > at my site recipes.rollspelshornan.se. > > Comments are welcome (as always). When doing a conversion from one system to the other, you generally have one of two ideas in mind: a) You like the feel of the original system, but you prefer the rules of the new one. b) You like the feel of the new system, but you want to add some elements of the old. Generally which of these two you're most interested in will affect your conversion. For example, let's take the old favourites Magic Missile and Fireball, latest versions from the d20 SRD. If you're a D&D fan but you prefer BRP/RQ rules, then you basically still want spells to feel like they did in D&D. So Magic Missile should ideally still automatically hit; Fireball should do some damage even to those who are able to dodge out of the way of most of it. Therefore, you certainly won't make Magic Missile like Speedart, since the latter still needs a hit roll; instead, it should be something more akin to Disruption. The actual "autohit" part is pretty much anathema to RQ, but you can use the "prior art" of spells such as Sever Spirit to have a minor effect if you fail the MP vs MP roll. Let's say a 4 point spirit magic spell that does 2d6 to a random location, and 1d3 to general hit points if the MP vs MP roll fails. For Fireball, we're really out of the realm of what Spirit Magic can really do, but the closest conversion would be a 4 point spirit magic spell that does 2d6 to a random location of every target within 5 metres of the blast point, but armour protects as normal, and in addition targets may make a Dodge roll for half damage. On the other hand, if you're a RQ fan that would like to convert some of the D&D spells over, then Disruption is pretty much all you need for Magic Missile, and for Fireball you're probably going to go with something that requires an MP vs MP roll vs all the prospective targets (unless you really do want the "set things on fire" part, I suppose). You may disagree with the specific "off the top of my head" conversions here - that's fine; it's more to illustrate that we get different results even with two simple spells depending on which angle we're coming from. Bringing us back around to Peter's page - what you've essentially done is create a new mechanic here. I suggest that this is the sort of thing that doesn't really fit anybody's needs - there are 3 forms of magic already (discounting dragon magic and other esoterica) and no really clear reason why D&D mages would not be sorcery users in RQ. In fact, your mechanic is not dissimilar to those used by Sandy Petersen's rules for RQ sorcery, and I would imagine that the latter would do the job of conversion slightly better (you could do Fireball via some sort of Multispelled Evoke Fire, for example). Note for GURPS purposes I _believe_ (but could be wrong) that all the different power systems (psionics, magics, superpowers) are all unified in the new 4th edition; your notes appear to be addressing the 3rd edition spells. GURPS spells probably could be done fairly straightforwardly via the Sandy system as well, if you were in the camp that liked RQ but wanted to graft on some GURPS spells. If you're from the perspective that you want RQ spells to feel like GURPS, then the hard part is the difficulty levels of spells in GURPS, but I believe the unpublished RQ4 had this concept. -- GAZZA From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Jan 7 23:34:45 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:34:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A0E8E5.8040203@brinkdata.se> Gary Sturgess skrev: > On 1/7/07, Peter Brink wrote: >> I've posted a few more suggestions on how to convert other games to BRP >> at my site recipes.rollspelshornan.se. >> >> Comments are welcome (as always). > > When doing a conversion from one system to the other, you generally > have one of two ideas in mind: > > a) You like the feel of the original system, but you prefer the rules > of the new one. > b) You like the feel of the new system, but you want to add some > elements of the old. It's quite possible that I have used the wrong label for my "conversions", perhaps I should have called them "How to import..." instead. Because that is the purpose. Doing a one-by-one conversion of a lot of spells is very time consuming, if one could import a whole bunch of spells then that would save you a lot of time. Essentially what I do is to convert (or import if you wish) an entire magic system. The object is of course to replace the sorcery magic system of RQ. And why is that? Because the sorcery system sucks, IMHO. It simply doesn't work very well in my experience. Another object is to make it possible to do easy conversions of D&D adventures. There are loads of such stuff on the net, both as free downloads and pdf:s that you can buy, and for those gaming groups that doesn't mind using such material they can be a real time saver. So I would tend to disagree about that these kind of conversion notes doesn't fit anyone's needs. /Peter Brink From gazza666 at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 02:23:15 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 00:23:15 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <45A0E8E5.8040203@brinkdata.se> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> <45A0E8E5.8040203@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701070723h36c5d337p93cdcab4716f9a5b@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/07, Peter Brink wrote: > It's quite possible that I have used the wrong label for my > "conversions", perhaps I should have called them "How to import..." > instead. Because that is the purpose. Doing a one-by-one conversion of a > lot of spells is very time consuming, if one could import a whole bunch > of spells then that would save you a lot of time. Well, D&D is an appallingly bad choice for "import", in my opinion, because there simply isn't any consistency at all to the spells or indeed the magic system in general. This isn't even controversial from WotC POV; there are several spells of each level that are openly admitted to be more powerful than others, and they're there as much for "grandfather" reasons as any others. Of course you could do as you suggest and have a system that basically pulls in the lot by level, but then you are also importing all of D&D's balance problems along with it (as well as losing the unique features of RQ in the process). This is less true of GURPS though; the GURPS conversion in general I don't see any issues with. > Essentially what I do is to convert (or import if you wish) an entire > magic system. The object is of course to replace the sorcery magic > system of RQ. And why is that? Because the sorcery system sucks, IMHO. There we certainly can agree. :) Of course, D&D's system makes the RQ sorcery system seem very well balanced by comparison... consider Gate vs Meteor Swarm for an extreme example. This is not to bag on D&D particularly. It's just that D&D's magic system was never really designed from the get go - it's basically just a mish mash of a bunch of ideas from hundreds of different authors over the decades, jammed into a pseudo-Vancian structure with no real thought given to balance prior to 3rd edition (and not by any means balanced in 3rd edition either - just better than it ever has been before). This is part of its charm, of course, but it also means that 1 1st level spell is not the same power-wise as another 1st level spell, and a system that attempts to treat D&D spells as a class rather than individually is going to experience issues because of this. There's also the exponential rather than linear power scaling to consider even if you do decide that equating Unseen Servant and Charm Person is OK - a 3rd level spell is not merely three times as good as a 1st level spell, and a 9th level spell is not by any means only nine times as powerful. Now of course you can adjust for this, but it would need to be done on a case by case basis - and that's exactly what you're attempting to avoid. In my humble opinion, of course. > It simply doesn't work very well in my experience. Another object is to > make it possible to do easy conversions of D&D adventures. There are > loads of such stuff on the net, both as free downloads and pdf:s that > you can buy, and for those gaming groups that doesn't mind using such > material they can be a real time saver. I cannot fault the goal, as it an entirely noble one. But the "base assumptions" of D&D and BRP are quite different, which is why such conversions tend to be problematic. In a nutshell, D&D assumes that a party of 4 powerful adventurers can triumph over a dozen or more less skilled opposition. BRP (at least most variants; Superworld is a probable exception) makes no such adjustments; numerical superiority counts for a lot more. Especially in RQ, where one nasty critical can really spoil your day; even Rune Level PCs will struggle against significant numerical superiority of weaker opposition. This is not by any means to discourage such conversions or systems to make such conversions easier - merely to recognise that it's unlikely to be possible to develop a generic conversion process for two fairly radically different systems. If nothing else the idea behind a given adventure can often be adapted. -- GAZZA From lancelot at inetnebr.com Mon Jan 8 04:51:24 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:51:24 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701070723h36c5d337p93cdcab4716f9a5b@mail.gmail.com> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> <45A0E8E5.8040203@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701070723h36c5d337p93cdcab4716f9a5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A1331C.3040000@inetnebr.com> Gary Sturgess wrote: > On 1/7/07, Peter Brink wrote: >> It's quite possible that I have used the wrong label for my >> "conversions", perhaps I should have called them "How to import..." >> instead. Because that is the purpose. Doing a one-by-one conversion of a >> lot of spells is very time consuming, if one could import a whole bunch >> of spells then that would save you a lot of time. > > Well, D&D is an appallingly bad choice for "import", in my opinion, > because there simply isn't any consistency at all to the spells It is rather like a soup... with conflicting spices there is something for everyone but I dont like carrots blended in my bananas and I can't quite figure out what the stringy bits are. > or > indeed the magic system in general. eye spell slots... gack > This isn't even controversial from > WotC POV; there are several spells of each level that are openly > admitted to be more powerful than others, and they're there as much > for "grandfather" reasons as any others. Of course you could do as you > suggest and have a system that basically pulls in the lot by level, > but then you are also importing all of D&D's balance problems along > with it (as well as losing the unique features of RQ in the process). one translation I seen had each level as 2 with more powerful magics as the second grade within that level...it resulted in 4 levels of spells available to a 1st level character tweaking the spells could give a bit more balance but wouldn't help with logarithmic potence. > This is less true of GURPS though; the GURPS conversion in general I > don't see any issues with. > Gurps Umana is really worth importing, if you never heard of it look it up. very cool magic in fact it would be an awesome backend for sorcery for brp. > In a nutshell, D&D assumes that a party of 4 powerful adventurers can > triumph over a dozen or more less skilled opposition. BRP (at least > most variants; Superworld is a probable exception) makes no such > adjustments; numerical superiority counts for a lot more. Especially > in RQ, where one nasty critical can really spoil your day; even Rune > Level PCs will struggle against significant numerical superiority of > weaker opposition. > I agree one would need if you wish to import magic from D&D to bring better capability in fighting multiple adversaries into the BRP combat system I have little interest in such an import but improved fighting against many really does fit some genres very well so it sparks an interest in me... and the mechanics might be around in RQ land someplace already Decrease the penalty for multiple action performance could be a simple step. Stormbringer had a riposte rule that allowed one to launch an additional attacks against an opponent with a higher quality parry roll. Decreasing the threshold for gaining this ability (you had to be a master in SB) make it apply to dodges not just parries (maybe for the master any failed attack against you) and reduce the penalty on each subsequent roll and we are coming along nicely. This could be combined with diverting opponents attacks into your opponents allies so the additional attack could be considered coming from any of your failed opponents attack. example I parry your spear and it strikes your ally to the left of me. another might be a well timed duck where each opponent slashes one of his allies, in addition to your one attack ( additional attacks should still be based on your combat skill not theres and could even still have a penalty on it.. damage based on there weapon) another envisoning you dodge behind one of them using him as living shield This could be fun where the unarmed and unarmored hero allah Lancelot defeats multiple armed and armored opponents. Minimizing them critical failures in combat might be vital to remember if you want heros to fight again and again and again. ;-) allow more Fate/Hero points. From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:16:57 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:16:57 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversion of D&D module? In-Reply-To: <45A1331C.3040000@inetnebr.com> References: <806927.4134.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A00452.6070008@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701061740w7f49c2adv5ed64fa3fb2eccda@mail.gmail.com> <45A0E8E5.8040203@brinkdata.se> <9ebd81400701070723h36c5d337p93cdcab4716f9a5b@mail.gmail.com> <45A1331C.3040000@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701071016r305284b2h22eb3a1a140451eb@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/07, Lance Dyas wrote: > > This could be combined with diverting opponents attacks into your > opponents allies so the additional attack could be considered coming > from any of your failed opponents attack. > ---------- I've seen this before in campaigns where a Dodge reduces an incoming attack's success level, based on the success level of the Dodge. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070107/f62df103/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Tue Jan 9 20:58:58 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:58:58 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP Message-ID: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> Happy New Year All IMOH of course The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a big improvement on RM. The MERP modules on the other hand are superb in all respects. Well-written, well researched and beautifully illustrated they also used to be availible for free download at Merp.com with ICE's tacit approval. Get them now! Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070109/ab62cfd7/attachment.html From lorgryt at comcast.net Tue Jan 9 22:15:47 2007 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:15:47 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.co m> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> At 01:58 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: >The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a big improvement on RM. Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! LOL Bo Looking for a freeform Free Forum? http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Jan 9 22:46:50 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:46:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> Message-ID: <45A380AA.5010405@brinkdata.se> Bo Whitten skrev: > At 01:58 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: >> The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a big improvement on RM. > > Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! LOL > The components that make up RM predate MERP, they may not have been branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are older than MERP:s. /Peter Brink From lorgryt at comcast.net Wed Jan 10 00:27:27 2007 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:27:27 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <45A380AA.5010405@brinkdata.se> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> <45A380AA.5010405@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109052528.025034f8@comcast.net> At 03:46 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: >Bo Whitten skrev: >>At 01:58 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: >>>The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a big improvement on RM. >>Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! LOL > >The components that make up RM predate MERP, they may not have been branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are older than MERP:s. > >/Peter Brink By derivative, they ARE the rules that predated RP... they are one set of the "Law" books. I think that we are discussing not Apples and Oranges, but Red Delicious and Granny Smith. :) In either case, a bad rule set is still bad no matter which system was bad first. (IMO) Bo Looking for a freeform Free Forum? http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Jan 10 00:36:00 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:36:00 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <45A380AA.5010405@brinkdata.se> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> <45A380AA.5010405@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <57450.196.8.104.31.1168349760.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> >> >> Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! LOL >> > > The components that make up RM predate MERP, they may not have been > branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are older than MERP:s. > > /Peter Brink > There is a big 2 part write up about ICe on rpg.net (under columns) Makes for interesting reading and details how what when etc of RM and MERP. From what I recall MERP was a cut down set of early RM rules. Tony From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Wed Jan 10 03:07:06 2007 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:07:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109031524.024fe918@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200701091607.LAA23334@victory.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > Bo Whitten skrev: > > At 01:58 AM 1/9/2007, you wrote: > >> The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a big improvement on RM. > > > > Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! LOL > > The components that make up RM predate MERP, they may not have been > branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are older than MERP:s. My recollection is that even the earliest ads in Dragon magazine for Arms Law/Spell Law referred to the system as "RoleMaster" or "The RoleMaster System" or some such. This would have been around 1979-80 IIRC, whence I think MERP was still a couple of years down the road. I'll have to check my Dragon magazine on CD collection to verify. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 03:47:50 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:50 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701090847j436b7d66jf7c69f102f9f3e22@mail.gmail.com> I strongly recommend the supplement for Moria. That's got to be one of the best in terms of background info and usefulness for a Middle Earth campaign that I've ever seen. David On 1/9/07, alan richards wrote: > > Happy New Year > > All IMOH of course > > The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a > big improvement on RM. > > The MERP modules on the other hand are superb in all respects. > Well-written, well researched and beautifully illustrated they also used to > be availible for free download at Merp.com with ICE's tacit approval. Get > them now! > > > Al > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070109/fecdba9f/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 04:37:40 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:37:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <57450.196.8.104.31.1168349760.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <482369.7857.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I must be the odd one out, but I enjoyed playing and running MERP. It was one of the mainstays of my old high school rp group, along with Traveller, Boothill and Twilight 2000. Many fond memories. I have heard many people complain about using tables, but I have never had a problem with tables. Roll a dice...look at the proper row...fast..no problem. Gregory --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > >> > >> Especially since it came out 10 years before RM! > LOL > >> > > > > The components that make up RM predate MERP, they > may not have been > > branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are > older than MERP:s. > > > > /Peter Brink > > > There is a big 2 part write up about ICe on rpg.net > (under columns) Makes > for interesting reading and details how what when > etc of RM and MERP. From > what I recall MERP was a cut down set of early RM > rules. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > 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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jan 10 07:56:14 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <482369.7857.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Way off-topic for a RQ list, but just to put my 2c in, I played MERP, enjoyed it immensely and yes, Rolemaster was called Rolemaster before MERP came out. This said, the magic system was a little too flashly for Middle Earth. Great for Shadow World, but too flashy for ME. Now, to get this back on-topic, has anyone tried RuneQuest in Middle Earth? Can you imagine the sort of power storage that a silmaril crystal would have? All the best, Lev --- grogthing wrote: > I must be the odd one out, but I enjoyed playing and > running MERP. It was one of the mainstays of my old > high school rp group, along with Traveller, Boothill > and Twilight 2000. Many fond memories. > > I have heard many people complain about using > tables, > but I have never had a problem with tables. Roll a > dice...look at the proper row...fast..no problem. > > Gregory > > --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > >> > > >> Especially since it came out 10 years before > RM! > > LOL > > >> > > > > > > The components that make up RM predate MERP, > they > > may not have been > > > branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are > > older than MERP:s. > > > > > > /Peter Brink > > > > > There is a big 2 part write up about ICe on > rpg.net > > (under columns) Makes > > for interesting reading and details how what when > > etc of RM and MERP. From > > what I recall MERP was a cut down set of early RM > > rules. > > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 08:50:44 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:50:44 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <482369.7857.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701091350h1726fa47gbf678620a7716f29@mail.gmail.com> I did for a couple months using a set of rules created by Chris Seeman. A nice writeup of the challenges of "TolkienQuest" campaign is at: http://www.dennis-sellers.com/play/articles/MERP.html The conversion rules were available on the Web at some point and might possibly be found in this list's archives. I know I've posted the link a couple of times in the past. Problem is I can't find it now. Using a Silmaril for a POW crystal generates the same problem as making a friendly dragon into a familiar. First you have to find one. David On 1/9/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > Now, to get this back on-topic, has anyone tried > RuneQuest in Middle Earth? > > Can you imagine the sort of power storage that a > silmaril crystal would have? > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > --- grogthing wrote: > > > I must be the odd one out, but I enjoyed playing and > > running MERP. It was one of the mainstays of my old > > high school rp group, along with Traveller, Boothill > > and Twilight 2000. Many fond memories. > > > > I have heard many people complain about using > > tables, > > but I have never had a problem with tables. Roll a > > dice...look at the proper row...fast..no problem. > > > > Gregory > > > > --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > > > >> > > > >> Especially since it came out 10 years before > > RM! > > > LOL > > > >> > > > > > > > > The components that make up RM predate MERP, > > they > > > may not have been > > > > branded as RM at the time but the RM rules are > > > older than MERP:s. > > > > > > > > /Peter Brink > > > > > > > There is a big 2 part write up about ICe on > > rpg.net > > > (under columns) Makes > > > for interesting reading and details how what when > > > etc of RM and MERP. From > > > what I recall MERP was a cut down set of early RM > > > rules. > > > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070109/32897ea5/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 09:33:52 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:33:52 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701091350h1726fa47gbf678620a7716f29@mail.gmail.com> References: <482369.7857.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0701091350h1726fa47gbf678620a7716f29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701091433o3a07b3f2vd03238061941b3de@mail.gmail.com> And below is my original post. In fact, I wasn't using Chris's rules but those of Colin Brett's. "Colin Brett has written a great set of rules of what I call "TolkienQuest", a version of RQ for Middle Earth. I think you'll find he's done most of the grunt work you are talking about and done it very well. Take a look at http://www.colinabrett.uklinux.net/ and click on his "Gaming Material" link on the left." David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070109/d0a60288/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 03:30:56 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:30:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701091433o3a07b3f2vd03238061941b3de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <284982.81974.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cool, thanks for the link. I would like to try a LOTR game using RQ/BRP. If I could get my local group interested in RQ. But they are entrenched in D&D. I once came across a set of documents for using RQ to play in the DarkSun setting, that were very nice. I wish I could find them again. Gregory --- David Smart wrote: > And below is my original post. In fact, I wasn't > using Chris's rules but > those of Colin Brett's. > > "Colin Brett has written a great set of rules of > what I call "TolkienQuest", > a version of RQ for Middle Earth. I think you'll > find he's done most of the > grunt work you are talking about and done it very > well. Take a look at > http://www.colinabrett.uklinux.net/ and click on his > "Gaming Material" link > on the left." > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 04:05:47 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:05:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <482369.7857.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <912303.5650.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/9/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Can you imagine the sort of power storage that a > silmaril crystal would have? Storage? None. But I'd imagine that IF you were able to use it at all, it would provide unlimited magic points. Hmm...that's an interesting idea, and I don't think I've ever seen it before. A "tap" into the spirit plane, as it were. Might not be as unbalancing as it sounds. I think I'll write it up for the Chaos Project... -- 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/20070110/7cc69aa9/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 11 08:27:13 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070110212713.92946.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > On 1/9/07, Lev Lafayette > wrote: > > > > Can you imagine the sort of power storage that a > > silmaril crystal would have? > > > Storage? None. But I'd imagine that IF you were able > to use it at all, it > would provide unlimited magic points. > > Hmm...that's an interesting idea, and I don't think > I've ever seen it > before. A "tap" into the spirit plane, as it were. > Might not be as > unbalancing as it sounds. > > I think I'll write it up for the Chaos Project... > No, you're quite right it wouldn't be unbalancing as it sounds. After all, it *is* an artifact. Being a tap to the spirit plane would also explain its great beauty.. I mean you could *see* the spirit plane in the crystal - just *gorgeous*. Look forward to the write-up. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 09:31:33 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:31:33 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <20070110212713.92946.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070110212713.92946.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701101431u634e47e7h7efe61b7d971e7a1@mail.gmail.com> On 1/10/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > On 1/9/07, Lev Lafayette > > wrote: > > > > > > Can you imagine the sort of power storage that a > > > silmaril crystal would have? > > > > > > Storage? None. But I'd imagine that IF you were able > > to use it at all, it > > would provide unlimited magic points. > > > > Hmm...that's an interesting idea, and I don't think > > I've ever seen it > > before. A "tap" into the spirit plane, as it were. > > Might not be as > > unbalancing as it sounds. > > > > I think I'll write it up for the Chaos Project... > > > > No, you're quite right it wouldn't be unbalancing as > it sounds. After all, it *is* an artifact. Being a tap > to the spirit plane would also explain its great > beauty.. I mean you could *see* the spirit plane in > the crystal - just *gorgeous*. Of course, there's always the fear that it's as pretty on the Spirit plane as it is on the Material plane...and one might not want to come to the attention of the things that would acquire objects of such power and beauty on that side... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070110/84d3eb79/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 10:19:01 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:19:01 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <284982.81974.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070110/98671e8e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 13:38:00 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:38:00 -0600 Subject: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP Message-ID: <1c92296e0701101838o4096110an6b79696d1b77c7c2@mail.gmail.com> Gregory, We both owe Roger big time. Thanks to his posting Gerall's name, I was able to find the Dark Sun conversion using the Web's "WayBack Machine" archive. Check out all the links at the following website and download it all! http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chromebob.com/gaming/ David On 1/10/07, Roger Benham wrote: > > It was (I think) Geral Kahla's Dark Sun conversion. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070110/842372e6/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 14:16:45 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:16:45 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: References: <284982.81974.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701101916k3f89ee74h4735dce7b7d315e9@mail.gmail.com> It absolutely was! Thanks to you, Roger, for providing the name and the Web's "WayBack Machine" archive website, the material can be downloaded at: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chromebob.com/gaming/ All the links need to be clicked to gather all the available material but a good amount is still available. On 1/10/07, Roger Benham wrote: > > It was (I think) Geral Kahla's Dark Sun conversion. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070110/9af33d8a/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 11 16:31:36 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:31:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON Message-ID: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've dropped CON from the game I run.. This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many situations where STR and CON don't correlate strongly. STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter. Instead of CON I've introduced a perception characteristic, something which I think really is strongly "natural" rather than trained or a collection of skills. Just so people don't have to cross off CON on their sheets and put in PERception, I'm calling it CONcept for the time being. Any thoughts on the matter? All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 11 16:32:50 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:32:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] List Archives Message-ID: <20070111053250.31431.qmail@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ... And another thing. Surely this list is more than seven years old? Isn't it? http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Jan 11 16:56:18 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:56:18 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> I dunno. I can run a fair distance, but strength has never been my strength, if you get my drift. Speaking of running, that was a skill in the old RQ2 trollpak. Did it ever get translated into RQ3? -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:32 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON I've dropped CON from the game I run.. This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many situations where STR and CON don't correlate strongly. STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter. Instead of CON I've introduced a perception characteristic, something which I think really is strongly "natural" rather than trained or a collection of skills. Just so people don't have to cross off CON on their sheets and put in PERception, I'm calling it CONcept for the time being. Any thoughts on the matter? All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gazza666 at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 17:16:23 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:16:23 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701102216q184597aci862b837a9e943dc9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/11/07, Joe Mills wrote: > I dunno. I can run a fair distance, but strength has never been my strength, > if you get my drift. Speaking of running, that was a skill in the old RQ2 > trollpak. Did it ever get translated into RQ3? No, everyone moves at the same speed. Must make the 100 metre dash boring in Glorantha. ;) As far as dumping CON goes - you may well be right as far as realism is concerned, but in the case of mechanics, STR is already an extremely useful ability score (determining damage bonus, what weapons you can use, agility skills, manipulation skills, and fatigue) - adding in disease resistance, holding your breath, hit points, and everything else that CON does may be pushing things a bit far. -- GAZZA From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Thu Jan 11 20:01:23 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:01:23 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many >situations where STR and CON don't correlate strongly. >STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter. *shrug* I've known far too many basically indolent and not particularly physically impressive or powerful people who shrug off every infection and demonstrate remarkable robustness of health, and far too many athletic or physically powerful people who are prone to every minor infection that goes around to fold STR and CON together and find it "realistic". >Instead of CON I've introduced a perception >characteristic, something which I think really is >strongly "natural" rather than trained or a collection >of skills. I've always felt that the distinctions and "division of labour" as it were between the non-physical stats in RQ (INT, POW, CHA) is more problematic than those between the physical characteristics. Personally, if I was minded to change things I think I'd re-jig them to REAsoning, AWAreness and WILl power, with perception (of both the seen and unseen, and a chunk of what POW currently covers, e.g. a lot of Luck roll stuff) under AWA, but a lot of the force of will and Charisma / Appeal type stuff covered by WIL. Magic points would be the average of AWA and WIL... But to be honest, the niggling moments when RQ's model DOESN'T align with the setting / world are few and far between and for me not worth the effort of re-jigging the system. >Just so people don't have to cross off CON on their >sheets and put in PERception, I'm calling it CONcept >for the time being. There is of course an argument (hinted at in RQIII itself) that perceptiveness is already a direct function of CON (i.e. a general health) anyway... ;-) Cheers Nick Middleton From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 11 22:48:19 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:48:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <252592.87309.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > >This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many > >situations where STR and CON don't correlate > strongly. > >STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter. > > *shrug* I've known far too many basically indolent > and not particularly > physically impressive or powerful people who shrug > off every infection and > demonstrate remarkable robustness of health, and far > too many athletic or > physically powerful people who are prone to every > minor infection that goes > around to fold STR and CON together and find it > "realistic". I must say on the scale of the things, I haven't noticed this a great deal. The correlation between physical fitness, musculture and health seems strong enough in game terms to me. > But to be honest, the niggling moments when RQ's > model DOESN'T align with > the setting / world are few and far between and for > me not worth the effort > of re-jigging the system. This one hasn't required too much work at all. CONstitution doesn't seem to get too much use as it is. > There is of course an argument (hinted at in RQIII > itself) that > perceptiveness is already a direct function of CON > (i.e. a general health) > anyway... ;-) Quite true that... All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 23:15:08 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:15:08 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <252592.87309.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <252592.87309.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45A62A4C.1040203@gmail.com> From my service experience of 35 years ago in a land far-far-away: Brute strength was less a factor in winning a fight than the durability & stamina from having a strong constitution. One had to fight off disease, miserable conditions that sapped you, stay awake & sane thru long gruelling hours that tax you mentally & physically, & other trials that demanded little strength & a great sturdy constitution before you even saw a fight. This even applies to non-combatants, such as nurses who couldn't sleep thru a prolonged mortar attack & yet turned too & patched us up. (Personally going to the wall didn't bust my composure but going to the statue of the nurses brought back the hardest memories for I wouldn't be alive without those women). Thus I've seen women hold up better than men. I've seen smaller men keep going thru a patrol when the big buff types fell apart. The nastiest fighters I've ever met have been predominantly smaller & always faster & always smarter guys. But yeah, I want a large strong guy dancing with the Stoner than some small guy for a short term. So I suggest to you that realistically both must play a part. STR & CON don't correlate but rather they compliment each other. respectfully, Sven Lev Lafayette wrote: > --- Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > >>> This is pretty much because I cannot fathom many >>> situations where STR and CON don't correlate >>> >> strongly. >> >>> STR and SIZ, well that's a different matter. >>> >> *shrug* I've known far too many basically indolent >> and not particularly >> physically impressive or powerful people who shrug >> off every infection and >> demonstrate remarkable robustness of health, and far >> too many athletic or >> physically powerful people who are prone to every >> minor infection that goes >> around to fold STR and CON together and find it >> "realistic". >> > > I must say on the scale of the things, I haven't > noticed this a great deal. The correlation between > physical fitness, musculture and health seems strong > enough in game terms to me. > > >> But to be honest, the niggling moments when RQ's >> model DOESN'T align with >> the setting / world are few and far between and for >> me not worth the effort >> of re-jigging the system. >> > > This one hasn't required too much work at all. > CONstitution doesn't seem to get too much use as it > is. > > >> There is of course an argument (hinted at in RQIII >> itself) that >> perceptiveness is already a direct function of CON >> (i.e. a general health) >> anyway... ;-) >> > > Quite true that... > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070111/09042d18/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 02:11:10 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701101838o4096110an6b79696d1b77c7c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21452.3631.qm@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Awsome! Thanks. Gregory --- David Smart wrote: > Gregory, > > We both owe Roger big time. Thanks to his posting > Gerall's name, I was able > to find the Dark Sun conversion using the Web's > "WayBack Machine" archive. > Check out all the links at the following website and > download it all! > > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chromebob.com/gaming/ > > David > > On 1/10/07, Roger Benham > wrote: > > > > It was (I think) Geral Kahla's Dark Sun > conversion. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 02:43:45 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:43:45 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701110743p5fb12fbah6a1384fa27b1e8ca@mail.gmail.com> Here's what I did with it for my RQ3 campaigns. RUNNING (Agility) (00%) This is the trained ability to run faster and/or longer than the untrained. A successful roll allows an extra burst of speed for a limited duration, adding one-half again to the character's running speed. A human can thus add 3 to his normal running speed of 6 for a total of 9 meters per SR. This causes a loss of 3 fatigue points per round or fraction of a round. A successful roll will also allow a character to move at 1m/SR faster than normal while still performing actions. A human can thus move at 4m/SR. A character need not attempt another roll until he stops moving. A third function allows the character to run at 2m/SR faster than normal without any expending any extra Fatigue Points. The three aforementioned abilities are mutually exclusive. The player must state which function is to be used before a roll is attempted. When in a Run Contest (see Game Systems) the percentiles in this skill are added to the characters roll in a Run contest. On 1/10/07, Joe Mills wrote: > > I dunno. I can run a fair distance, but strength has never been my > strength, > if you get my drift. Speaking of running, that was a skill in the old RQ2 > trollpak. Did it ever get translated into RQ3? > > -- Joe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/71de5c2f/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 02:55:05 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:55:05 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701110743p5fb12fbah6a1384fa27b1e8ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1c92296e0701110743p5fb12fbah6a1384fa27b1e8ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701110755s1757d706ybd2c914ef2bd37d4@mail.gmail.com> Heck, in my campaigns CON sees much more use than STR does thanks to disease (mundane and magical) and my using for willpower rolls in those situations explained so well by Sven. Just recently, a player running a human used his CON to fend off broo diseases and keep up with a group of dwarved in a marathon rapid exit from Griffin Mountain. Made quite an impression on the dwarves, that did. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/2b755f94/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 03:34:49 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:34:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A62A4C.1040203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <343810.59445.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Sven Lugar wrote: > From my service experience of 35 years ago in a > land far-far-away: > Brute strength was less a factor in winning a fight > than the durability > & stamina from having a strong constitution. One had > to fight off > disease, miserable conditions that sapped you, stay > awake & sane thru > long gruelling hours that tax you mentally & > physically, & other trials > that demanded little strength & a great sturdy > constitution before you > even saw a fight. This even applies to > non-combatants, such as nurses > who couldn't sleep thru a prolonged mortar attack & > yet turned too & > patched us up. (Personally going to the wall didn't > bust my composure > but going to the statue of the nurses brought back > the hardest memories > for I wouldn't be alive without those women). Thus > I've seen women hold > up better than men. I've seen smaller men keep going > thru a patrol when > the big buff types fell apart. The nastiest fighters > I've ever met have > been predominantly smaller & always faster & always > smarter guys. But > yeah, I want a large strong guy dancing with the > Stoner than some small > guy for a short term. So I suggest to you that > realistically both must > play a part. STR & CON don't correlate but rather > they compliment each > other. > respectfully, > Sven While some species might be exceptions, humans exhibit this sexual dimorphism predominately. That is why Mythworld prescribes high STR and SIZ is male, high CON and DEX is female. There are occasional exceptions, but statistically, this is the case. I totally agree with your statement on the value of CON, finding it second only to INT among the primary (rolled) characteristics. The rest can be brought up easily (except SIZ) or are significant only in relatively rare circumstances. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Fri Jan 12 04:26:17 2007 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:26:17 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Jury Duty Identity Theft Scam Message-ID: <200701111726.MAA16468@alexander.cnc.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/6a7dd991/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Johnson, Shelly" Subject: FW: Jury Duty Scam Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:02:55 -0700 Size: 17071 Url: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/6a7dd991/attachment.mht From rog_benham at hotmail.com Fri Jan 12 05:38:15 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:38:15 +0000 Subject: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <21452.3631.qm@web32813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/2266df64/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 06:42:41 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070111194242.19446.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I downloaded the pages. Lots of useful ideas. The conversion document I had years ago had conversions for the Darksun character classes into RQ professions, but I dont' see that on these convrsion pages. I have FGU's Psi World Box set, it is a d100% system too. I don't think it would be hard to use with RQ. I'll have to take a look. Gregory --- Roger Benham wrote: --------------------------------- Not a problem. I always thought that Dark Sun would have been a brilliant BRP/RQ setting, provided someone could solve the psionics issue, hopefully without a PSI skill. I suppose you could do an almost direct conversion, with PSPs being STR+CON+POW, and all of the devotions etc being skills at 1D6%. Prerequisites would apply, I suppose. The AoE would have to be altered as well. Any thoughts? There was another conversion as well, I can't remember who it was by, but it suggested using Spirit magic instead of psionics. As for converting the monsters, I would use some RQ analogues such as the giant with a few more powers for something like the braxat (Or even the other giants!), and most humanoid monsters would essentially be human stats with a bit of zing (Belgoi et al). I for one would be glad to see it under D100 rather than the dense and annoying strictures of levels, classes and alignments! --------------------------------- From: grogthing Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:11:10 -0800 (PST) >Awsome! Thanks. > >Gregory >--- David Smart wrote: > > > Gregory, > > > > We both owe Roger big time. Thanks to his posting > > Gerall's name, I was able > > to find the Dark Sun conversion using the Web's > > "WayBack Machine" archive. > > Check out all the links at the following website and > > download it all! > > > > >http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chromebob.com/gaming/ > > > > David > > > > On 1/10/07, Roger Benham > > wrote: > > > > > > It was (I think) Geral Kahla's Dark Sun > > conversion. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 --------------------------------- MSN Hotmail is evolving ? check out the new Windows Live Mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 rog_benham at hotmail.com Fri Jan 12 07:40:04 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:40:04 +0000 Subject: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <20070111194242.19446.qmail@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/b8190a56/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Jan 12 13:35:14 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:35:14 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <343810.59445.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <343810.59445.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45A6F3E2.5000309@inetnebr.com> Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Sven Lugar wrote: > > >> From my service experience of 35 years ago in a >> land far-far-away: >> Brute strength was less a factor in winning a fight >> than the durability >> & stamina from having a strong constitution. One had >> to fight off >> disease, miserable conditions that sapped you, stay >> awake & sane thru >> long gruelling hours that tax you mentally & >> physically, & other trials >> that demanded little strength & a great sturdy >> constitution before you >> even saw a fight. This even applies to >> non-combatants, such as nurses >> who couldn't sleep thru a prolonged mortar attack & >> yet turned too & >> patched us up. (Personally going to the wall didn't >> bust my composure >> but going to the statue of the nurses brought back >> the hardest memories >> for I wouldn't be alive without those women). Thus >> I've seen women hold >> up better than men. I've seen smaller men keep going >> thru a patrol when >> the big buff types fell apart. The nastiest fighters >> I've ever met have >> been predominantly smaller & always faster & always >> smarter guys. But >> yeah, I want a large strong guy dancing with the >> Stoner than some small >> guy for a short term. So I suggest to you that >> realistically both must >> play a part. STR & CON don't correlate but rather >> they compliment each >> other. >> respectfully, >> Sven > While some species might be exceptions, humans exhibit > this sexual dimorphism predominately. That is why > Mythworld prescribes high STR and SIZ is male, high > CON and DEX is female. There are occasional > exceptions, but statistically, this is the case. > > I totally agree with your statement on the value of > CON, finding it second only to INT among the primary > (rolled) characteristics. The rest can be brought up > easily (except SIZ) or are significant only in > relatively rare circumstances. > Of course in the modern civilized world... POW as it manifests in Discepline must be completely useless and CHA...well nobody finds more friends or makes more money because of either of these things nope... totallly useless. ;-) From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 14:26:56 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:26:56 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701110743p5fb12fbah6a1384fa27b1e8ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <561169.31115.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c73545$382123e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1c92296e0701110743p5fb12fbah6a1384fa27b1e8ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701111926r2e16b3c2u978dcbccac101f3e@mail.gmail.com> On 1/11/07, David Smart wrote: > > Here's what I did with it for my RQ3 campaigns. > > RUNNING (Agility) (00%) > This is the trained ability to run faster and/or longer than the > untrained. A successful roll allows an extra burst of speed for a limited > duration, adding one-half again to the character's running speed. A human > can thus add 3 to his normal running speed of 6 for a total of 9 meters per > SR. This causes a loss of 3 fatigue points per round or fraction of a > round. I was going to add something like that, then I realized I already had a mechanic for that built INTO the system It's the initiative roll. If you roll init (let's say d8's) (high number is good), add a dex and siz modifiers. Count down from the highest number, and let people move their full 3m move in each strike rank if they are sprinting (no other action possible). It actually works pretty well. Yes, it might seem to overemphasize luck, but if your footrace is 5 or 6 rolls long, it adds nice dramatic tension, unpredictability, and fun to the activity. And the rolls tend to even out, meaning surprisingly often the bigger, quicker folks DO win. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070111/1e7ea46b/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:06:39 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:06:39 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A6F3E2.5000309@inetnebr.com> References: <343810.59445.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A6F3E2.5000309@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> I saw a cartoon (gamer poster) sometime back showing a portrait of our current president (of the U.S.A) with the tag line "INT, not everyone uses Charisma as the dump stat!" (I don't mean this as a political statement but rather that not everyone views CHA as useless). As to Power, how does one argue that something that we presently have no meter to measure & scale to quantify it, exists let alone argue its effectiveness. However, I've met men & women though average or even mud-fence ugly; who seem to have this presence that defies the usual explanations of fame, political power, or money. It just is. But then again, when I was a 7 year old kid, I was taken to the Principals office & beaten for stating (with supporting scientific documentation) that what we now call Plate Tectonics was real. The teachers & establishment at my school denied it as did most educators in the 50's & even into the 60's & 70's - Heck there are probably still skeptics. Who can say with absolute certainty whether POW exists or not, eh? skal, Sven Lance Dyas wrote: > ...snip... >> > Of course in the modern civilized world... POW as it manifests in > Discepline > must be completely useless and CHA...well nobody finds more friends or > makes > more money because of either of these things nope... totallly useless. > ;-) > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:12:58 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:12:58 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> References: <343810.59445.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A6F3E2.5000309@inetnebr.com> <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701112312q25bb2f49g838947a7474b4148@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > Who can say with absolute certainty whether POW exists or not, eh? Since the existence of POW implies Magic Points, which in turn implies Magic, I think it's pretty safe to say that POW does not exist. Should you feel able to prove otherwise, enrich yourself with a million bucks: http://www.randi.org Of course if you want to suggest it just boosts your ability to learn languages, fast talk, and orate, as well as negatively impact your ability to hide and move silently, then ... well, actually, I STILL doubt it exists. ;) But it makes a great game mechanic. -- GAZZA From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 12 18:15:00 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:15:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider it to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. BTW, with reference to the CON discussion, I do agree with everything you've said. Really! It's just that the distinction between red and white muscle isn't really a huge term for me and least of all in the game I'm running. I am probably more concerned by the need for a PERception type characteristic in my game. Not having CON hasn't really damaged the game I'm playing and buy changing the stat to a perception/senses characteristic I think we've added to it... All the best, Lev --- Sven Lugar wrote: > I saw a cartoon (gamer poster) sometime back showing > a portrait of our > current president (of the U.S.A) with the tag line > "INT, not everyone > uses Charisma as the dump stat!" (I don't mean this > as a political > statement but rather that not everyone views CHA as > useless). As to > Power, how does one argue that something that we > presently have no meter > to measure & scale to quantify it, exists let alone > argue its > effectiveness. However, I've met men & women though > average or even > mud-fence ugly; who seem to have this presence that > defies the usual > explanations of fame, political power, or money. It > just is. But then > again, when I was a 7 year old kid, I was taken to > the Principals office > & beaten for stating (with supporting scientific > documentation) that > what we now call Plate Tectonics was real. The > teachers & establishment > at my school denied it as did most educators in the > 50's & even into the > 60's & 70's - Heck there are probably still > skeptics. Who can say with > absolute certainty whether POW exists or not, eh? > skal, > Sven > > Lance Dyas wrote: > > ...snip... > >> > > Of course in the modern civilized world... POW as > it manifests in > > Discepline > > must be completely useless and CHA...well nobody > finds more friends or > > makes > > more money because of either of these things > nope... totallly useless. > > ;-) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:18:15 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:18:15 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701112318m979b297kd8318a3cc4f30077@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider it > to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. Interesting. I'd argue fairly strongly that neither of those exist. But that's getting a bit off topic for RQRules. -- GAZZA From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 12 18:19:05 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:19:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Background Experience (RQ III) Message-ID: <795247.26902.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've never been entirely happy with the background experience system in RQ III. This is simply because the percentages are static (30 percentiles per annum) regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and the gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to skills rating 05% or 60%). The following is a simple modification I've added that seems to be working without much trouble. For every year of the chararacter's life over 15 they receive INT*2+POW skill points (average 30). They also receive the equivalent of 3 years worth for the period prior to 15 (I don't have automatic percentages for cultural skills - these two have to purchased). Skills may be purchased at a 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from then on. It's pretty quick 'n' easy and seems to work. Any thoughts? All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 12 18:24:04 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:24:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701112318m979b297kd8318a3cc4f30077@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <493811.59955.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gary Sturgess wrote: > On 1/12/07, Lev Lafayette > wrote: > > > > I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider > it > > to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. > > Interesting. I'd argue fairly strongly that neither > of those exist. > > But that's getting a bit off topic for RQRules. Not really, least of all for a primarily simulationist game. Are you suggesting that every member of the species, heck *regardless* of species, has exactly the same motivation? Or that their motivation is generated entirely by external sources (carrots and sticks)? I'm pretty sure spirit (l'esprit, motivation) and willpower exists, is variable among individuals and is primarily generated by internal values. Kind regards, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:25:19 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:25:19 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Background Experience (RQ III) In-Reply-To: <795247.26902.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <795247.26902.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701112325x1df9606dpa77d611d95bd45e6@mail.gmail.com> > I've never been entirely happy with the background > experience system in RQ III. This is simply because > the percentages are static (30 percentiles per annum) > regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and the > gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to skills > rating 05% or 60%). > > The following is a simple modification I've added that > seems to be working without much trouble. > > For every year of the chararacter's life over 15 they > receive INT*2+POW skill points (average 30). > > They also receive the equivalent of 3 years worth for > the period prior to 15 (I don't have automatic > percentages for cultural skills - these two have to > purchased). > > Skills may be purchased at a 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 > basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from then > on. > > It's pretty quick 'n' easy and seems to work. > > Any thoughts? Offhand, this means that if you're lucky enough to roll a high POW or (better) INT, you get more skills. It's also a bit awkward since POW increases and decreases even during character generation. If you use the 80 point assignment method rather than rolling, then it's not so bad (yes, you'll get a lot of high INT characters that way, but that is pretty much inevitable anyway if you have any powergamers who know anything about RQ). I use Nikk Effingham's system personally: http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/chargen.htm They're aren't especially Glorantha-specific. -- GAZZA From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:33:01 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:33:01 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <493811.59955.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9ebd81400701112318m979b297kd8318a3cc4f30077@mail.gmail.com> <493811.59955.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701112333m5ef0437cs4f4545b8ae06807a@mail.gmail.com> > Are you suggesting that every member of the species, > heck *regardless* of species, has exactly the same > motivation? Or that their motivation is generated > entirely by external sources (carrots and sticks)? I'm suggesting that willpower is an illusion, and spirit just flat out doesn't exist. In the real world, that is. The former is debatable, of course, but behaviourist psychology, materialism, and the laws of physics make it likely. Spirit, on the other hand, assuming you're using some metaphysical definition (which is the usual meaning), is in the same category as any other supernatural phenomenon - ie I'll believe it when someone wins the million dollar prize. YMMV. We're physical creatures; the fact that it seems you have such things as free will and willpower doesn't make it true, any more than the fact that it seems that solid objects are really solid is true - we know the latter are composed mostly of empty space, but that doesn't make the illusion that they're not any less convincing. > I'm pretty sure spirit (l'esprit, motivation) and > willpower exists, is variable among individuals and is > primarily generated by internal values. Depends on what you mean by "internal". If you mean "inside my own brain", fair enough, but that's still definitely in the realm of the physical. If you mean "inside my own metaphysical equivalent of 'self'", then I maintain that I don't believe any such thing is real, and Cartesian Dualism has not been a popular theory for a long time. But if you are saying that certain collections of chemicals exert what we outwardly perceive as high willpower or motivation, and that these chemicals are distributed inequally amongst human brains, then I have no problem with that assertion. It's where it was implied to be metaphysical (which POW in RQ definitely is) that I took exception. -- GAZZA From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:34:20 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:34:20 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45A739FC.6020000@gmail.com> Both of you have illustrated my point - that we can't even agree on a definition of power, thus we can't even argue the merits. There are those folk who feel that prayer has power yet it can't be quantified or measured on a meter. However you will find reputable psychologists & doctors with no religious bent themselves encourage their cancer patients to actively take up prayer & show documentation that survival rates are measurably higher amongst those who pray. Prayer is usually considered a form of magic. Does it exist or not exist? It seemingly has results. One author said many years ago that technology sufficiently advanced to a more primitive culture is indistinguishable from magic. Are ESP, Magic & prayer merely our attempt to grasp a technologies we don't understand yet? I'm very left brained & like my world orderly & nailed down tight understandable principles. I learned long ago (mind you the hard way - from experience) there are things beyond my ken that don't pigeon hole. You are quite correct; use whatever rules fit the "reality" of the gaming world you are running. If CON doesn't tilt your kilt don't use it. Do you think there weren't arguments/debates when we contributing/playtesting the original rules & every variant since then? These discussions are often rehashings of previous debates from those early days in the 70's. These rules are not ordained in stone & no-one will be struck by lightning for fiddling with them. Do what is necessary for your campaign. Skal, Sven Lev Lafayette wrote: > I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider it > to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. > > BTW, with reference to the CON discussion, I do agree > with everything you've said. Really! It's just that > the distinction between red and white muscle isn't > really a huge term for me and least of all in the game > I'm running. I am probably more concerned by the need > for a PERception type characteristic in my game. > > Not having CON hasn't really damaged the game I'm > playing and buy changing the stat to a > perception/senses characteristic I think we've added > to it... > > All the best, > > > Lev > > --- Sven Lugar wrote: > > >> I saw a cartoon (gamer poster) sometime back showing >> a portrait of our >> current president (of the U.S.A) with the tag line >> "INT, not everyone >> uses Charisma as the dump stat!" (I don't mean this >> as a political >> statement but rather that not everyone views CHA as >> useless). As to >> Power, how does one argue that something that we >> presently have no meter >> to measure & scale to quantify it, exists let alone >> argue its >> effectiveness. However, I've met men & women though >> average or even >> mud-fence ugly; who seem to have this presence that >> defies the usual >> explanations of fame, political power, or money. It >> just is. But then >> again, when I was a 7 year old kid, I was taken to >> the Principals office >> & beaten for stating (with supporting scientific >> documentation) that >> what we now call Plate Tectonics was real. The >> teachers & establishment >> at my school denied it as did most educators in the >> 50's & even into the >> 60's & 70's - Heck there are probably still >> skeptics. Who can say with >> absolute certainty whether POW exists or not, eh? >> skal, >> Sven >> >> Lance Dyas wrote: >> >>> ...snip... >>> >>>> >>>> >>> Of course in the modern civilized world... POW as >>> >> it manifests in >> >>> Discepline >>> must be completely useless and CHA...well nobody >>> >> finds more friends or >> >>> makes >>> more money because of either of these things >>> >> nope... totallly useless. >> >>> ;-) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > It's here! Your new message! > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070111/70ea4a9e/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 18:42:58 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:42:58 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A739FC.6020000@gmail.com> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A739FC.6020000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701112342y105a8620mb04f9e3dadcbc44c@mail.gmail.com> > Both of you have illustrated my point - that we can't even agree on a > definition of power, thus we can't even argue the merits. There are those > folk who feel that prayer has power yet it can't be quantified or measured > on a meter. However you will find reputable psychologists & doctors with no > religious bent themselves encourage their cancer patients to actively take > up prayer & show documentation that survival rates are measurably higher > amongst those who pray. Actually the study to which you refer has been roundly blasted as having no proper controls, and thus invalid. Were it otherwise, it would most certainly have qualified for the million dollar prize mentioned earlier. > Prayer is usually considered a form of magic. Of course. > Does it exist or not exist? People pray, yes. But it doesn't alter the laws of physics in favour of the prayer - not demonstrably, at any rate, though even an atheist like myself would be more than willing to be shown otherwise. > One author said many years ago that technology sufficiently advanced to a more primitive culture is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C Clarke. > Are ESP, Magic & prayer merely our attempt to grasp a technologies we don't understand yet? None of those three have any credible evidence. There are generally the attempts of conmen to capitalise on gullibility, or alternatively a form of comforting self delusion. But again, this is NOT really anything to do with RQ; I'm more than happy to continue any discussion via email to avoid bothering the rest of the list. -- GAZZA From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 19:19:48 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:19:48 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701112342y105a8620mb04f9e3dadcbc44c@mail.gmail.com> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A739FC.6020000@gmail.com> <9ebd81400701112342y105a8620mb04f9e3dadcbc44c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A744A4.4090600@gmail.com> Your arguments are the same as those who beat me for supporting Plate Tectonics back in 1960 & with the same attitude that did not allow for any dissension. I knew a retired surgeon-doctor as a youth who still wore his blood-stained black frock-coat (he was in his 90's at the time) who refused to wash his hands or sterilize his equipment because he felt Dr Semmelweis & Dr Lister weren't scientifically sound physicians. All I'm saying is I keep an open mind because we don't know everything yet or even close to it. I've seen too many changes in my lifetime. When I was a kid the idea of pocket calculators let alone portable phones were "Science Fiction" - which was considered a derogatory term & not fit for anyone of scientific bent. Role-playing games hadn't even been introduced yet & when they were, they were considered the province of psychotics & the delusional; & thus not fit for anyone of a scientific mind. I was taught that no man could make it into LEO let alone space because of the Van Allen belt & this was a "proven scientifc fact" & thus JFK was foisting a boondoggle on the American people to merely make his cronies rich. I've seen too much "proven scientific fact" fall as more knowledge comes in. I for one am glad of it. BTW, because of the limitations of the study you mentioned, the study has been repeated with tighter controls & very similar results in several cases & ambiguous results in other trials. And no it wouldn't have qualified for the prize because the study that the doctors (who told me about this) drew no conclusions about what caused the effect (whether physical or not), but merely that there was an effect of undetermined mechanism. I will disagree with you in that this has nothing to do with RQ, because I remember these things being discussed over the gaming tables when Steve was writing the rules & we were playtesting. Also it belongs because it so wonderfully illustrates a strength of RQ; it can encompass a great number of world views & incorporate them into a campaign. Thank you for helping to illustrate that. Please do, tailor the rules to meet your vision. I don't devalue you for it or think less of you in anyway. There needs to be a brake to balance things out. Much as you do, I do prefer quantifiable scientific results myself so there is no need to disdain me so. I wish you the best & may your life always be about learning. Skal, Sven Gary Sturgess wrote: >> Both of you have illustrated my point - that we can't even agree on a >> definition of power, thus we can't even argue the merits. There are >> those >> folk who feel that prayer has power yet it can't be quantified or >> measured >> on a meter. However you will find reputable psychologists & doctors >> with no >> religious bent themselves encourage their cancer patients to actively >> take >> up prayer & show documentation that survival rates are measurably higher >> amongst those who pray. > > Actually the study to which you refer has been roundly blasted as > having no proper controls, and thus invalid. Were it otherwise, it > would most certainly have qualified for the million dollar prize > mentioned earlier. > >> Prayer is usually considered a form of magic. > > Of course. > >> Does it exist or not exist? > > People pray, yes. But it doesn't alter the laws of physics in favour > of the prayer - not demonstrably, at any rate, though even an atheist > like myself would be more than willing to be shown otherwise. > >> One author said many years ago that technology sufficiently advanced >> to a more primitive culture is indistinguishable from magic. > > Arthur C Clarke. > >> Are ESP, Magic & prayer merely our attempt to grasp a technologies we >> don't understand yet? > > None of those three have any credible evidence. There are generally > the attempts of conmen to capitalise on gullibility, or alternatively > a form of comforting self delusion. > > But again, this is NOT really anything to do with RQ; I'm more than > happy to continue any discussion via email to avoid bothering the rest > of the list. From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Jan 12 19:45:07 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:45:07 +0000 Subject: Dark Sun RQ was Re: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >...?I always thought that Dark Sun would have been a brilliant BRP/RQ setting, >provided someone could solve the psionics issue, hopefully without a PSI skill. Err, Spirit Magic? Trained Psionicists are Shaman (probably borrowing more from RQII than III admittedly), and one would want to hack the spell list a bit to turn it in to a proper Psi Powers list, but given just about everyone on Athas has some Psi, RQIII Spirit Magic always looked pretty close to me... >I suppose you could do an almost direct conversion, with PSPs being STR+CON+POW, >and all of the devotions etc being skills at 1D6%. I wouldn't try and re-create the D&D Psi systems directly (it's convoluted, and in the setting was re-written several times), just capture the feel of mind-powers. The new BRP would also work of course, but I've always thought one could do a very serviceable job with just RQIII >There was another?conversion as well, I can't remember who it was by, but it suggested using Spirit magic instead of psionics. Indeed... Can't for the life of me remember where it is though, and works web-screening means I can't search until back at home tonight unfortunately. >As for converting the monsters, I would use some RQ analogues such as the giant >with a few more powers for something like the braxat (Or even the other giants!), >and most humanoid monsters would essentially be human stats with a bit of zing (Belgoi et al). Besides, with the RQ/BRP Creatures book and a few other BRP resources (especially Stormbringer/Elric!) it should be fairly easy to knock up conversions quite quickly, if not actually on the fly. >I for one would be glad to see it under D100 rather than the dense and annoying strictures of levels, classes and alignments! Oddly, Athas always struck me as one of the few settings where D&D rules intricacy helped a bit, as the setting always had the feel of an underlying complex cosmology... albeit the cosmology (and meta-plot) as subsequently detailed turned out to be poo, and the original feel of the tablelands would be MUCH better served by RQ/BRP gritty edge. Damn, now I want to try and run RQ Dark Sun again! ;-) Cheers, Nick Middleton From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 12 22:55:11 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:55:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701112333m5ef0437cs4f4545b8ae06807a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070112115511.63893.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gary Sturgess wrote: > > Are you suggesting that every member of the > species, > > heck *regardless* of species, has exactly the same > > motivation? Or that their motivation is generated > > entirely by external sources (carrots and sticks)? > > I'm suggesting that willpower is an illusion, and > spirit just flat out > doesn't exist. In the real world, that is. If you can, by force of will, type on a keyboard, then that's evidence that you can direct your fingers to do things will mental expression. As for spirit, it seems you have a particular interpretation of the word which is regrettably typical to monolingual anglophones. 'Spirit' in both the Germanic and Romance languages (not sure of the Slavic etc) refers to being connected with shared symbolic values generated through mutual understanding. English, perhaps clumsily, would translate this as somewhere between 'language' and 'ideology' (which is why I referred previously to l'esprit - the German geist would also have worked). Both of which are very powerful, meaningful and motivating forces. > The > former is debatable, of > course, but behaviourist psychology, materialism, > and the laws of > physics make it likely. Spirit, on the other hand, > assuming you're > using some metaphysical definition (which is the > usual meaning), is in > the same category as any other supernatural > phenomenon - ie I'll > believe it when someone wins the million dollar > prize. YMMV. Your assumption is way off the mark. The formation of meaningful symbolic values is not something that can be established through bio-chemical goal states - if it were all members of the human species would speak the same language! > We're physical creatures; the fact that it seems you > have such things > as free will and willpower doesn't make it true, any > more than the > fact that it seems that solid objects are really > solid is true - we > know the latter are composed mostly of empty space, > but that doesn't > make the illusion that they're not any less > convincing. The fact we are physical creatures does not mean we are only physical creatures. We are not robots (POW 0). > > I'm pretty sure spirit (l'esprit, motivation) and > > willpower exists, is variable among individuals > and is > > primarily generated by internal values. > > Depends on what you mean by "internal". If you mean > "inside my own > brain", fair enough, but that's still definitely in > the realm of the > physical. Inside your mind (i.e., the software part) is what I mean. > If you mean "inside my own metaphysical > equivalent of > 'self'", then I maintain that I don't believe any > such thing is real, > and Cartesian Dualism has not been a popular theory > for a long time. Not since the linguistic turn philosophy in the early to mid 20th century, certainly. > But if you are saying that certain collections of > chemicals exert what > we outwardly perceive as high willpower or > motivation, and that these > chemicals are distributed inequally amongst human > brains, then I have > no problem with that assertion. It's where it was > implied to be > metaphysical (which POW in RQ definitely is) that I > took exception. I've actually never interpreted the RQ definition as being metaphysical. There is magical 'colour' to it and a magical game-system, certainly. But it's much more about belief systems. Have a reread of the introductions to the magic book (The Shaman's Answers, The Priestess's Answers, The Sorcerer's Answers). Strip the comments of their metaphysical aspects and read them as an anthropologist or historian trying to understand values and meaning, the psychology of a people. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sat Jan 13 01:42:36 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:42:36 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to Con Message-ID: <50a0ed550701120642v65c61cc8v651d2ad329c0c483@mail.gmail.com> With the provisos that I've just read Sven's post about this being an ongoing debate, and the concrete expectation that this is not going to meet with universal agreement: If I was going to add a characteristic it would be (and in my houserules is) PERception. I cannot see that this is adequately modelled by any of the current characteristics. I have read very cogent arguments that AWAreness would be a better name for this eighth characteristic. But PER was what I first used so it is what I will stick with. If I was going to prune Characteristics then they would be APP and SIZ. In game terms APP (or CHA) seem to be a subset of POW. This may not have been the original intention but it is how it reads to me. I see no reason to attach a game score to the physical appearance a player wants to attach to their character. Likewise STR can model SIZ quite nicely. In non-magical beings a given STR score requires a given minimum mass (SIZ). If a player decides that their PC is going to carry a few kilos of extra mass as fat, or if I decide that my NPC is going to be corpulent then that can go in the character description as well. As it is I have added PER and kept SIZ and CHA. Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070112/aa4f32e7/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sat Jan 13 02:03:33 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:03:33 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ and Middle Earth Message-ID: <50a0ed550701120703w4665939xde6378557b5a5472@mail.gmail.com> My first impulse when thinking about running a different world with RQ rules is usually to re-write everything and thus never get around to actually playing. However a while ago a friend wanted to run a (quite short) campaign based on Tolkien's writings. He (and later his girlfriend who took over the game) asked me to cobble together some changes to RQIII to make it more suitable and so I had to reign by impulses in. In summary, and I'm at work so I may be forgetting key bits: *Magic* A character must have a Pow of 21 to use magic. *(This is an extrapolation of the Elric! rules of requiring a Pow of 16 and takes magic into the realm of powerful spirits and a handful of mortals).* *Religion* Most of the Archangels (are they 'Maia' or 'Valar'? I forget) in Tolkien's work map very easily to the generic Gods in RQIII. (*But as noted above your character needs a Pow of 21 or above to actually get a magical benefit from such workship*.) *Istari * (Gandalf et al) belong to the cults of all of the Archangels and so get access to lots of Divine Magic. *(That made a lot more sense to me than going down the RQIII Sorcery route)* ** *Mythril* Same game rules as RQIII Iron. Except that the Poison metal effect applies to 'Darkness creatures' *Elven Gear* All Elven made equipment is a 1 point enchantment (typically with at least one permanent 4 point Spirit Magic spell on it so Blades have Bladesharp 4 at all times and Light when within 10m of Orcs; Ropes add +80% to Climb, Cloaks add +80% Hide and so on which come from the Elric! Cran Liret spells which map really easily to Spirit/Battle magic) Elven Great Bows use Dragonewt Bone Bow rules *Races* Men normal human rules Dunadan, Numenoreans, etc normal humans but roll 2d+6 for all characteristics Dwarves normal Dwarf rules but no Earthsense Half Elves normal humans but roll 2d+6 for all characteristics except STR double result of age roll Elves use Ogre rules but swap rolls for Dex and Str treble result of age roll and lose Disguise skill Hobbits use Duck rules (these seemed a better fit than the RQIII Halfling ones!) Moria Orcs use Trollkin, but no Darksense Orcs use Dark Troll, but no Darksense Uruk-Hai use Great Troll, but no Darksense Trolls use Cave Trolls WereBears use Werewolf rules Great Eagles use Wyvern, but no stinging tail attack *Weapons* No Crossbows (not mentioned in the books) No Rapiers (books seem ancient, pre-roman and so late medievel weapons make no sense) I never thought of rules for Palintirs (sp) but it seems in keeping with Tolkien that using any kind of magic brings a price. So I'd suggest that using a Palintir is like creating an enchantment (although you might not realise it) so for each d10 MP drawn from such you lose 1 Pow........... Hope that helps Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070112/6665e406/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 02:11:40 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:11:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to Con In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701120642v65c61cc8v651d2ad329c0c483@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <149.85932.qm@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- alan richards wrote: > With the provisos that I've just read Sven's post > about this being an > ongoing debate, and the concrete expectation that > this is not going to meet > with universal agreement: > > If I was going to add a characteristic it would be > (and in my houserules is) > PERception. I cannot see that this is adequately > modelled by any of the > current characteristics. I have read very cogent > arguments that AWAreness > would be a better name for this eighth > characteristic. But PER was what I > first used so it is what I will stick with. > > If I was going to prune Characteristics then they > would be APP and SIZ. > > In game terms APP (or CHA) seem to be a subset of > POW. This may not have > been the original intention but it is how it reads > to me. I see no reason to > attach a game score to the physical appearance a > player wants to attach to > their character. > > Likewise STR can model SIZ quite nicely. In > non-magical beings a given STR > score requires a given minimum mass (SIZ). If a > player decides that their PC > is going to carry a few kilos of extra mass as fat, > or if I decide that my > NPC is going to be corpulent then that can go in the > character description > as well. > > As it is I have added PER and kept SIZ and CHA. > > Al I agree about APP. As Gygax pointed out (and was immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), some of the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, were hardly physically attractive. However, SIZ is of critical importance in ability to get into tight spaces, just as CON is in the ability to resist disease or carry heavy loads very far. Just for the record, Mythworld uses strength, constitution, size, intelligence, mana, dexterity, trustworthiness, and sanity. Perception is a secondary characteristic, based on INT and MNA and is a bonus to all sensory input skills. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lorgryt at comcast.net Sat Jan 13 02:21:46 2007 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:21:46 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ and Middle Earth In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701120703w4665939xde6378557b5a5472@mail.gmail.com > References: <50a0ed550701120703w4665939xde6378557b5a5472@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112072119.026b0800@comcast.net> At 07:03 AM 1/12/2007, you wrote: >My first impulse when thinking about running a different world with RQ rules is usually to re-write everything and thus never get around to actually playing. However a while ago a friend wanted to run a (quite short) campaign based on Tolkien's writings. He (and later his girlfriend who took over the game) asked me to cobble together some changes to RQIII to make it more suitable and so I had to reign by impulses in. > >In summary, and I'm at work so I may be forgetting key bits: < clip > Nice work. Thanks for sharing it. Bo Looking for a freeform Free Forum? http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 02:32:14 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:32:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON, thread drift In-Reply-To: <45A744A4.4090600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <688770.54174.qm@web31815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Sven Lugar wrote: > Your arguments are the same as those who beat me for > supporting Plate > Tectonics back in 1960 & with the same attitude that > did not allow for > any dissension. I knew a retired surgeon-doctor as a > youth who still > wore his blood-stained black frock-coat (he was in > his 90's at the time) > who refused to wash his hands or sterilize his > equipment because he felt > Dr Semmelweis & Dr Lister weren't scientifically > sound physicians. All > I'm saying is I keep an open mind because we don't > know everything yet > or even close to it. I've seen too many changes in > my lifetime. When I > was a kid the idea of pocket calculators let alone > portable phones were > "Science Fiction" - which was considered a > derogatory term & not fit for > anyone of scientific bent. Role-playing games hadn't > even been > introduced yet & when they were, they were > considered the province of > psychotics & the delusional; & thus not fit for > anyone of a scientific > mind. I was taught that no man could make it into > LEO let alone space > because of the Van Allen belt & this was a "proven > scientifc fact" & > thus JFK was foisting a boondoggle on the American > people to merely make > his cronies rich. I've seen too much "proven > scientific fact" fall as > more knowledge comes in. I for one am glad of it. > > BTW, because of the limitations of the study you > mentioned, the study > has been repeated with tighter controls & very > similar results in > several cases & ambiguous results in other trials. > And no it wouldn't > have qualified for the prize because the study that > the doctors (who > told me about this) drew no conclusions about what > caused the effect > (whether physical or not), but merely that there was > an effect of > undetermined mechanism. > > I will disagree with you in that this has nothing to > do with RQ, because > I remember these things being discussed over the > gaming tables when > Steve was writing the rules & we were playtesting. > Also it belongs > because it so wonderfully illustrates a strength of > RQ; it can encompass > a great number of world views & incorporate them > into a campaign. Thank > you for helping to illustrate that. > > Please do, tailor the rules to meet your vision. I > don't devalue you for > it or think less of you in anyway. There needs to be > a brake to balance > things out. Much as you do, I do prefer quantifiable > scientific results > myself so there is no need to disdain me so. I wish > you the best & may > your life always be about learning. > Skal, > Sven I find much to appreciate in your comments. Mythworld, as I have mentioned before, was my submission for RQ III and too detailed for Greg Stafford's taste. It is an example of your rules modification. I also resonated with your first paragraph. I am eternally grateful to my geology professor (1953) who did not believe in plate tectonics, but considered it an important enough theory that we should have a grounding in it. Likewise, Pasteur faced considerable opposition to most of his breakthroughs because he was a chemist and not a medical doctor. By all means, keep an open mind, but on the other hand, don't fall for every fad that comes down the pike. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 04:28:20 2007 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:28:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Sun RQ was Re: Urgent! Re: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070112172820.2040.qmail@web53012.mail.yahoo.com> > >There was another?conversion as well, I can't > remember who it was by, but > it suggested using Spirit magic instead of psionics. > > Indeed... Can't for the life of me remember where it > is though, and works > web-screening means I can't search until back at > home tonight > unfortunately. I believe it was a write up by chromebob. A search using chromebob rq and Darksun should turn it up. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 04:41:01 2007 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701101916k3f89ee74h4735dce7b7d315e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <304349.75169.qm@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> I guess I should start reading the oldest emails instead of working backward from the most recent.... --- David Smart wrote: > It absolutely was! Thanks to you, Roger, for > providing the name and the > Web's "WayBack Machine" archive website, the > material can be downloaded at: > > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chromebob.com/gaming/ > > All the links need to be clicked to gather all the > available material but a > good amount is still available. > > On 1/10/07, Roger Benham > wrote: > > > > It was (I think) Geral Kahla's Dark Sun > conversion. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 07:34:58 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:34:58 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <304349.75169.qm@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1c92296e0701101916k3f89ee74h4735dce7b7d315e9@mail.gmail.com> <304349.75169.qm@web53004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701121234u775d3983w1f8cdec384cd038c@mail.gmail.com> Heh. Nice to know someone else besides me does that too. On 1/12/07, zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com wrote: > > I guess I should start reading the oldest emails > instead of working backward from the most recent.... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070112/e6305ee0/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jan 13 08:09:49 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:09:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to Con and (other characteristics) In-Reply-To: <149.85932.qm@web31814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070112210949.88156.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- alan richards > wrote: > > > With the provisos that I've just read Sven's post > > about this being an > > ongoing debate, and the concrete expectation that > > this is not going to meet > > with universal agreement: > > > > If I was going to add a characteristic it would be > > (and in my houserules is) > > PERception. I cannot see that this is adequately > > modelled by any of the > > current characteristics. I have read very cogent > > arguments that AWAreness > > would be a better name for this eighth > > characteristic. But PER was what I > > first used so it is what I will stick with. > > > > If I was going to prune Characteristics then they > > would be APP and SIZ. > > > > In game terms APP (or CHA) seem to be a subset of > > POW. This may not have > > been the original intention but it is how it reads > > to me. I see no reason to > > attach a game score to the physical appearance a > > player wants to attach to > > their character. > > > > Likewise STR can model SIZ quite nicely. In > > non-magical beings a given STR > > score requires a given minimum mass (SIZ). If a > > player decides that their PC > > is going to carry a few kilos of extra mass as > fat, > > or if I decide that my > > NPC is going to be corpulent then that can go in > the > > character description > > as well. > > > > > As it is I have added PER and kept SIZ and CHA. > > > > Al > > I agree about APP. As Gygax pointed out (and was > immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), some of > the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, were > hardly physically attractive. Actually this is a point where I'm actually in agreement with keeping CONstitution. I take the GURPS argument that a healthy body is the default for an attractive body (GURPS of course has "Sex Appeal" as a skill). I also understand the argument about APP(eal) being a subset of POW. People of great spirit tend to be people who command personal magnetism (for better or or for worse). SIZ I would keep; there is substantial sexual diamorphism in the species, let along between species For example a 40 kg chimp is just a strong as 95 kg human, if not more so. That said, they sink like a stone... Hmmm... Now you're making me think of combining APP into POW and leaving CON as it is ;-) > Just for the record, Mythworld uses strength, > constitution, size, intelligence, mana, dexterity, > trustworthiness, and sanity. Perception is a > secondary characteristic, based on INT and MNA and > is > a bonus to all sensory input skills. How would this work for non-human and animal species who have a low INT and low MNA? All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news From gazza666 at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 10:15:28 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:15:28 +0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <20070112115511.63893.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9ebd81400701112333m5ef0437cs4f4545b8ae06807a@mail.gmail.com> <20070112115511.63893.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400701121515m520bf8a3x958fbb070dba4f44@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > --- Gary Sturgess wrote: > If you can, by force of will, type on a keyboard, then > that's evidence that you can direct your fingers to do > things will mental expression. Agreed. And I don't agree that I can. It SEEMS that I can, and because I don't know the ultimate causes of the particular physical states that cause me to type this, "force of will" is as good a term as any, but there's nothing metaphysical about it. Were you to manually stimulate the parts of my brain that are currently being stimulated, I couldn't NOT type through a force of will. > As for spirit, it seems you have a particular > interpretation of the word which is regrettably > typical to monolingual anglophones. No, not really. Dictionary.com has 31 different meanings. Most of them have to do with "the vital principle in humans" or an otherwise incorporeal aspect, and I dispute the existence of said incorporeal aspect. I enjoy the implied insult (how dare I speak only one language?!!), but frankly if you're going to use a word to mean something different than common usage, then any misunderstandings are hardly the fault of your audience ("monolingual anglophones" or otherwise). > 'Spirit' in both the Germanic and Romance languages (not sure of the Slavic etc) refers to being connected with shared symbolic values generated through mutual understanding. English, perhaps clumsily, would translate this as somewhere between 'language' and 'ideology' (which is why I referred previously to l'esprit - the German geist would also have worked). So in Gloranthan terms that sounds like a Wyter? Or are you just using spirit as a synonym for "culture"? > Your assumption is way off the mark. The formation of > meaningful symbolic values is not something that can > be established through bio-chemical goal states - if > it were all members of the human species would speak > the same language! All members of the human species do not experience the same biochemical goal states. Both genetics and environment exert unique influences. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Were every member of the human species a clone, and subjected to the exact same environmental conditions (eg "being taught to speak English"), they would indeed speak the same language, and do everything else the same as well. In practice while genetics are digital and therefore in principle capable of perfect duplication, environmental factors are probably not, so you would find it difficult to perform the experiment. > The fact we are physical creatures does not mean we > are only physical creatures. We are not robots (POW > 0). IYHO. I say we are biological robots. We're just complex biological robots. > Inside your mind (i.e., the software part) is what I > mean. Defining the mind as "brain software" is fine. The analogy holds perfectly. Software in a computer is an illusion; at the lowest level, it's electrons that do all the work - software is simply a way we created to allow us to set up hardware situations whereby the result of those moving electrons can be described at a higher level, in exactly the way that "mind" is just a function of, ultimately, chemical reactions and other physical phenomena. > I've actually never interpreted the RQ definition as > being metaphysical. There is magical 'colour' to it > and a magical game-system, certainly. But it's much > more about belief systems. Have a reread of the > introductions to the magic book (The Shaman's Answers, > The Priestess's Answers, The Sorcerer's Answers). It is ironic, is it not, that in an attempt to show that RQ's definition of POW is not magical, you begin by going to the magic book and suggesting I consider the statements of the three archetypical magicians? ;) Which is not to misunderstand you (except for comic purposes) - yes, those sections describe many things that are cultural more than metaphysical. > Strip the comments of their metaphysical aspects and > read them as an anthropologist or historian trying to > understand values and meaning, the psychology of a > people. Given that I suspect I wouldn't be alone in suggesting that the "What the X says" portions of the RQ3 rules are among the most useful sections of the rules, I don't disagree specifically with any of that. However, they are describing the situation from a narrative POV, whereas when we step back to consider the POW characteristic we're playing at the simulationist level. In RQ, POW is basically a measure of your magical abilities; the only other things that it affects are your communication skills and (negatively) your stealth skills. In the real world - unless you have evidence otherwise, and it should be obvious I'm a skeptic - magic doesn't exist, and frankly I've never noticed that charismatic people had a harder time moving silently and hiding, so there's nothing for POW to measure. Now, having said that, if we take a step back and consider the BRP implications rather than merely RQ, we find that POW has been used in settings where magic is much rarer and/or non-existent. Unfortunately I am probably unique here; though I've played dozens of gaming systems over many years, Call of Cthulu is not amongst them (I'm not an HP Lovecraft fan, and I've never found a GM willing to run it), but I understand that POW is still basically used for magic there. Certainly it is in Stormbringer (the forerunner to Elric!, which I don't have, but I assume that they're similar enough) and to an extent Superworld. But in principle there may well be a BRP game that contains no magic and still finds a use for POW. As far as the core discussion, I'm not really convinced we fundamentally disagree; my point basically is that I don't accept the existence of the metaphysical, and that humans (or indeed any other complex life form) can in principle be described by purely physical processes. However, it certainly FEELS like we have free will, and it can't possibly hurt to act as if we do (since if we don't, we're unable to act otherwise). I'm not really sure that this is what POW is supposed to measure, though. Backing away from the actual existence of willpower for the moment, most people would ascribe someone who had a high pain tolerance, was difficult to persuade, or had determination as strong willed. In RQ, the first would be measured by CON, the second by opposed Fast Talk rolls (of which POW is a very minor influence), and the third really doesn't have any game mechanic. The strongest evidence for "POW = Willpower" would seem to be that a high POW means you have a large number of Magic Points which in turn makes you hard to affect with magic, but unfortunately that gets clouded by the open question of whether that's only for magic; if it is, then my point that in a magicless world POW would have no use stands (even if you do not agree that magic doesn't exist in this world - Greg Stafford, for example, would be on that side). The only time POW is used as a characteristic roll is for Luck rolls (POW * 5, or POW * 3 for Initiation, and so on). It doesn't seem that those who are characterised as strong willed are the same group of people that are characterised as lucky. Of course characteristics don't necessarily measure only one thing, but in RQ terms if POW means you're magically potent, then that can certainly be used to explain luck (you subconsciously manipulate magic in your favour - especially good as an explanation in a world such as Glorantha where the laws of physics do not exist - EVERYTHING is magical). In the end, I would say that the evidence for POW being a measure of willpower is not non-existent, but it's not particularly strong. Depending on the situation I could see CON (for throwing off the effects of drugs, and resisting pain) or INT (for resisting manipulation) being used to test "willpower"; outside of magic use, I can't think of too many cases I'd use POW. -- GAZZA From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 12:56:40 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:56:40 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Background Experience (RQ III) In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701112325x1df9606dpa77d611d95bd45e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <795247.26902.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ebd81400701112325x1df9606dpa77d611d95bd45e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701121756n18f0d349t55745cb9dc01afd3@mail.gmail.com> Frankly, INT is already too much of a powergamer stat anyway, IMO. The best way, if you have a tool that can do it quickly (someone whip up an excel spreadsheet?), would be to say that if the background skill tables give you "x3" for a skill, give them 3 skill checks against it. And then, heck, i(f you have the tool) give them at the end a "x1" roll on every non-zero skill, just to mix it up. The result is people with natural aptitude for certain things (ie high mods) end up getting slightly higher skills in those areas. (Note: IMG I have the players write their skill in the slot on the sheet, and then roll against THAT raw number (with a plus to the roll equal to their category modifier). On 1/12/07, Gary Sturgess wrote: > > > I've never been entirely happy with the background > > experience system in RQ III. This is simply because > > the percentages are static (30 percentiles per annum) > > regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and the > > gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to skills > > rating 05% or 60%). > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070112/ab338ad5/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 13:03:25 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:03:25 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701121515m520bf8a3x958fbb070dba4f44@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ebd81400701112333m5ef0437cs4f4545b8ae06807a@mail.gmail.com> <20070112115511.63893.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ebd81400701121515m520bf8a3x958fbb070dba4f44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701121803i4352c2f9me4a7d118b62eafa@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Gary Sturgess wrote: > > > The only time POW is used as a characteristic roll is for Luck rolls > (POW * 5, or POW * 3 for Initiation, and so on). Not quite; POW has a NEGATIVE effect on stealth modifier. IMO I've always considered POW to be more an aspect of a person's personality, evinced in FANTASY worlds as 'more magic power'. So for example there are people, we all know them, that are a magnetic personality; they walk into a room and are IMMEDIATELY the center of attention, for better or worse. That would be a high POW. The people that seem to be ignored by everyone would be low POW. IMO if someone were to drop APP, I'd substitute POW for it without too much question. The stealth impact of the stat would support this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070112/b9b96cc9/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Jan 13 13:47:25 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:25 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45A8483D.5090109@inetnebr.com> Lev Lafayette wrote: > I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider it > to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. > exactly... From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Jan 13 14:09:19 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:09:19 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701112318m979b297kd8318a3cc4f30077@mail.gmail.com> References: <45A7337F.1060502@gmail.com> <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ebd81400701112318m979b297kd8318a3cc4f30077@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A84D5F.4010005@inetnebr.com> Gary Sturgess wrote: > On 1/12/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: >> >> I'm absolutely certain that POW exists. I consider it >> to be equivalent of spirit and willpower. > > Interesting. I'd argue fairly strongly that neither of those exist. > > But that's getting a bit off topic for RQRules. Sure get realistic on me... OK how about seeing them as a combination of multiple balanced personality features which society values in different contexts ;-) Disciplined, Prudent, Determined , Spirited, Decisive ... Precise and Focused I think of them as psychological equivalent of physical stamina and speed muscles *Decisive* you decide quickly some call you rash but you go with it... when you decide right it can really work because you commit quickly - *Opposite Prudent* *Prudent* you take your time about making decisions but this means those decisions are more often correct - though occasionally too late. *Opposite: Rash / Decisive.* *Relaxed* You don't stress out under fire even, some think you don't take things seriously but you perform as well under fire as some do.* Opposite: Uptight.* *Precise* Your performance when things are stressful isn't what it could be and some call you uptight, but your everyday performance can be quite noticeably exacting.* Opposite: Relaxed* *Alert* You are more aware of things other than what your are concentrating on than most people. Its harder to sneak up on you to gain advantage... *Opposite: Focused. * *Focused* You are more aware of things you are concentrating on than most people. Its harder to break your attention *Opposite: Alert* *Determined* When you make a decision you cant be shaken some call you Stubborn but You believe in your decisions. Its hard to influence you. You cannot be adaptable *Opposite:Adaptable* *Adaptable* You are open to various ways of thinking and can change according to the demands of the situation. You find learning new things easy. You can be influenced to drift from chosen paths. *Opposite:Stubborn* *Creative* You actively need to create, you actively enjoy finding your on solutions to problems and enjoy originality for its own sake *Opposite:Rote-learner* *Rote-learner* You learn things which require repetition and exacting duplication easily you are better at following directions than most. *Opposite:Creative* *Disciplined* You tend to do what is expected of you and stick to those decisions. Some call you dependable others call you a stick in the mud. *Opposite:Spirited* *Spirited* You are something of a rebel and this energy tends to express itself in your individuality and backing or your own personal decisions. *Opposite:Disciplined* *Enigmatic / Complex* You are mysterious about yourself some think its because you like it that way... but not necessarily you can have difficulty understanding your own motivations *Opposite:Honest* *Honest / Simple * You present the truth and yourself the way they are and figure others need to deal with it You probably understand yourself and even know your own darkness and have learned to accept them this is at times and extra tough of confidence. You may need to resist revealing your darknesses to others. People will indeed tend to trust you. *Opposite:Complex* *Fuzzy Thinker* You actually see the whole picture and can find unusual connections that others dont get. *Opposite:Mind for Details* *Mind for Details* You pick up on details in a situation you can end up missing the forest because there are too many trees in the way. *Opposite:Fuzzy Thinker* *Extro-spective* You tend to pay attention to the external world *Opposite:Introspective* *Introspective* You are more aware of your internal environment, you are very self aware *Opposite:Extrospective* *Cautious* If you decide quickly it will be on the side of safety. *Opposite:Risk Taker* *Risk Taker* You dont mind risk no guts no glory and you may actually like danger. If you arent prudent you tend to get yourself in trouble or even hurt a lot. *Opposite:Cautious* *Deceptive* You prefer no-one knowing where you are coming from and like to change course often to make sure of it, some consider you un-dependable others think this makes you mysterious. *Instinctual* You go with your gut this is generally a quick thing, things work the way nature inspires them. *Analytical / Rational* You have to know what you see is real... you demand proof. And everything has a reason. *Spiritual* You like mystery and enigma... to much heavy handed explaining spoils things, something only needs to be intuitively correct. *Emotional* You like to ride your feelings even tho they may be a roller coaster ride... and are able to understand the feelings of others *Imaginative* You tend to come at things from different routes than most... If you are also creative these different routes may even be unique. *Pragmatic* You do what needs to be done. *Flamboyant* How you do what you do calls attention to itself and away from exactly what you are doing... *Direct* You dont waste time doing things external to your goal some call your way simple or crude. From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jan 13 23:22:12 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:22:12 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A8483D.5090109@inetnebr.com> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A8483D.5090109@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <45A8CEF4.6070403@zunder.org.uk> What a curious thread. We are debating the reductionist categorisation of metaphysical and physical concepts as labels in a game.. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 03:40:17 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:40:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to Con and (other characteristics) In-Reply-To: <20070112210949.88156.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <328690.3596.qm@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > Just for the record, Mythworld uses strength, > > constitution, size, intelligence, mana, dexterity, > > trustworthiness, and sanity. Perception is a > > secondary characteristic, based on INT and MNA and > > is > > a bonus to all sensory input skills. > > How would this work for non-human and animal species > who have a low INT and low MNA? All species have a basic ability just for being in that species. Some have upper limits for the same reason. Humans' Dark Sense tops at a pathetic 5% and Scent at 50% while bats default to sonar and have no limits in the dark while dogs and pigs have no limits on Scent. "Dumb animals" may have a low INT (generally 2 or 3), but roll 3D6 for MNA just as sapient species. Because of the low INT, they cannot cast spells, but can increase their MNA by resisting spells cast against them on the same basis as high INT individuals can for successfully casting resisted spells. Low MNA has the same problems regardless of species, but at least can have a chance of being raised in the course of the game. Likewise, the APP factor of MNA applies to animals regardless of INT. The perception factor is a bonus in addition to species basic and there is still the MNA effect to counter the detrimental effect of low INT in computing this bonus. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sun Jan 14 11:18:01 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:18:01 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Background Experience Message-ID: <50a0ed550701131618u28b5edacg50b4fc666ff22997@mail.gmail.com> > > From: Lev Lafayette > > I've never been entirely happy with the background > experience system in RQ III. This is simply because > the percentages are static (30 percentiles per annum) > regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and the > gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to skills > rating 05% or 60%). > > The following is a simple modification I've added that > seems to be working without much trouble. > > For every year of the chararacter's life over 15 they > receive INT*2+POW skill points (average 30). > > They also receive the equivalent of 3 years worth for > the period prior to 15 (I don't have automatic > percentages for cultural skills - these two have to > purchased). > > Skills may be purchased at a 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 > basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from then > on. > > It's pretty quick 'n' easy and seems to work. > > Any thoughts? > 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience at age 10 not 15. And likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In canon RQIII I think that only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others are common to all members of a species?) I usually insist that the 5 Years between 10 and 15 are spent in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' 2d6* years may be spent in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's choice. *actually 2d6-2 as I roll human age as 2d6+13. There is no compelling reason for this the spread is just more pleasing to my eye. 2. (Int+Int+Pow) points per year instead of 30. It doesn't float my boat. For a start 'average human' Int in RQIII is 13 so your 'average' human character would have 36 points per year not 30. So only use this if you want to inflate the number of skill points received (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Secondly it seems clunky to me. I suppose I'd prefer (Int x3) points per year. But that is even worse in terms of inflating skill points(!) Inspired by the old RQIV:AiG (Adventures in Abbreviations) I like being able to start characters off at different levels of experience and power. And do this by varying how many skill points a character has per year over 10 (or 15 if you prefer) Untrained 0 (they're like untrained dude) Novice 15 Trained 30 Skilled 45 Expert 60 Master 75 3. 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from then on. Blurgh, Yuck. I hate it. I must be missing something here coz a rule like this seems to find its way into most people's House Rules for RQIII. I really cannot be bothered with double-entry book keeping. That being said your version seems to be as good as any other. Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070114/8a7a0422/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 12:06:03 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:06:03 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <45A8CEF4.6070403@zunder.org.uk> References: <214458.91460.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <45A8483D.5090109@inetnebr.com> <45A8CEF4.6070403@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701131706s6ce84b09y22d394522e5491de@mail.gmail.com> Heh, yeah. Ain't RQ kewl? On 1/13/07, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > What a curious thread. > We are debating the reductionist categorisation of metaphysical and > physical concepts as labels in a game.. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070113/7285a1ac/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Jan 14 21:21:06 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:21:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Background Experience In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701131618u28b5edacg50b4fc666ff22997@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <896364.64337.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- alan richards wrote: > > > > From: Lev Lafayette > > > > > I've never been entirely happy with the background > > experience system in RQ III. This is simply > because > > the percentages are static (30 percentiles per > annum) > > regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and > the > > gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to > skills > > rating 05% or 60%). > > > > The following is a simple modification I've added > that > > seems to be working without much trouble. > > > > For every year of the chararacter's life over 15 > they > > receive INT*2+POW skill points (average 30). > > > > They also receive the equivalent of 3 years worth > for > > the period prior to 15 (I don't have automatic > > percentages for cultural skills - these two have > to > > purchased). > > > > Skills may be purchased at a 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 > > basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from > then > > on. > > > > It's pretty quick 'n' easy and seems to work. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience > at age 10 not 15. And > likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In > canon RQIII I think that > only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others > are common to all members > of a species?) True that. > I usually insist that the 5 Years > between 10 and 15 are spent > in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' > 2d6* years may be spent > in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's > choice. > > *actually 2d6-2 as I roll human age as 2d6+13. There > is no compelling reason > for this the spread is just more pleasing to my eye. That's probably not so bad either. > 2. (Int+Int+Pow) points per year instead of 30. > It doesn't float my boat. > For a start 'average human' Int in RQIII is 13 so > your 'average' human > character would have 36 points per year not 30. So > only use this if you want > to inflate the number of skill points received > (which is not necessarily a > bad thing). > Secondly it seems clunky to me. How is it clunky? It just means that they have a variable number of skill points to spend rather than a fixed amount. Not everyone learns at the same rate and it's probably largely due to intelligence and partially due to motivation (POW). > I suppose I'd prefer (Int x3) points per year. But > that is even worse in > terms of inflating skill points(!) > > Inspired by the old RQIV:AiG (Adventures in > Abbreviations) I like being able > to start characters off at different levels of > experience and power. And do > this by varying how many skill points a character > has per year over 10 (or > 15 if you prefer) > > Untrained 0 (they're like untrained dude) > Novice 15 > Trained 30 > Skilled 45 > Expert 60 > Master 75 I'd rather use these as representative of power level (which they are very good at). > 3. 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to > 90% and 1:4 basis from > then on. > Blurgh, Yuck. I hate it. I must be missing something > here coz a rule like > this seems to find its way into most people's House > Rules for RQIII. I > really cannot be bothered with double-entry book > keeping. That being said > your version seems to be as good as any other. I've encountered versions which are harder ;-) The basic idea is that skills are relatively easy to pick up and get harder as the percentages go up. Not something really simulated in the current (RQ III) occupational experience rules. And I must say that I'm thoroughly charmed by the fact that one can still reasonably call RQ III "current" without sounding silly after 22 years! All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 23:01:50 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:01:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON Message-ID: <667419.13413.qm@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Paul Cardwell: > I agree about APP. As Gygax pointed out (and was > immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), some of >the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, were >hardly physically attractive. Yes, so it would be better to have separate APP and CHA characteristics, one to denote pure physical attractiveness and one to denote magnetism and charisma. I know they overlap, but that's why skills have more than one characteristic associated with them. Lev Lafayette: > I also understand the argument about APP(eal) being a > subset of POW. People of great spirit tend to be > people who command personal magnetism (for better or > or for worse). Personally, I think that they should be kept separate. That way, the argument that powerful people are also persuasive can be equated to using POW as an underlying characteristic to various Communication skills. Also, people in positions of power or who are rich will get an automatic bonus on skills such as Seduce, rather then those skills being higher because of their position. > Hmmm... Now you're making me think of combining APP > into POW and leaving CON as it is ;-) I wouldn't, just because the same argument can apply in reverse. Why is my ugly shaman so attractive to women? If you combine the characteristics, then all people with a high POW are also charismatic and physically attractive. That is equally wrong. More characteristics, not less. That's the way forward. In some games, I have a CHI characteristic, which has Ki Points that are used to drive the Ki skills from Land of Ninja. I wouldn't be averse to using the EDU characteristic in a modern game or the PSI characteristic in a futuristic game. I also know of people who have separate POW and LUC (Luck) characteristics, arguing that magically powerful people aren't always lucky and lucky people aren't always magically powerful. Whilst I have enjoued reading the pseudo-scientific stuff supporting and opposing Free Will/Will Power etc, it is safe to say that neither argument will prove or disprove the other, despite people believing quite stringly that their arguments have actually proven/disproven the existence/non-existence of either. It's more a matter of belief. And, in a Roleplaying Game, belief is quite important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070114/6270a69f/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 23:10:15 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:10:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Background Experience Message-ID: <584941.36778.qm@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Alan Richards: > 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience at age 10 not 15. And > likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In canon RQIII I think that > only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others are common to all members > of a species?) I usually insist that the 5 Years between 10 and 15 are spent > in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' 2d6* years may be spent > in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's choice. Which makes sense as having adults begin at 15 or 16 is a modern idea. Children were apprenticed out in the Middle Ages at an early age and taught a profession. In the past, when life expectancy was very low, people mated in their very early teens when puberty started, which is when they effectively became adults. I'm not so sure about being in a randomly rolled profession. That might be OK if you are using the "give me any character and I'll play it" mode, but doesn't really fit the "my character has a detailed backstory" mode. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070114/2be12a51/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Jan 14 23:52:23 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:52:23 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Background Experience In-Reply-To: <584941.36778.qm@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <584941.36778.qm@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45AA2787.1090503@brinkdata.se> Simon Phipp skrev: > Alan Richards: >> 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience at age 10 not 15. And >> likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In canon RQIII I think that >> only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others are common to all members >> of a species?) I usually insist that the 5 Years between 10 and 15 are spent >> in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' 2d6* years may be spent >> in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's choice. > > Which makes sense as having adults begin at 15 or 16 is a modern idea. Children > were apprenticed out in the Middle Ages at an early age and taught a > profession. In the past, when life expectancy was very low, people > mated in their very early teens when puberty started, which is when they > effectively became adults. > > In my next game I will mix the game systems of Stormbringer 5, RQ II and III (in effect it will be like the new DBRP). I've decided to use a system where the characters start their adult life as 10 year olds and begin play as 20-22 year old. The player may choose up to three different career paths for their characters. For example a character may have started her adult life as a beggar, later she became a thief and finally she joined a band of brigands (mercenaries). Each profession offers 8 skills and the player may divide 350 percentiles among the skills offered by the profession(s) chosen. It's a simple and neat system that offers the player a reasonable amount of flexibility yet it forces him to keep himself within the bounds of the profession(s) chosen. /Peter Brink From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Jan 15 09:29:16 2007 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:29:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <667419.13413.qm@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> References: <667419.13413.qm@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14-Jan-07, at 5:01 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > Paul Cardwell: > > I agree about APP.??As Gygax pointed out (and was > >?immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), some of > >the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, were > >hardly physically attractive. > Yes, so it would be better to have separate APP and CHA > characteristics, one to denote pure physical attractiveness and one to > denote magnetism and charisma. I think I may have briefly mentioned this idea on this list before, but just last week I was thinking about it some more, and since it seems to be topical, I'm going to do it again. I've always been troubled a bit by traits like APP, which are in real life pretty darned subjective, notwithstanding that there's also a large degree of consensus within a community as to who's attractive and who isn't. So the approach I would like to take is to break up the 3d6 of APP into separate components, a racial (species), cultural and individual component. Each character would record on their sheet only the first two; the individual component is subjective, "in the eye of the beholder", and rolled up for each viewer. The reaction of each viewer would always be determined by the sum of all three values, but certain values can be limited by the viewer's unfamiliarity with the species or cultural norms. The racial or species component would be available to anyone familiar enough with the species in question to make an informed judgment as to the "objective" beauty of the individual specimen. It represents general physical beauty, and would normally range from 1 - 6, possibly modified by CON or STR. The cultural component represents generally accepted conventions of beauty within the character's own culture: hairstyles, makeup, norms of body language, posture, gesture and voice mannerisms, etc. Again, only one familiar with these cultural norms would be able to appreciate the character's poise. Finally there would be 1d6 rolled by each subject character upon meeting the object character. This is always available, but if it's the only one available the reaction is likely to be unimpressive. See, I don't know much about orcs, so to me, they tend to range in APP from 1-6. But an orc who was raised by humans and learned to dress well and comb its hair might range from 2-12 in APP (1d6 for subjective, 1d6 for "poise", but it's still pretty ugly in terms of a facial structure and skin tone I haven't learned to appreciate.) The thing I noticed last week while thinking about this was that if ol' Cormac meets someone and rolls a 6 on his subjective evaluation of her beauty, ultimately she will range from 8-18, which is the same "normal" range for human SIZ and INT. So, as a guide, an effective APP of 8 might be the practical minimum for interest, and 13 the average rating of those one would be interested in. But note that ANYONE can have an effective APP of 8, and will in fact for at least 1 in six of the population. The ugliest, person, as lacking in poise as possible, will have a racial+cultural score of 2, and in practice will range from 3-8, while the most technically perfect supermodel (12 in racial+cultural values) will in practice range from 13-18. "Yeah, she's pretty, but only in an average, conventional kinda way. She has no CHARACTER, no distinctness, no je-ne-sais-quoi, you know?" "Are you KIDDING? She's totally hot!!" This is obviously way too much math and book keeping, but I thought it was an interesting model nonetheless. And it also allows a somewhat more tightly defined possibility for training: the cultural component can be trained relatively easily, but only so far. The species component could only be altered with surgery or magic (or maybe indirectly by working on CON or STR), while the subjective one could possibly be affected by specific kinds of interaction (Seduce skill, for example, or again magic), possibly even beyond 6. (Maybe the unnatural beauty of certain beings could be simulated by rolling their subjective reaction score on something more than 1d6? A dryad is supposed to have APP of 2d6+12; this is the equivalent of saying that they naturally max out the racial and cultural values appropriate to the viewer, whoever they encounter, which makes sense, and then they get a subjective value of 2d6.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4865 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070114/b29a0db9/attachment.bin From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 15 10:04:01 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:04:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <690287.47811.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Tom Cantine wrote: > > On 14-Jan-07, at 5:01 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > Paul Cardwell: > > > I agree about APP. As Gygax pointed out (and > was > > > immediately misinterpreted by game-bashers), > some of > > >the most charismatic individuals, good and bad, > were > > >hardly physically attractive. > > Yes, so it would be better to have separate APP > and CHA > > characteristics, one to denote pure physical > attractiveness and one to > > denote magnetism and charisma. > > I think I may have briefly mentioned this idea on > this list before, but > just last week I was thinking about it some more, > and since it seems to > be topical, I'm going to do it again. > > I've always been troubled a bit by traits like APP, > which are in real > life pretty darned subjective, They're enormously subjective; so subjective that I don't think it is possible to derive an objective characteristic from it. It really is only possibly to describe a characters features (e.g., age, health, athleticism, hair/eye/skin colour and cline) and leave it at that. > notwithstanding that > there's also a > large degree of consensus within a community as to > who's attractive and > who isn't. So the approach I would like to take is > to break up the 3d6 > of APP into separate components, a racial (species), > cultural and > individual component. Each character would record on > their sheet only > the first two; the individual component is > subjective, "in the eye of > the beholder", and rolled up for each viewer. The > reaction of each > viewer would always be determined by the sum of all > three values, but > certain values can be limited by the viewer's > unfamiliarity with the > species or cultural norms. (snip) Too much crunch, imo. Dedicate the amount of game mechanics to the characteristic on the basis of its use in the game. If the game is about visual appearances, by all means go to that level of detail. Regards, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Mon Jan 15 13:32:26 2007 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall C. Shapero) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:32:26 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Previous Experience References: <20070114223325.82C041266618@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <001b01c7384d$65b2c380$9181e804@nshapero> > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:21:06 -0800 (PST) > From: Lev Lafayette > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Background Experience > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: <896364.64337.qm at web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > --- alan richards > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Lev Lafayette > > > > > > > > I've never been entirely happy with the background > > > experience system in RQ III. This is simply > > because > > > the percentages are static (30 percentiles per > > annum) > > > regardless of capacity and ability to learn, and > > the > > > gains are likewise static (30 percentiles to > > skills > > > rating 05% or 60%). > > > > > > The following is a simple modification I've added > > that > > > seems to be working without much trouble. > > > > > > For every year of the chararacter's life over 15 > > they > > > receive INT*2+POW skill points (average 30). > > > > > > They also receive the equivalent of 3 years worth > > for > > > the period prior to 15 (I don't have automatic > > > percentages for cultural skills - these two have > > to > > > purchased). > > > > > > Skills may be purchased at a 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 > > > basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to 90% and 1:4 basis from > > then > > > on. > > > > > > It's pretty quick 'n' easy and seems to work. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience > > at age 10 not 15. And > > likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In > > canon RQIII I think that > > only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others > > are common to all members > > of a species?) > > True that. > > > I usually insist that the 5 Years > > between 10 and 15 are spent > > in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' > > 2d6* years may be spent > > in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's > > choice. > > > > *actually 2d6-2 as I roll human age as 2d6+13. There > > is no compelling reason > > for this the spread is just more pleasing to my eye. > > That's probably not so bad either. > > > 2. (Int+Int+Pow) points per year instead of 30. > > It doesn't float my boat. > > For a start 'average human' Int in RQIII is 13 so > > your 'average' human > > character would have 36 points per year not 30. So > > only use this if you want > > to inflate the number of skill points received > > (which is not necessarily a > > bad thing). > > Secondly it seems clunky to me. > > How is it clunky? It just means that they have a > variable number of skill points to spend rather than a > fixed amount. > > Not everyone learns at the same rate and it's probably > largely due to intelligence and partially due to > motivation (POW). > > > I suppose I'd prefer (Int x3) points per year. But > > that is even worse in > > terms of inflating skill points(!) > > > > Inspired by the old RQIV:AiG (Adventures in > > Abbreviations) I like being able > > to start characters off at different levels of > > experience and power. And do > > this by varying how many skill points a character > > has per year over 10 (or > > 15 if you prefer) > > > > Untrained 0 (they're like untrained dude) > > Novice 15 > > Trained 30 > > Skilled 45 > > Expert 60 > > Master 75 > > I'd rather use these as representative of power level > (which they are very good at). > > > 3. 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to > > 90% and 1:4 basis from > > then on. > > Blurgh, Yuck. I hate it. I must be missing something > > here coz a rule like > > this seems to find its way into most people's House > > Rules for RQIII. I > > really cannot be bothered with double-entry book > > keeping. That being said > > your version seems to be as good as any other. > > I've encountered versions which are harder ;-) > > The basic idea is that skills are relatively easy to > pick up and get harder as the percentages go up. Not > something really simulated in the current (RQ III) > occupational experience rules. > > And I must say that I'm thoroughly charmed by the fact > that one can still reasonably call RQ III "current" > without sounding silly after 22 years! > > All the best, > > > Lev One system I developed as a quick and dirty previous experience for OTHER SUNS (and is quite applicable, I think, to RQ as well) is to allow 100 "skill points" per year of experience/training. Then allow trades of skill points for percentage points of skill at a rate of 1:1 up to 50% skill, 2:1 up to 75%, 4:1 up to 100%, then 8:1 above 100%. This assumes "full time" spent learning. If you're assuming an "apprenticeship" system where there's a lot of work in addition to learning, 50 "skill points" per year might be more appropriate. This means that with two years at the 100 skill points/year rate you're going to have at least one skill at the 100% level (six months/50 points to get to 50%, six months/50 points to get to 75%, one year/100 points to get to 100%). Double the time, obviously, if it's going at 50 points/year. Too fast, you say? Well, remember that the individual is going to need several skills and a "good" master might insist on a reasonably "even" development of key skills. So a soldier might be trained (in an RQ environment) in sword attack/parry (two skills), shield parry, sense ambush, set ambush, move quietly, hide in cover (7 skills). With an apprenticeship lasting from, say, age 13 to age 18 (500 skill points, divided among 7 skills, or roughly 72 points per skill) this would give a "starting" character roughly 61% in each of those skills (assuming that you've gone to a true 1D100 system, rather than the 1D20 represented by "all skills are in 5% increments", and assuming that the character has no bonuses in any of the categories into which these seven skills fall). This also results in no battle magic for the starting character, but I'm sure a few tweaks might be added to equate battle magic points to, say, so many skill points (25? 50? Whatever might be appropriate to produce the desired amount of battle magic in starting characters for your campaign). -- Niall C. Shapero From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 15 15:13:12 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:13:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Other Suns [was Re: [Rq-rules] Previous Experience] In-Reply-To: <001b01c7384d$65b2c380$9181e804@nshapero> Message-ID: <20070115041312.45766.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Niall C. Shapero" wrote: > > One system I developed as a quick and dirty previous > experience for OTHER > SUNS (and is quite applicable, I think, to RQ as > well) is to allow 100 > "skill points" per year of experience/training. > Then allow trades of skill > points for percentage points of skill at a rate of > 1:1 up to 50% skill, 2:1 > up to 75%, 4:1 up to 100%, then 8:1 above 100%. > This assumes "full time" > spent learning. If you're assuming an > "apprenticeship" system where there's > a lot of work in addition to learning, 50 "skill > points" per year might be > more appropriate. > I just want to take this opportunity to be an aging fan-boy and say "thanks" for writing Other Suns. I really enjoyed playing it. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Mon Jan 15 19:04:57 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:04:57 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Background Experience Message-ID: <50a0ed550701150004l48daf414q7e5536300313c384@mail.gmail.com> > > From: Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > > > 2. (Int+Int+Pow) points per year instead of 30. > > It doesn't float my boat. > > For a start 'average human' Int in RQIII is 13 so > > your 'average' human > > character would have 36 points per year not 30. So > > only use this if you want > > to inflate the number of skill points received > > (which is not necessarily a > > bad thing). > > Secondly it seems clunky to me. > > How is it clunky? It just means that they have a > variable number of skill points to spend rather than a > fixed amount. > > Not everyone learns at the same rate and it's probably > largely due to intelligence and partially due to > motivation (POW). Can we put this down as personal preference? I add enough complications anyway, without PERSONALLY wanting to add this step. But Cthulhu has had background skill points based on EDU and a personal interest pool based on INT for a couple of decades and seems to have survived nicely. > > 3. 1:1 basis to 50%, 1:2 basis to 75%, 1:3 basis to > > 90% and 1:4 basis from > > then on. > > Blurgh, Yuck. I hate it. I must be missing something > > here coz a rule like > > this seems to find its way into most people's House > > Rules for RQIII. I > > really cannot be bothered with double-entry book > > keeping. That being said > > your version seems to be as good as any other. > > I've encountered versions which are harder ;-) Indeed, like I say yours is as good as anything else I have seen. And plenty of people seem to houserule in this way. Its just not for me. And I must say that I'm thoroughly charmed by the fact that one can still reasonably call RQ III "current" without sounding silly after 22 years! With my optimist's hat on this is a great compliment to the original authors. With my pessimist's hat on 18 months ago I was expecting all this to be academic when MRQ was going to sweep all before it. > All the best, And to you > From: Simon Phipp > > Alan Richards: > > 1. I am a big fan of starting background experience at age 10 not 15. > And > > likewise not inflating cultural skills. (Query: In canon RQIII I think > that > > only Weapon Skills have a cultural base all others are common to all > members > > of a species?) I usually insist that the 5 Years between 10 and 15 are > spent > > in a randomly rolled background and the 'standard' 2d6* years may be > spent > > in a background (or backgrounds) of the player's choice. > > Which makes sense as having adults begin at 15 or 16 is a modern idea. > Children were apprenticed out in the Middle Ages at an early age and taught > a profession. In the past, when life expectancy was very low, people mated > in their very early teens when puberty started, which is when they > effectively became adults. > > I'm not so sure about being in a randomly rolled profession. That might be > OK if you are using the "give me any character and I'll play it" mode, but > doesn't really fit the "my character has a detailed backstory" mode. The old problem of 'I want to play a Thief' 'Sorry sunshine the dice say that you're a Merchant' The Cannon RQIII rules say roll for background. I want to add the possibility that players can choose what their characters do after childhood. There's nothing to stop someone from allowing players to choose their character's background and also what they do after childhood. > From: Peter Brink In my next game I will mix the > game systems of Stormbringer 5, RQ II and > III (in effect it will be like the new DBRP). I've decided to use a > system where the characters start their adult life as 10 year olds and > begin play as 20-22 year old. The player may choose up to three > different career paths for their characters. For example a character may > have started her adult life as a beggar, later she became a thief and > finally she joined a band of brigands (mercenaries). Each profession > offers 8 skills and the player may divide 350 percentiles among the > skills offered by the profession(s) chosen. Much like Peter has just suggested! > It's a simple and neat system that offers the player a reasonable amount > of flexibility yet it forces him to keep himself within the bounds of > the profession(s) chosen. Certainly this option provides the most flexibility of any of the options floated here. And deals with the comedy low skill chances endemic to Canon RQIII characters (Aldryami and Mostali created with Elder Secrets excepted). Do you still impose the cap of 75% for skills with a check box and 100% for those without? Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070115/fe31b14e/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 20:08:18 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:08:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP Message-ID: <323252.72466.qm@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Cantine: > I've always been troubled a bit by traits like APP, which are in real > life pretty darned subjective, notwithstanding that there's also a > large degree of consensus within a community as to who's attractive and > who isn't. Of course, APP is totally subjective. But, given the same species and culture, if you asked 1000 people to rate someone's attractiveness between 3 and 18, you'd get a reasonable average score that would equate to APP. I'd give someone from a different culture a modifier of +/-5 to APP, depending on their physical appearance. Someone from a different species might get +/-10 to +/-20, depending on the species involved. So, someone from an Earth culture might view large people as being physically attractive, as they eat well, are healthy and are affluent, other cultures might rate the slim warrior type as more attractive, as they are fit, can hunt and provide for a family. So, a fat person from the second culture would perhaps get a +5 APP in the first culture, whereas a thin person from the second culture would have -5APP in the first culture. Similarly, a woman with tusks might have a -5APP penalty in human culture, but trolls might see her as fairly attractive and have a +5APP. > So the approach I would like to take is to break up the 3d6 > of APP into separate components, a racial (species), cultural and > individual component. Each character would record on their sheet only > the first two; the individual component is subjective, "in the eye of > the beholder", and rolled up for each viewer. The reaction of each > viewer would always be determined by the sum of all three values, but > certain values can be limited by the viewer's unfamiliarity with the > species or cultural norms. Perhaps, but that's probably going a bit too far for me. Most people will view a person as having rougly the same APP. That doesn't necessarily mean they will react favourably to them or even desire them. There are a lot of women that I can see as being very attractive but not desirable ion the least. > (Maybe the unnatural beauty of certain beings could be simulated by > rolling their subjective reaction score on something more than 1d6? A > dryad is supposed to have APP of 2d6+12; this is the equivalent of > saying that they naturally max out the racial and cultural values > appropriate to the viewer, whoever they encounter, which makes sense, > and then they get a subjective value of 2d6.) Perhaps. I think that Dryads are naturally attractive to all species, except perhaps trolls. They certainly wouldn't get any species negatives, but don;t need any adds either. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070115/3c4b7e15/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 20:20:25 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:20:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Background Experience Message-ID: <778374.76764.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Alan Richards: [Me]: >> I'm not so sure about being in a randomly rolled profession. That might be >> OK if you are using the "give me any character and I'll play it" mode, but >> doesn't really fit the "my character has a detailed backstory" mode. > >The old problem of >'I want to play a Thief' >'Sorry sunshine the dice say that you're a Merchant' Which is exactly why people should be allowed to choose a professon if they want to. > The Cannon RQIII rules say roll for background. I want to add the > possibility that players can choose what their characters do after > childhood. There's nothing to stop someone from allowing players to choose > their character's background and also what they do after childhood. Canon RQ3 is a bit old-fashioned in that respect. I remember a friend rolling up trolls and every time he rolled a trollkin, he got it killed the same scenario, or made it a healer and annoyed everyone, until he could choose to play a dark troll. Why can't people choose the profession/background they want? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070115/beaedc10/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 15 20:30:50 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:30:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Background Experience In-Reply-To: <778374.76764.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070115093050.37976.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Alan Richards: > [Me]: > >> I'm not so sure about being in a randomly rolled > profession. That might be > >> OK if you are using the "give me any character > and I'll play it" mode, but > >> doesn't really fit the "my character has a > detailed backstory" mode. > > > >The old problem of > >'I want to play a Thief' > >'Sorry sunshine the dice say that you're a > Merchant' > > Which is exactly why people should be allowed to > choose a professon if they want to. > > > The Cannon RQIII rules say roll for background. I > want to add the > > possibility that players can choose what their > characters do after > > childhood. There's nothing to stop someone from > allowing players to choose > > their character's background and also what they do > after childhood. > > Canon RQ3 is a bit old-fashioned in that respect. > > I remember a friend rolling up trolls and every time > he rolled a trollkin, he got it killed the same > scenario, or made it a healer and annoyed everyone, > until he could choose to play a dark troll. Why > can't people choose the profession/background they > want? > *nods* RQ III in that respect is being good, even rock-solid simulationism. In this respect it needs a modest does of extra-fun inducing narrativism (i.e., player control over what their character is and the plot). Call 'em Fate Points, Narrative Points, Story Points, Drama Points whatever. The principle is the same. Spend one and choose, rather than having the vagaries of decide for you. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jan 15 21:32:58 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:32:58 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <51981.196.8.104.31.1168857178.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Happy New Year > > All IMOH of course > > The MERP ruleset is awful and not at all suited to Middle Earth but is a > big > improvement on RM. > > The MERP modules on the other hand are superb in all respects. > Well-written, > well researched and beautifully illustrated they also used to be availible > for free download at Merp.com with ICE's tacit approval. Get them now! > > > Al > Just a follow up here - I went to merp.com yesterday. (Couldn't access form work as they appear to have blocked all rpg sites). Anyway, it would appear that tolkein enterprises (they who make stacks of cash off of publishing JRR Tolkeins laundry lists inter alia) demanded they remove the modules from their dowlonads page. From reading the ICE history on rpg.net, sounds like they also made ICE destroy all stock of the modules when they went under. Tony From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Jan 15 21:42:44 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:42:44 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MERP In-Reply-To: <51981.196.8.104.31.1168857178.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <50a0ed550701090158j10c696e6i2df3b4a2e0fece62@mail.gmail.com> <51981.196.8.104.31.1168857178.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <45AB5AA4.7050607@brinkdata.se> postmaster at runequest.za.org skrev: > Just a follow up here - I went to merp.com yesterday. (Couldn't access > form work as they appear to have blocked all rpg sites). Anyway, it would > appear that tolkein enterprises (they who make stacks of cash off of > publishing JRR Tolkeins laundry lists inter alia) demanded they remove the > modules from their dowlonads page. From reading the ICE history on > rpg.net, sounds like they also made ICE destroy all stock of the modules > when they went under. Hmm, well, merp.com didn't host those files, they just provided links to the sites that did. The files are still around. Just search your favourite filesharing network... ;) /Peter Brink From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jan 15 23:22:52 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:22:52 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Background Experience In-Reply-To: <584941.36778.qm@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <584941.36778.qm@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2656.196.8.104.31.1168863772.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > > Which makes sense as having adults begin at 15 or 16 is a modern idea. > Children were apprenticed out in the Middle Ages at an early age and > taught a profession. In the past, when life expectancy was very low, > people mated in their very early teens when puberty started, which is when > they effectively became adults. > > I'm not so sure about being in a randomly rolled profession. That might be > OK if you are using the "give me any character and I'll play it" mode, but > doesn't really fit the "my character has a detailed backstory" mode. > > See Ya > I concur, although one could also see the exp your gain in "your parents" profession as being apprenticed. So maybe your characters parents were farmers, but you were lucky to be prenticed off to the smith, so you would gain smith skills until 15... However, at the ame time, if the scenaruio fit where the character was cast off into the world or such much earlier, then yes, once should also be allowed to give him the more general type learning which may come his way. Thinking this way, the way I have written up my campaign worlds orcs would pretty much fit becasue they do tend to leave home (be kicked out) and go "adventuring" (try find something to eat while getting enough rep to return home) at a much earlier age. Ciao Tony From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Tue Jan 16 03:43:14 2007 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:43:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Background Experience In-Reply-To: <778374.76764.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200701151643.LAA28629@alexander.cnc.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070115/7c0d6533/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 06:26:55 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:26:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Farewell to CON In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400701121515m520bf8a3x958fbb070dba4f44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <551671.46638.qm@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gary Sturgess wrote: > > If you can, by force of will, type on a keyboard, > then > > that's evidence that you can direct your fingers > to do > > things will mental expression. > > Agreed. And I don't agree that I can. It SEEMS that > I can, and because > I don't know the ultimate causes of the particular > physical states > that cause me to type this, "force of will" is as > good a term as any, > but there's nothing metaphysical about it. Were you > to manually > stimulate the parts of my brain that are currently > being stimulated, I > couldn't NOT type through a force of will. > Just because the physical body can be stimulated to act via external forces in your example above, does not negate the fact that something internal and intangible exerts some type of causal force on the physical body to make it act. You can say that the act of moving your fingers can be traced back to a certain activation of chemicals and the firing of specific neurons in the brain. Yes, that is physical. But a will or decision making aspect, causes the above physical response to happen. You can not point back to anything physical as being the "cause" or initiator of the decision making process. The brain is a complex chemical electrical device that controls the functions and movements of the physical body (ie.. the remote control). And if you take tools (scalples and electric stimulators and picks) to the brain, you can clumsily activate physical reponses from the body (ie.. punching buttons on the remote). But the spirit or will is the proper "driver" pushing buttons in the brain to order the proper affects upon the rest of the body. There is a fallicy in declaring a Universal Nagative, such as X does NOT exist. The fallicy is, that because they have not been proven wrong yet - they are automatically right. But in reality it is much harder to prove a Universal Negative, than it is to prove a Universal Positive. I say dogs DO exist (Universal Positive), I only have to come up with one dog to prove the point. To say something universally IS, any proof suffices. To say something IS NOT, takes even more proof, because only after every possibility has been eliminated, can you prove that X does not exist. If you were raised in a single room and never left it and you have only seen things that were brought into the room, your experience would be very limited in judging what is and what is not. While we have come far in science, we have not explored every room in our house, yet, so we can not universally deny anything. I am an open minded skeptic. I do not rule out anything as impossible or unchanging, but think many things as unlikely or unprobable. As a skeptic, I can give my default support to the Universal Negative propositon that "magic" doesn't exist, but I can not declare it as an irrefutable fact. Gregory "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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jan 16 10:06:58 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:06:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <323252.72466.qm@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070115230658.71842.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The question being... how important is APP to your game? I mean we could have a table to roll hair colour and eye colour or whether. Heck IIRC Harnmaster actually did have such things. But unless having blue eyes or brown eyes is going to make a substantial difference in play, it's best left out as mere colour. I feel the same way about APPearance. Now I know it's very important to teenaged gamers (bless their socks) who evaluate the latest *player* to their orientation according to a perceived value, but what does it do in game terms? We could conduct a survery of 1000 to get a rule of thumb, but for what purpopse? Perhaps APPearance makes a difference in short-term, immediate reactions, but they're usually things which can be described by description rather than numbers. Let's face every almost every 18 year old on the planet could be a model. As the saying goes, "Even a goblin is beautiful at 18". Overall reactions are more determined by strength of personality, oratory, and even reputation. The sort of things which seem to suggest POW... All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 10:24:47 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:24:47 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <323252.72466.qm@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <323252.72466.qm@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701151524t47d42bcfwefb7be210cd4e6@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/07, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Perhaps. I think that Dryads are naturally attractive to all species, > except perhaps trolls. They certainly wouldn't get any species negatives, > but don;t need any adds either. > Dryads are also attractive to Trolls. They make their trollish tummies growl fiercely, although some claim not to like them because they are "just too sweet". Kind of the Aldryami equivalent to chocolate covered peanuts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070115/b76ce5af/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Jan 16 11:38:39 2007 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:38:39 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <690287.47811.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <690287.47811.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14-Jan-07, at 4:04 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > (snip) > > Too much crunch, imo. Dedicate the amount of game > mechanics to the characteristic on the basis of its > use in the game. If the game is about visual > appearances, by all means go to that level of detail. Of course. I should have made it clear that this speculation was more along the lines of a theoretical exploration of possible mechanics than any sort of attempt to provide a real set of rules to be played. I find, however, that thinking about things like this does help me to understand the actual, practice rules suggestions better. From DevinC at aol.com Wed Jan 17 06:32:23 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:32:23 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/2007 3:07:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au writes: "Perhaps APPearance makes a difference in short-term, immediate reactions, but they're usually things which can be described by description rather than numbers. Let's face every almost every 18 year old on the planet could be a model. As the saying goes, "Even a goblin is beautiful at 18". Overall reactions are more determined by strength of personality, oratory, and even reputation. The sort of things which seem to suggest POW... All the best, Lev". . . Ah the wish of every plain or ugly looking person (myself included). Alas, studies constantly show that appearance has a long and substantial effect on human reactions. I believe the latest shows that good looking people make 15%-20% more earnings than non-good looking people. They also live longer. And yep, I am aware that a cause and effect relationship has to be proven before A+B=C. Nevertheless, given what a visually oriented species we are, I'd think it pretty much common sense that appearance makes a huge and long-lasting difference on inter-human relations. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070116/b46e917d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 06:56:52 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:56:52 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0701151524t47d42bcfwefb7be210cd4e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <323252.72466.qm@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0701151524t47d42bcfwefb7be210cd4e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Almonds, not peanuts. Almonds grow on trees; peanuts grow underground. *fnord* On 1/15/07, Styopa wrote: > > On 1/15/07, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > Perhaps. I think that Dryads are naturally attractive to all species, > > except perhaps trolls. They certainly wouldn't get any species negatives, > > but don;t need any adds either. > > > > > Dryads are also attractive to Trolls. They make their trollish tummies > growl fiercely, although some claim not to like them because they are "just > too sweet". Kind of the Aldryami equivalent to chocolate covered peanuts. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070116/bdf01f49/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:31:09 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:31:09 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an elf have 3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app _________________________________________________________________ MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no Vis hvem du er og hva du vil From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jan 17 21:50:35 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:50:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic of Glorantha Message-ID: <20070117105035.30168.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> OK, so the people at Mongoose have brought out a new supplement, Magic of Glorantha by Aaron Dembski-Bowden, who seems to be a likeable chap.. Does anyone know what it's like? All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail From lorgryt at comcast.net Wed Jan 17 22:09:32 2007 From: lorgryt at comcast.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:09:32 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117030712.024ffa98@comcast.net> At 01:31 AM 1/17/2007, you wrote: >I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an elf have 3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app I have always done this, along with CHA. APP is relative to species. A rhinoceros of APP is an exceptional specimen. Another species would not necessarily feel that way, but a human biologist or big game hunter would have a hard time shutting up about it. :) Bo Looking for a freeform Free Forum? http://www.lorgryt.com/gaming/ From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 01:11:14 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:11:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree - although it would be necessary to apply cross-species penalties in many cases, I think. A troll might have an 18 APP to another troll, but at a guess, to a human their effective APP would be at least 4-8 points lower. I'd imagine that would be a standard adjustment for the entire species. Likewise, it's imaginable that a species could have a cross-species *bonus*. Elves could appear more attractive to humans than they do to each other, no? The fascinating thing is that the issue is so potentially complex. To address it properly, you'd need a chart giving the relative attractiveness of every species to every other individual species! And it probably wouldn't be a mirror-image chart; if one species sees another at a -6 APP, say, that doesn't mean that the other species sees the first one at -6, or even +6. I don't think there would necessarily be any direct relationship between the two factors. Not to mention individual and group differences *within* a species! For example, some humans see cats as beautiful; others don't. This seems to go much deeper than simple opinion or taste. How could something like that be reflected in the rules? It probably shouldn't, I suppose. I'm taking realism too far. On 1/17/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty > regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are > drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an elf > have > 3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no Vis hvem du er og hva du vil > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070117/c277f169/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Jan 18 04:21:48 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:21:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic of Glorantha Message-ID: <20070117172205.AECAB128B2FC@mini.thinbits.net> All-- > OK, so the people at Mongoose have brought out a new > supplement, Magic of Glorantha by Aaron > Dembski-Bowden, who seems to be a likeable chap.. > > Does anyone know what it's like? I've bought it. It contains: -- draconic cults (the EWF equivalent of standard cults), which are based on particular interpretations of the draconic faith rather than on particular gods like the theist cults, -- draconic legendary abilities, -- Dragon magic (the EWF equivalent of Divine magic), -- God Learner Sorcery spells, -- Zistorite magic items, -- heroquesting rules It is extremely interesting to read, and really shows how Second Age Glorantha is very, very different from Third Age Glorantha. As for gaming value, I cannot say since I haven't played in Second Age Glorantha yet, and all the stuff in the book is very tied to the setting. All in all, if you are a Glorathan fan, it's a must-buy (if only for the background!). Hope this helps, Cheers Gianni From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Jan 18 04:26:45 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:26:45 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: farewell to CON Message-ID: Gregory wrote: > Just because the physical body can be stimulated to > act via external forces in your example above, does > not negate the fact that something internal and > intangible exerts some type of causal force on the > physical body to make it act. Why does an internal "driver" have to be intangible? Can't it be a portion of the brain that analyzes sensory input and triggers actions by sending out impulses via motor neurons? All would occur as a physical/chemical processes. > You can say that the act of moving your fingers can be > traced back to a certain activation of chemicals and > the firing of specific neurons in the brain. Yes, that > is physical. But a will or decision making aspect, > causes the above physical response to happen. The will or decision to act could be biochemical code running in some part of the brain, with the conscious subroutine seeing the resulting actions and declaring, "I meant to do that." > I say dogs DO exist (Universal Positive), I only have > to come up with one dog to prove the point. If you say an intangible will exists driving human action, you only have to come up with one such will that scientists can measure and examine on their instruments... Michael Hoxie (a computer made out of meat) From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 04:43:37 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:43:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <555408.41787.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In my arrogant opinion (I refuse to use hippocracies like IMHO), the proper place for primary (rolled) characteristics is: to give variety to the characters; and to affect the secondary characteristics (in a weighted influence) of bonuses. If it does not affect these, then it should be a terciary characteristic chosen by the player. I still fail to see what effect APP has on anything. In full combat armor, one is both unable to see what the character looks like, and is going to be considering factors other than looks (how proficient does he/she appear with the weaponry, how forthright/tentative, and that sort of thing). How good looking is irrelevant. In civil situations, the primary concern is going to be quality of merchandise, clarity of information, and that sort of thing. In my own case, my characters have generally been quite average in appearance, but exceptional in several others fields, and so have been quite successful to the point of retiring from adventuring because they good too powerful to be a challenge - and their looks were never a problem either way. Oh yes, and that included my early RuneQuest characters as well as the later Mythworld ones. It even applies to my four foot armadillo in Toon. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 18 07:11:24 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:11:24 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I define app as an indication of attractiveness for someone of the same species and (usually) the oposite sex. I've choosen to disregard eccentric sexual preferences. As people can get the hots for more or less discusting things in the real world, the underground UZ/Aldryami/Mostali/Jelmere/Orc/etc. -fetichists among the humans (and vice versa for other species) are probably abundant in the world of Glorantha; but I've decided not to go there in my game.... >From: "Peter Maranci" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:11:14 -0500 > >I agree - although it would be necessary to apply cross-species penalties >in >many cases, I think. A troll might have an 18 APP to another troll, but at >a >guess, to a human their effective APP would be at least 4-8 points lower. >I'd imagine that would be a standard adjustment for the entire species. > >Likewise, it's imaginable that a species could have a cross-species >*bonus*. >Elves could appear more attractive to humans than they do to each other, >no? > >The fascinating thing is that the issue is so potentially complex. To >address it properly, you'd need a chart giving the relative attractiveness >of every species to every other individual species! And it probably >wouldn't >be a mirror-image chart; if one species sees another at a -6 APP, say, that >doesn't mean that the other species sees the first one at -6, or even +6. I >don't think there would necessarily be any direct relationship between the >two factors. > >Not to mention individual and group differences *within* a species! For >example, some humans see cats as beautiful; others don't. This seems to go >much deeper than simple opinion or taste. How could something like that be >reflected in the rules? > >It probably shouldn't, I suppose. I'm taking realism too far. > >On 1/17/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > >>I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty >>regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are >>drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an elf >>have >>3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no Vis hvem du er og hva du vil >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger overalt med WebMessenger http://webmessenger.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 18 07:14:31 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:14:31 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <555408.41787.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Perhaps it all boils down to how we play roleplaygames? In my games a pretty man/woman with an app of 18 is going to be the social centre in most settings, giving instant advantages to anybody with a POW high enough to be able to take advantage of it. A woman with APP 18 and some wits can make 15 guys beat the crap out of your character with STR 18..... >From: Paul Cardwell >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:43:37 -0800 (PST) > >In my arrogant opinion (I refuse to use hippocracies >like IMHO), the proper place for primary (rolled) >characteristics is: to give variety to the characters; >and to affect the secondary characteristics (in a >weighted influence) of bonuses. If it does not affect >these, then it should be a terciary characteristic >chosen by the player. > >I still fail to see what effect APP has on anything. > >In full combat armor, one is both unable to see what >the character looks like, and is going to be >considering factors other than looks (how proficient >does he/she appear with the weaponry, how >forthright/tentative, and that sort of thing). How >good looking is irrelevant. > >In civil situations, the primary concern is going to >be quality of merchandise, clarity of information, and >that sort of thing. > >In my own case, my characters have generally been >quite average in appearance, but exceptional in >several others fields, and so have been quite >successful to the point of retiring from adventuring >because they good too powerful to be a challenge - and >their looks were never a problem either way. > >Oh yes, and that included my early RuneQuest >characters as well as the later Mythworld ones. It >even applies to my four foot armadillo in Toon. > >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger overalt med WebMessenger http://webmessenger.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 07:17:50 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:17:50 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <555408.41787.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <555408.41787.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701171217p105849bbmaa00becd7f1c016@mail.gmail.com> On 1/17/07, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > I still fail to see what effect APP has on anything. Are you talking about real-world or only game rules? In full combat armor, one is both unable to see what > the character looks like, and is going to be > considering factors other than looks (how proficient > does he/she appear with the weaponry, how > forthright/tentative, and that sort of thing). How > good looking is irrelevant. > > In civil situations, the primary concern is going to > be quality of merchandise, clarity of information, and > that sort of thing. Eh. Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding, because otherwise that's simplistic to the point of disingenuousness. Are you seriously suggesting that looks are irrelevant? I don't think one would have to be Shallow Hal to acknowledge the pervasive impact physical attractiveness has on everything in life from job prospects, to income, to happiness and even physical health. Now, if the rules don't reflect this, it's either a failure of the rules, or overoptimistic nerdly wishful thinking (although I suspect it's rather universally true geographically, chronologically, and culturally, that physical appearance is more important to/for females than males). I've spent time with runway models both incognito and when they're all dolled up from a shoot (both genders). Granted, most of them are still rather striking without the gear, but you'd be amazed at how a stunningly beautiful woman can dominate an entire room without trying. Note: because they never had an impact in the role playing games that you participated in doesn't, ipso facto, mean that they SHOULDN'T. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070117/e07f7016/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 18 07:34:14 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:34:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: farewell to CON In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <518241.69778.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Gregory wrote: > > > Just because the physical body can be stimulated > to > > act via external forces in your example above, > does > > not negate the fact that something internal and > > intangible exerts some type of causal force on the > > physical body to make it act. > > Why does an internal "driver" have to be > intangible? > Can't it be a portion of the brain that analyzes > sensory > input and triggers actions by sending out impulses > via > motor neurons? All would occur as a > physical/chemical > processes. Well, ask yourself that question. What motivates you? To be sure we social animals are motivated by physical stimulu; the smell of good food, a thwack on the head or the appearance of a mate. But we're also *very* much motivated by symbolic values. > If you say an intangible will exists driving human > action, > you only have to come up with one such will that > scientists > can measure and examine on their instruments... "I want to do 'x'", then you do it... > Michael Hoxie (a computer made out of meat) POW 0 ;-) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 18 08:16:58 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic of Glorantha In-Reply-To: <20070117172205.AECAB128B2FC@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <69756.49794.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > > All-- > > > OK, so the people at Mongoose have brought out a > new > > supplement, Magic of Glorantha by Aaron > > Dembski-Bowden, who seems to be a likeable chap.. > > > > Does anyone know what it's like? > > I've bought it. It contains: > -- draconic cults (the EWF equivalent of standard > cults), which are based on > particular interpretations of the draconic faith > rather than on particular > gods like the theist cults, > -- draconic legendary abilities, > -- Dragon magic (the EWF equivalent of Divine > magic), > -- God Learner Sorcery spells, > -- Zistorite magic items, > -- heroquesting rules Ahh, OK. I was just checking to see if they'd fixed their (imo) very broken Rune magic system. Evidently not ;-) (OGL licenses are very useful...Back to plotting...) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Jan 18 12:02:32 2007 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:02:32 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <93771DBD-A68F-11DB-BF2E-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> It IS potentially enormously complex, and I've had a lot fun just analyzing it and that's why I shared the three distinct dice model I came up with. Not as something to actually play, but as a theoretical exploration possibly to shed light on what we're trying to model here. On 17-Jan-07, at 7:11 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > I agree - although it would be necessary to apply cross-species > penalties in many cases, I think. A troll might have an 18 APP to > another troll, but at a guess, to a human their effective APP would be > at least 4-8 points lower. I'd imagine that would be a standard > adjustment for the entire species. > ? > Likewise, it's imaginable that a species could have a cross-species > *bonus*. Elves could appear more attractive to humans than they do to > each other, no? > ? > The fascinating thing is that the issue is so potentially complex. To > address it properly, you'd need a chart giving the relative > attractiveness of every species to every other individual species! And > it probably wouldn't be a mirror-image chart; if one species sees > another at a -6 APP, say, that doesn't mean that the other species > sees the first one at -6, or even +6. I don't think there would > necessarily be any direct relationship between the two factors. > ? > Not to mention individual and group differences *within* a species! > For example, some humans see cats as beautiful; others don't. This > seems to go much deeper than simple opinion or taste. How could > something like that be reflected in the rules? > ? > It probably shouldn't, I suppose. I'm taking realism too far. > > On 1/17/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty > regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are > drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an > elf have > 3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=nb-no Vis hvem du er og hva du > vil > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2832 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070117/4094bb84/attachment.bin From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 04:33:56 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:33:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0701171217p105849bbmaa00becd7f1c016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <340555.45031.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, you did fail to understand. I was discussing game rules, but I am quite willing to expand it to real life with a few exceptions. The primary exception is in cultures with extensive mass media - which even today is not the majority. There, superficial looks have inordinate effect because the mass media has declared it to be important. Any lie repeated often enough, especially if no other viewpoints are permitted, will convince the great masses of the validity of an absurdity. In cultures where this is lacking, significant persons are only known to the masses by reputation, seen at a distance, or in controlled settings where the trappings of power are more significant than the person his/herself. Gygax, as I originally referred, mentioned, in the context of how charisma differed from attractiveness, Hitler and Napoleon. On the other side, one could also include Abraham Lincoln and Mohandas K. Ghandi. Napolean and Lincoln were before photographs could be reproduced in newspapers; Ghandi in a region of low adult literacy and both he and Hitler in places of heavily controlled mass media (Hitler to be praised, Ghandi to be ridiculed). Therefore, in those examples as well as countless others, appearance was rather minor. Indeed, only in the case of the media-manufactured celebraties (those famous for being famous), is appearance of any significance. And there, lacking any true charisma, appearence is indeed everything - but only by default. It is also why those with only appearance and nothing substandial last such a short time in the public eye. Paul Cardwell --- Styopa wrote: > On 1/17/07, Paul Cardwell > wrote: > > > > I still fail to see what effect APP has on > anything. > > > Are you talking about real-world or only game rules? > > In full combat armor, one is both unable to see what > > the character looks like, and is going to be > > considering factors other than looks (how > proficient > > does he/she appear with the weaponry, how > > forthright/tentative, and that sort of thing). > How > > good looking is irrelevant. > > > > In civil situations, the primary concern is going > to > > be quality of merchandise, clarity of information, > and > > that sort of thing. > > > Eh. Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding, because > otherwise that's > simplistic to the point of disingenuousness. Are > you seriously suggesting > that looks are irrelevant? I don't think one would > have to be Shallow Hal > to acknowledge the pervasive impact physical > attractiveness has on > everything in life from job prospects, to income, to > happiness and even > physical health. > > Now, if the rules don't reflect this, it's either a > failure of the rules, or > overoptimistic nerdly wishful thinking (although I > suspect it's rather > universally true geographically, chronologically, > and culturally, that > physical appearance is more important to/for females > than males). > > I've spent time with runway models both incognito > and when they're all > dolled up from a shoot (both genders). Granted, > most of them are still > rather striking without the gear, but you'd be > amazed at how a stunningly > beautiful woman can dominate an entire room without > trying. > > Note: because they never had an impact in the role > playing games that you > participated in doesn't, ipso facto, mean that they > SHOULDN'T. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Jan 19 12:13:30 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:13:30 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B01B3A.1050704@inetnebr.com> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/15/2007 3:07:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au writes: > > "Perhaps APPearance makes a difference in short-term, > immediate reactions, but they're usually things which > can be described by description rather than numbers. > Let's face every almost every 18 year old on the > planet could be a model. As the saying goes, "Even a > goblin is beautiful at 18". > > Overall reactions are more determined by strength of > personality, oratory, and even reputation. The sort of > things which seem to suggest POW... > > All the best, > > > Lev". > > . > . > Ah the wish of every plain or ugly looking person (myself included). > Alas, studies constantly show that appearance has a long and > substantial effect on human reactions. I believe the latest shows that > good looking people make 15%-20% more earnings than non-good looking > people. This I mentioned earlier simultaneously sarcastically saying CHA must be a useless trait. > > They also live longer. there are certain features deamed ugly because they correlate to poorer health... skin quality being a noteable one. Generally speaking health improves good looks and youth improves heath making CON the base attribute for Appearance. I think Gurps has it right. also remember Overweight = SIZ high and CON Low. in the real world most excercize is for appearance ... reducing SIZ and upping CON ;-) even abstracts like so called "refined facial features" (will never correlate with a really low Int Certain genetic disorders also associated with poor intelligence ex. Downe(sp) Syndrome and some others carry the weight of bad appearance ,... hence really poor intelligence will correspond with poor appearance.... but even moderate intelligence is sufficient to avoid that issue.) > And yep, I am aware that a cause and effect relationship has to be > proven before A+B=C. Right... but really appearance in the real world is influenced by a number of obvious factors (most subsumed in the game by the other attributes.) Appearance/Physical Appeal doesnt really belong separate in my opinion unless its defined as a small subset of what folks usually consider appearance. or an amalgamating trait... ala CHA You have nice features and your voice when not roughened by a cold might even be sweet but your skin is palid you constantly sneeze or wheeze on anyone who gets near you ... and are you color blind the clothes you choose always look wierd.... and did I mention that rough texture from when you caught small pox on your skin is so beautiful.. .that lady trolls always want a nibble. From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 14:13:46 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:13:46 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <340555.45031.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0701171217p105849bbmaa00becd7f1c016@mail.gmail.com> <340555.45031.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0701181913s1b6b96beo96d999b82f6b44ff@mail.gmail.com> On 1/18/07, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > Yes, you did fail to understand. I was discussing > game rules, but I am quite willing to expand it to > real life with a few exceptions. > [snip] Therefore, in those examples as well as countless > others, appearance was rather minor. Indeed, only in > the case of the media-manufactured celebraties (those > famous for being famous), is appearance of any > significance. And there, lacking any true charisma, > appearence is indeed everything - but only by default. > It is also why those with only appearance and nothing > substandial last such a short time in the public eye. > > Paul Cardwell Which are all very good points, and mostly valid. I still think it's a long way to go from "here are people whose charisma was effective even in non-literate societies (and implied: despite their looks)," to "appearance is irrelevant". Heck, just today I heard on public radio about research that has found that infants not only are attracted to female faces in preference to male faces (logically, I think), but ALSO show a distinct preference for "pretty" faces in preference to "ugly" or even "plain" ones. Hardly the result of socialization or a media saturated society, no? I think looks have always played a deep part in not only the selection of mates, but leaders as well. Your examples are worthy, but there are a number of examples of (typically) men doing stupid things for beautiful women - Cleopatra, and of course Helen of Troy leap to mind. I'd hardly say that in either of those cases, appearance - and the consequences of their beauty - was irrelevant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070118/576d7fdb/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jan 19 14:41:54 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:41:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0701181913s1b6b96beo96d999b82f6b44ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <640093.98194.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > Which are all very good points, and mostly valid. I > still think it's a long > way to go from "here are people whose charisma was > effective even in > non-literate societies (and implied: despite their > looks)," to "appearance > is irrelevant". > > Heck, just today I heard on public radio about > research that has found that > infants not only are attracted to female faces in > preference to male faces > (logically, I think), but ALSO show a distinct > preference for "pretty" faces > in preference to "ugly" or even "plain" ones. > Hardly the result of > socialization or a media saturated society, no? This is quite true and has been known - empirically - for quite some time. The question then becomes what is the objective standard being used? I tend to agree with the previous poster that said that CON is a good default and, like in GURPS, with culturally specific modifiers and certainly a skill. Which does mean that I have done a significant change from the beginning of this thread where I was saying farewell to CON - now I'm thinking that it's farewell to APP, default to CON for APP, and integrate the CHA aspects of APP to POW. (The purpose of all this is so I can keep the same number of stats and introduce PERception.) All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Jan 19 17:15:51 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:15:51 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] thoughts onAPP In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0701161156s69a3e2f8v33700d1e2480e353@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1089.155.239.184.164.1169187351.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> > I have 3d6 App on all species; as they probably find themselves pretty > regardless of what the humans might think. (I doubt that rinocoures are > drepressed because of their ugly skin.) So a Troll have 3d6 app, an elf > have > 3d6 app and a human have 3d6 app > .com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > Good call Bjorn. I have the same philosophy, they call it role play for a reason. Characters (if they want to work the APP attribute) must role play it and justify whats what. My orc with a decent app is probarbly the orc among orcs and has all the fra-orcs falling at his feet. Prob find though that a woman would see him as pretty much undesirable. The key here is that if a specias knows another species well enough (Orc Lore, Trol Lore, Human Lore etc) then they will know what passes for good looks within that species. Hey (back to the lion thread of late MMVI) here has been observed evidence that lionesses prefer a lion with a darker main to a lighter one..... Tony From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 23:19:02 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:19:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP Message-ID: <20070119121903.50446.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Too many points to reply to individually. Being healthy does not make you atrtractive. I know of ugly people who are never sick and attractive people who are always sick. Being fat does not make you unhealthy - I know of fat people who are never ill and slim people who are often ill. None of the Characteristics relate exactly to the real world. But, they are a reasonable, easy to understand, usable model. STR - Relates to how much you can lift, but doesn't take body mass nto account CON - Relates to how healthy you are, but is so vague as to be unmeasurable SIZ - Relates to how big you are, but doesn't take into account short fat people and tall thin people or different body shapes, such as horses INT - Realtes to intelligence, which is difficult to quantify at the best of times, some say INT = IQ/10, but as IQ is pretty much a rubbish idea, this doesn't mean much POW - How Magically Powerful or Lucky you are, but luck is not quanitifiable in any realistic way DEX - How dextrous you are, pretty meaningless as it covers manual dexterity, physical speed of reflexes and movement, all of which can be different - clumsy people with fast reflexes etc. CHA - How charismatic someone is - once again, this is entirely subjective and not quantifiable APP - How attractive someone is - once again, this is entirely subjective and not quantifiable EDU - How educated someone is, how is it measured? By qualifications? I know people who are well qualified but uneducated and very knowledgable and well-read people with no qualifications. SAN - How sane you are (no need to comment on this one as it is patently rubbish) So, picking on a single characteristic and saying it is meaningless is unfair, as they are all meaningless. But, rolplaying games need some way to determine the general characteristics of a charcacter's physical form. The above characteristics are general and vague, but you know pretty well what they mean and how they can be used in the game. They are a compromise between realism and playable. I think they are a good compromise. I have seen variants on them (LEN and MAS rather than SIZ (Other Suns), LUC for Luck, PSI for Psi Powers, CHI for Ki powers) and they all have their merits and are probably as reasonable as the others. If you try and slim them down then you are left with the problem that a high BDY (for Body) means healthy, big and strong, which doesn't work for small healthy people or big, weak people and so on. If you have too many characteristics they become unworkable, too few and they have too any functions. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070119/80295eca/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Sat Jan 20 01:10:32 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:10:32 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] (no subject) Message-ID: Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Michael Hoxie (a computer made out of meat) > POW 0 ;-) LOL! To bring this back to RQ, for SF settings with non-AI robots (Traveller), I give them a high fixed INT rating to represent sophisticated programming in their area of function (battlefield tactics for a warbot, say) with very limited ability to handle situations outside their programming. Michael Hoxie From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 01:31:26 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? Message-ID: I have an interesting situation coming up: it looks like I'll be running a RuneQuest one-shot for my D&D group sometime in the next few months. This will be their first exposure to the game. They're all good roleplayers, and I don't think they'll have any problem understanding the system. The thing is, they're used to playing with battlemats and figures, and I've never run a game with either of those. I just bought a two-sided hex/square battlemat, and they can provide the figures, but I need to get up to speed on an aspect of RQ that I've never used. I'll read my book, of course, but I'd really like to hear any tips or suggestions on how to play RQIII with those wargaming elements; movement in combat, for example. Thanks! ->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/20070119/dc61f25f/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 01:40:16 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:40:16 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? Message-ID: Sorry to do two posts in such quick succession, but it seemed better than combining two rather different topics into one post. Recap: I will probably be running an RQIII one-shot for the guys from my D&D group sometime in the next few months. It's their first exposure to RQ. I'm going to be running the one-shot that I discussed here (and got so much help on) a while back, incidentally. The setting will be generic fantasy - I've decided that I will not be using Glorantha ever again - and I need gods, preferably gods from Fantasy Earth. I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like to offer more variety. Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type (i.e. War, Storm, etc.)? Thanks! ->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/20070119/cf785a36/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Sat Jan 20 01:54:17 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:54:17 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter >I have an interesting situation coming up: it looks like I'll be running a RuneQuest >one-shot for my D&D group sometime in the next few months. >This will be their first exposure to the game. Cool! Hope it goes well! >They're all good roleplayers, and I don't think they'll have any problem understanding the system. >The thing is, they're used to playing with battlemats and figures, and I've never run a game with either of those. Bear in mind that the primary purpose of a battlemat is to clarify questions of position, line of sight and range in the resolution of detail action sequences, and that in RuneQuest in aprticualr it's not really intended as a sub-game in its own right. I haven't run an RQIII combat for some time (mostly be using SB style DEX order in my BRP games over the last few years). >I just bought a two-sided hex/square battlemat, and they can provide the figures, >but I need to get up to speed on an aspect of RQ that I've never used. I'll read my book, of course, >but I'd really like to hear any tips or suggestions on how to play RQIII with those wargaming elements; >movement in combat, for example. They key thing is to make sure that you and they shake off the d20 mindset that is very focused on the details of movement etc. Use the hexes NOT the squares (as D&D uses squares), emphasise that facing IS important. Make sure everyone understands the Strike Rank system and combat round structure. Don't obsess about the detail - the point of RQ combat is to capture the feel of melee without bogging onself down in details. Personally I almost always have a battlemat (well, a hex grid dry-wipe surface) on the table, whatever game I'm running - but that's because I can then use it to sketch stuff. Cheers, Nick Middleton From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 01:56:49 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:56:49 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0701190656l1d6dc202x77a9f0bb8f3f1afe@mail.gmail.com> I love Battlemats! They can add a tactical maneuver element to combat. Of course the downside is the time added to set up the minis and any terrain to reflect the current situation. I use hexes exclusively, even for building interiors, though squares are easier initially. Each hex should be about the size of a 25mm mini, so figure each hex is 1.5meters. That gives a character with a movement rate of 3m per SR the ability to move 2 hexes per SR. 1) Attack from the front 3 hexes can be parried by shield or weapon, 2) Attacks from the left and front left hexes can be shield-parried only. 3) Attacks from the right can be weapon-parried only. 4) Attacks from the rear 3 hexes can't be parried at all. Depending how you use Dodge, a Dodge that is two success levels better than an attack may allow the defender to move one hex/square past the attacker. And don't forget to ask your players how they've used battlemaps in the past. May as well glean best practices from their experiences. David On 1/19/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I have an interesting situation coming up: it looks like I'll be running a > RuneQuest one-shot for my D&D group sometime in the next few months. This > will be their first exposure to the game. > > They're all good roleplayers, and I don't think they'll have any problem > understanding the system. The thing is, they're used to playing with > battlemats and figures, and I've never run a game with either of those. > > I just bought a two-sided hex/square battlemat, and they can provide the > figures, but I need to get up to speed on an aspect of RQ that I've never > used. I'll read my book, of course, but I'd really like to hear any tips or > suggestions on how to play RQIII with those wargaming elements; movement in > combat, for example. > > Thanks! > ->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/20070119/7bb40246/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 02:00:30 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:00:30 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0701190700n535e53dbwbe2654a624d4d0c1@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, what Nick said. Speaking of sketching stuff, a sheet of hard, transparent plastic laid over the battlemap will make the sketching easier and you don't have to worry about spilled drinks or marker stains that become permanent over time. The downside of the plastic sheet is it's not as easy to store for continuing the situation during another gaming session. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070119/3115585e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 02:06:01 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:06:01 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0701190706h20024899scacab3e09892ad0c@mail.gmail.com> Peter, I can send you my pantheon if you'd like. It includes pantheons for Law, Chaos, and racial "philosophies" for my own flavor of elves and dwarves (somewhat Tolkienistic). The details are in three MSWord docs. By the way, love your website. I've gleaned quite a bit of goodness from it over the last few years. Thank you for that. David On 1/19/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like to offer more > variety. Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type ( > i.e. War, Storm, etc.)? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070119/24530f67/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Sat Jan 20 02:07:01 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:07:01 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like to offer more variety. >Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type (i.e. War, Storm, etc.)? http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Gamelinks.htm http://www.soltakss.com/#AlternateEarth http://talmeta.net/ Think Simon's page (middle link) is the one you want but Stephen and Tal's pages may also have material of interest. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Sat Jan 20 02:10:57 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:10:57 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Arse! For got this one: http://www.geocities.com/alternateearthrq/ Cheers, Nick Middleton From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Sat Jan 20 03:03:20 2007 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:03:20 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth =?UTF-8?Q?gods=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701191603.LAA05542@arkroyal.cnc.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070119/f48c8fd2/attachment.html From rog_benham at hotmail.com Sat Jan 20 04:21:32 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:21:32 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070119/1f05101d/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 05:00:24 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:00:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <20070119121903.50446.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <171565.44264.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > None of the Characteristics relate exactly to the > real world. But, they are a reasonable, easy to > understand, usable model. They are a bit moreso in Mythworld. > STR - Relates to how much you can lift, but doesn't > take body mass into account STR over 18 adds one SIZ number to the weight to reflect muscle mass. > CON - Relates to how healthy you are, but is so > vague as to be unmeasurable Not numerically measurable, but has relative (to other characters) significance; also numbers are relevant (in an artificial sort of way) against poison or disease POT in resisting. > SIZ - Relates to how big you are, but doesn't take > into account short fat people and tall thin people > or different body shapes, such as horses SIZ gives both height in cm and weight in kg, and can be modified for build (dwarf +2 WT, halflings +1, elves -1, etc.); there are separate charts for humanoids (from top of head), quadrupeds (from top of withers), and aviaforms (from base of neck). > INT - Relates to intelligence, which is difficult to > quantify at the best of times, some say INT = IQ/10, > but as IQ is pretty much a rubbish idea, this > doesn't mean much Again, primarily significant relative to others than with an absolute numerical scale - even a genius can do foolish things on occasion, but less than low INT. > POW - How Magically Powerful or Lucky you are, but > luck is not quanitifiable in any realistic way Mana (MNA) includes luck, magic capability and resistence, and CHA. Once more, a relative rather than absolute scale, but relevant as the resistance chart demonstrates. > DEX - How dextrous you are, pretty meaningless as it > covers manual dexterity, physical speed of reflexes > and movement, all of which can be different - clumsy > people with fast reflexes etc. Primarily manual dexterity, but does have some effect on secondary characteristics such as weapon, agility, manipulation, and stealth bonus. > CHA - How charismatic someone is - once again, this > is entirely subjective and not quantifiable See MNA > APP - How attractive someone is - once again, this > is entirely subjective and not quantifiable I still claim it is so temporary as to be irrelevant. > EDU - How educated someone is, how is it measured? > By qualifications? I know people who are well > qualified but uneducated and very knowledgable and > well-read people with no qualifications. Education improves individual skills (learning by training), but only those skills in the course of the game (or backstory in the case of one's trade skills) and so is hardly a primary characteristic. > SAN - How sane you are (no need to comment on this > one as it is patently rubbish) The adventurer's life is not one of calm repose. Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is just one of the mental conditions that can result. SAN may be relative, but it isn't irrelevant. Roll for change after encounters with superior numbers of chaotics, elementals, resusitation, etc. And the Mythworld primary you left out, Trustworthiness (TRU) is a dumbell curve of relevance. TRU 17 or 18 can be bad since the character will insist on being a rear guard even when rapid retreat is indicated, while low TRU will flee even when there is a strong chance of not only survival, but triumph. > So, picking on a single characteristic and saying it > is meaningless is unfair, as they are all > meaningless. TRU and SAN are the least significant in play, but when they become significant, they are essentials. > But, rolplaying games need some way to determine the > general characteristics of a charcacter's physical > form. The above characteristics are general and > vague, but you know pretty well what they mean and > how they can be used in the game. They are a > compromise between realism and playable. > > I think they are a good compromise. Yep. > I have seen variants on them (LEN and MAS rather > than SIZ (Other Suns), LUC for Luck, PSI for Psi > Powers, CHI for Ki powers) and they all have their > merits and are probably as reasonable as the others. > If you try and slim them down then you are left with > the problem that a high BDY (for Body) means > healthy, big and strong, which doesn't work for > small healthy people or big, weak people and so on. > If you have too many characteristics they become > unworkable, too few and they have too any > functions. That is why I prefer Mythworld - it doesn't have too many primaries to fit on one line of the character sheet, but it does seem to cover what is needed. And yes, other systems can have different ones which fit their rules better. 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 Sat Jan 20 05:15:16 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:15:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <640093.98194.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <264062.46455.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Be sure and take a look at the cartoon Brevity for January 18 (Comics (dot) com). It is relevant to the discussion. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 05:25:31 2007 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:25:31 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? Message-ID: <011920071825.29457.45B10D1A000F3D29000073112209224627CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> I also always use the Battlemat. The hexes are used only as a rough idea of distance. Movement is NOT limited to hex (or square) ?board game? lines. I also would adjust the size of the hex depending on the overall distance to be represented. Long range archery duels, the hexes were 15 or 30 meters. For close range, 3 meter, and for the close combat, 1.5 m. At range the PC would place their characters figuring the 1.5 M scale with one designated as the 0,0 point. Then I would declare them in a Zoom In mode and the distance from that one figurine to anywhere else is 15 M per hex scale. I then changed scale if needed until the conflict was finally at 1.5M scale. Sounds complicated, but if you think about it as zooming in and out, it worked well. Jim Bickmeyer From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 05:29:54 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:29:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Farewell to CON and thoughts on APP In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0701181913s1b6b96beo96d999b82f6b44ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <590925.67273.qm@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > I think looks have always played a deep part in not > only the selection of > mates, but leaders as well. You mean like Hitler, Napoleon, Lincoln, Ghandi, etc.? > Your examples are > worthy, but there are a > number of examples of (typically) men doing stupid > things for beautiful > women - Cleopatra, and of course Helen of Troy leap > to mind. I'd hardly say > that in either of those cases, appearance - and the > consequences of their > beauty - was irrelevant. We have no idea what Helen of Troy looked like, and have only a profile of Cleopatra VII (from coins). I remember an essay "If Cleopatra's nose had been an eighth of an inch longer." I suspect her fluency in six or eight languages, the power of her position (especially after she bumped off her brother) and the strategic position of her country had a lot more to do with it. It is also significant that few of the artists' versions of her resemble her coins. Also consider how many "great beauties" of the past since the development of photography get a ho-hum if not a giggle now - pencil-thin eyebrows, bee-sting lips, flat or topheavy chests, the list is endless. The horrible part is that I have lived through most of these changes in "beauty". Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 07:23:13 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:23:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy gods? Message-ID: <475407.35955.qm@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type (i.e. War, Storm, etc.)? D&D can be your friend here, just look at the domains they give to a particular diety and it should be easy to translate it to a Rune and thus RQ types. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Sorry to do two posts in such quick succession, but it seemed better than > combining two rather different topics into one post. > > Recap: I will probably be running an RQIII one-shot for the guys from my D&D > group sometime in the next few months. It's their first exposure to RQ. I'm > going to be running the one-shot that I discussed here (and got so much help > on) a while back, incidentally. > > The setting will be generic fantasy - I've decided that I will not be using > Glorantha ever again - and I need gods, preferably gods from Fantasy Earth. > > I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like to offer more variety. > Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type (i.e. War, > Storm, etc.)? > > Thanks! > > ->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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jan 20 10:48:17 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:48:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL RQ III? Message-ID: <20070119234818.47174.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This thread on Fantasy Earth gods has me thinking... What would it take to OGL RQ III? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jan 20 10:53:22 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:53:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070119235322.49167.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Sorry to do two posts in such quick succession, but > it seemed better than > combining two rather different topics into one post. > > Recap: I will probably be running an RQIII one-shot > for the guys from my D&D > group sometime in the next few months. It's their > first exposure to RQ. I'm > going to be running the one-shot that I discussed > here (and got so much help > on) a while back, incidentally. > > The setting will be generic fantasy - I've decided > that I will not be using > Glorantha ever again - and I need gods, preferably > gods from Fantasy Earth. > > I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like > to offer more variety. > Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII > god type (i.e. War, > Storm, etc.)? That's excellent news that you've the opportunity to bring new players to RQ. I would also recommend making use of AD&D's "Legends and Lore" (not Deities & Demigods, as you'll need the domains). It'll give the D&D players a bit of a tie-in as well.. All the best & good luck, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 10:53:36 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL RQ III? In-Reply-To: <20070119234818.47174.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070119234818.47174.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, Chaosium still owns the rights to the RQ3 system, and they're still selling the monograph editions - although I don't know how briskly they're selling - so it would really be up to Charlie. Personally, I've never been able to get even a hint of a reply from Charlie about anything, so I couldn't say how likely it is that he'd go the OGL route. Were I a betting man, I'd bet strongly against it. Of course, we could just describe the same system in different words and make THAT OGL, right? :D ->Peter On 1/19/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > This thread on Fantasy Earth gods has me thinking... > What would it take to OGL RQ III? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070119/77bbb992/attachment.html From dzappone at metamythos.net Sat Jan 20 14:45:34 2007 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:45:34 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] OGL RQ III? In-Reply-To: References: <20070119234818.47174.qmail@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B1905E.9020107@metamythos.net> I'm sure Chaosium wouldn't go for it. I tried to convince Charlie of it in 2004-5 and they (chaosium) had some discussion and came back to me and said they decided against going OGL with anything resembling BRP or RQ3. That being said, I don't see that you couldn't take the OGL MRQ rules and create a modified version that more closely resembles RQ3 and post/publish those rules. I've already gone so far as to post up the SRD on http://www.runequestrpg.net (actually a combo site for BRP, RQ, D20 and my own stuff) in MediaWiki. I'll be happy to start creating a RQ3 compatible version of the OGL RQ if anyone else want to write/edit/create it on the aforementioned site. Dan http://www.metamythos.net http://www.runequestrpg.net Peter Maranci wrote: > Well, Chaosium still owns the rights to the RQ3 system, and they're > still selling the monograph editions - although I don't know how > briskly they're selling - so it would really be up to Charlie. > > Personally, I've never been able to get even a hint of a reply from > Charlie about anything, so I couldn't say how likely it is that he'd > go the OGL route. Were I a betting man, I'd bet strongly against it. > > Of course, we could just describe the same system in different words > and make THAT OGL, right? :D > > ->Peter > > On 1/19/07, *Lev Lafayette* < lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > > wrote: > > > This thread on Fantasy Earth gods has me thinking... > What would it take to OGL RQ III? > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Music Unlimited > Access over 1 million songs. > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited > _______________________________________________ > 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 Ludowick at aol.com Sun Jan 21 00:00:08 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:00:08 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ with a battlemat? Message-ID: I think the Stabbing Cat website had rules on RQIII with hex map combat. I might be wrong, though. Google for it if you don't have it bookmarked. Michael Hoxie From magbhitu at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 01:45:47 2007 From: magbhitu at yahoo.com (John Haverkamp) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:45:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***App and plot In-Reply-To: <20070119011402.1639B129EF6F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <851653.96066.qm@web34213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello Thought I might weigh in on the APP stat controversy. I can imagine a campaign involving dynastic politics in which the APP of eligible heirs could have and enormous effect on potential political alliances. Imagine the scenario of the spoiled princess rejecting suitors merely based on their low APP. She's able to pit the various courtiers against one another because of her alluring natural APP of 15 which is raised to 18 by cosmetics and good diet. Or the prince who even won't consider an advantageous marriage proposal that would end centuries of hostility between kingdoms because the proposed bride is a homely APP 9. While he's more interesting in the nubile daughter of the local war faction who has a APP of 16+. She has instructions from her scheming father the Count to twist the shallow princely twit around her little finger. Just some examples for thought. I might add that shallowness has much play in literature. When tales are examined; superficiality and the need to overcome it often drives the plot of many a fairy tale: witness The Frog Prince, Iron John, and Beauty and the Beast. In the Iliad, the Trojan war is caused by Helen's elopement with her pretty boy Paris. ?The face that launched a thousand ships? ? need I say more. John Haverkamp ____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 22 05:06:02 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:06:02 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] New company doing Runequest stuff ? Message-ID: <000601c73d86$d2145b90$866b8456@sickboy> Found these guys whilst stooging round the net: http://www.sceaptunegames.co.uk/index.htm British company, no stuff out yet ( 2nd Feb for their first release from the looks of it. It would appear that they're using the whole OGL thing. Which brings me to the question of why ( as recently mentioned here ) chaosium don't want to go down the OGL route with DBRP when it comes out - precisely what they need I would of thought as you get the impression from RPG.com and other places that they're not doing too well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070121/c4b5cc5d/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 22 06:26:54 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:26:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] New company doing Runequest stuff ? In-Reply-To: <000601c73d86$d2145b90$866b8456@sickboy> Message-ID: <970696.83566.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Perhaps they don't want any two-bit bunch of designers producing shoddy products with their name associated with it? Not to say Sceaptune Games are, just saying that a lot of the d20 OGL material hasn't been of the highest quality. After all, Chaosium has produced many products which sell second-hand on Ebay and the like for an absolute fortune (e.g., Horror on the Orient Express). Which *does* make me wonder why they don't do a second edition/reprint of some of these high sellers. (Our group down here in Oz seriously wanted to do Orient Express for the Indian-Pacific.) All the best, Lev --- Clive Wickens wrote: > Found these guys whilst stooging round the net: > > http://www.sceaptunegames.co.uk/index.htm > > British company, no stuff out yet ( 2nd Feb for > their first release from the looks of it. It would > appear that they're using the whole OGL thing. Which > brings me to the question of why ( as recently > mentioned here ) chaosium don't want to go down the > OGL route with DBRP when it comes out - precisely > what they need I would of thought as you get the > impression from RPG.com and other places that > they're not doing too well. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 22 06:53:34 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:53:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] App and plot In-Reply-To: <851653.96066.qm@web34213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <461417.87096.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John Haverkamp wrote: > Hello > > Thought I might weigh in on the APP stat > controversy. > I can imagine a campaign involving dynastic politics > in which the APP of eligible heirs could have and > enormous effect on potential political alliances. The example is a clever use of the APP for game usage purposes, but it also illustrates that clever use is required for the characteristic, which does justifiably bring into question its overall utility and whther it could not be described as 'colour'. > I might add that shallowness has much play in > literature. When tales are examined; superficiality > and the need to overcome it often drives the plot of > many a fairy tale: witness The Frog Prince, Iron > John, > and Beauty and the Beast. Again, very good examples. Which leaves two real options; either strengthen the role of APP in game terms or find to incorporate the effects into other game terms - I can imagine the charismatic effects of POW, for example, being suppressed by enchantments in the Frog Prince and Iron John and Beauty having sufficient "glamour" POW to overcome the beast. All the best, Lev > > In the Iliad, the Trojan war is caused by Helen's > elopement with her pretty boy Paris. ?The face that > launched a thousand ships? ? need I say more. > > > John Haverkamp > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > It's here! Your new message! > Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 22 07:46:14 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:46:14 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Third party DBRP ETC Message-ID: <000601c73d9d$32ec8670$9a628a56@sickboy> Lev, I can see what you're saying, but to me a poor supplement reflects upon the producers of the supplement - not on the game system itself, or indeed the producers of that system. You're quite right there's some truly dire D20 stuff out there. On the other hand there's some very good stuff as well. Green Ronins Testament is very good in my opinion ( as is the The Hittites follow on ) What else do I like ? Mongooses Ancients OGL is worth a look as is ' Ronins Troy supplement. I think that word of mouth and dare I say it message boards like this would soon spread the word about what was good or bad. Maybe they'll go for a halfway house of granting licenses or buying in stuff from Indie writers/publishers. For example: http://www.geocities.com/mithrapolis/games.html The Alexander BRP supplement on this site is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to see done ( and it's free ! ) Ah well, only time will tell, after all they haven't even got DBRP out yet :-) Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070121/86d202ae/attachment.html From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 22 12:14:58 2007 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:14:58 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B41012.2000807@sbcglobal.net> Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > I think the Stabbing Cat website had rules on RQIII with hex map > combat. I might be wrong, though. Google for it if you don't have it > bookmarked. Remember the old staggered-square battlemaps that were printed with some fancy copies of BRP? They combined the advantages of a hex map with a square grid map. Sure wish I could find some of those today, especially a digital version. Guy (Hoyle) From lancelot at inetnebr.com Mon Jan 22 12:33:18 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:33:18 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: farewell to CON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B4145E.6010108@inetnebr.com> Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Michael Hoxie (a computer made out of meat) > > Yeah a ludicrously complex computer with behavioral subroutines that others of its kind call Will and Spirit. Even if we are measuring psychological traits / features that run as patterns in the brain that doesnt stop them from being real --- and the rules of magic itself in real myth indicate that "power" over the inner self is one of keys to magic. As below so above and vice versi and psyche is the key of magic. Maybe I put too much connection between my fantasy magic and the magic as professed and presented in real myth and you can argue that RQ Power is just magic points... not discepline and focus and other real psychological features. But I dont think the result makes RuneQuest richer or cooler but rather divorces from the very things people are vicariously experiencing in fantasy gaming... the power of mythic context. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 22 13:33:10 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:33:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: <45B41012.2000807@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <215298.22882.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jumping in a bit here, when I do use a battlemap for RQ combat I also introduce a very rough variable Move scores based on the character's SIZ (stride) (relative to STR) and DEX (speed), with a range of 1/2 to 2x the base speed (so humans can be as slow as 1/m sec and as fast as 6m/sec). ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Mon Jan 22 14:45:29 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:45:29 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B43359.9050901@inetnebr.com> Roger Benham wrote: > > There's a partial write up of the Norse pantheon at www.eskimo.com > IIRC. I know Frejr is there; I can't remember > what other ones are! > I was going to recommend Norse as being RuneQuest like... In Norse Mythology.. .Odin discovered Runes by skewering himself to a the World Tree ... or something Similar... The Norse Mythos always made me think RuneQuest. From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Mon Jan 22 20:07:29 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:07:29 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: <45B41012.2000807@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: >Ludowick at aol.com wrote: >> I think the Stabbing Cat website had rules on RQIII with hex map >> combat. I might be wrong, though. Google for it if you don't have it >> bookmarked. > >Remember the old staggered-square battlemaps that were printed with some >fancy copies of BRP? They combined the advantages of a hex map with a >square grid map. Sure wish I could find some of those today, especially >a digital version. Someone (S John Ross? Phil Reed? Can't remeber) has done one, I'm sure, becuase I'd never seen that layout until recently on th enet somewhere. Someone with less draconion work-web screening and better google-fu than me want to check? Cheers, Nick From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jan 22 21:31:06 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:31:06 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ with a battlemat? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14180.196.8.104.27.1169461866.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> My group has used figures for ages (I have a collection of mostly old grenadier minis). We find it does help in showing who is where doiung what in a combat situation - the group has at times been large and a bit too much for the GM to handle everyones shouts as to what they are doing. We don't have a battlemat. Instead we either use a chessboard, just teh table or maybe some paper with appropriate drawn scenery (walls, tables etc.) In yterms of the rules, I think RQIII actually lends itself to using minis quite well. What with knockback etc. As a rule of thumb, we use one chessboard square costs 3SR movement. Hope this helps\ Tony > I have an interesting situation coming up: it looks like I'll be running a > RuneQuest one-shot for my D&D group sometime in the next few months. This > will be their first exposure to the game. > > They're all good roleplayers, and I don't think they'll have any problem > understanding the system. The thing is, they're used to playing with > battlemats and figures, and I've never run a game with either of those. > > I just bought a two-sided hex/square battlemat, and they can provide the > figures, but I need to get up to speed on an aspect of RQ that I've never > used. I'll read my book, of course, but I'd really like to hear any tips > or > suggestions on how to play RQIII with those wargaming elements; movement > in > combat, for example. > > Thanks! > ->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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jan 22 22:19:49 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:19:49 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22205.196.8.104.27.1169464789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Yo Peter. Where exactly were you planning for the players to campaign. Western europe you could prob wing it with Vikings Box plus maybe some of them celtic suppliments people on the list have from old White Dwarf magazines. The Romand and Etruscan pantheons you could prob draw some parrallells to greece. Egypt, most web searches will provide a plethora of gods you can draw generic lines to. Babylon, etc may be a bit harder. Tony > Sorry to do two posts in such quick succession, but it seemed better than > combining two rather different topics into one post. > > Recap: I will probably be running an RQIII one-shot for the guys from my > D&D > group sometime in the next few months. It's their first exposure to RQ. > I'm > going to be running the one-shot that I discussed here (and got so much > help > on) a while back, incidentally. > > The setting will be generic fantasy - I've decided that I will not be > using > Glorantha ever again - and I need gods, preferably gods from Fantasy > Earth. > > I'm quite familiar with the Greek gods, but I'd like to offer more > variety. > Does anyone know of a list of other deities by RQIII god type (i.e. War, > Storm, etc.)? > > Thanks! > > ->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 Ludowick at aol.com Mon Jan 22 22:56:19 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:56:19 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] staggered square battlemaps Message-ID: In response to Guy Hoyle and Nick Middleton, I found some "squaragon" maps on Hero Games' website: http://www.herogames.com/FreeStuff/csheets.htm Michael From viktor.haag at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 23:28:04 2007 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (Viktor Haag) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:28:04 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: <22205.196.8.104.27.1169464789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <22205.196.8.104.27.1169464789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <1786319f0701220428o2433c694v86eb68c3b0e1b845@mail.gmail.com> On 22/01/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > The Romand and Etruscan pantheons you could prob draw some parrallells to > greece. Egypt, most web searches will provide a plethora of gods you can > draw generic lines to. Babylon, etc may be a bit harder. Necromancer Games had a D20 supplement called "Ancient Kingdoms: Mesopotamia" which might prove useful in that regard. -- V. From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 03:19:55 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:19:55 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: <45B43359.9050901@inetnebr.com> References: <45B43359.9050901@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0701220819w383e1f6cp276f1919f5b7878a@mail.gmail.com> Roger Benham wrote: > > > > There's a partial write up of the Norse pantheon at www.eskimo.com > > IIRC. I know Frejr is there; I can't remember > > what other ones are! > > > Looks like the RQ/BRP content at eskimo.com has been removed..or my ancient link no longer works. Roger, would you have a current link to the content? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070122/186fcd46/attachment.html From slposey at slposey.cnc.net Tue Jan 23 04:01:01 2007 From: slposey at slposey.cnc.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:01:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth =?UTF-8?Q?gods=3F?= In-Reply-To: <22205.196.8.104.27.1169464789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <200701221701.MAA03473@swiftsure.cnc.net> ---- Discussion of RuneQuest rules. wrote: > > On 22/01/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > The Romand and Etruscan pantheons you could prob draw some parrallells to > > greece. Egypt, most web searches will provide a plethora of gods you can > > draw generic lines to. Babylon, etc may be a bit harder. > > Necromancer Games had a D20 supplement called "Ancient Kingdoms: > Mesopotamia" which might prove useful in that regard. AKM is definitely among the better D20 supplements, I can also recommend Necromancer's "Necropolis" (fantasized Egypt), Green Ronin's "Testament" (ancient near east: Israel, its allies and enemies) and "The Trojan War", and Mongoose's "OGL Ancients" along similar lines. HTH Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Jan 23 05:34:14 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:34:14 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fantasy Earth gods? In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0701220819w383e1f6cp276f1919f5b7878a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070122/b77401cd/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 02:12:05 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:12:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: <20070121192714.1F40512C0D1A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20070123151205.93347.qmail@web53909.mail.yahoo.com> It's about time for the semi-annual question: Does anyone have an update on the status of Deluxe BRP? I occasionally check Chaosium's "Upcoming Titles" section but haven't seen even a whisper that the title is coming. Can anyone shed some light on the progress of DBRP? Steve ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Jan 24 02:54:51 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:54:51 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: <20070123151205.93347.qmail@web53909.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >It's about time for the semi-annual question: Does >anyone have an update on the status of Deluxe BRP? I >occasionally check Chaosium's "Upcoming Titles" >section but haven't seen even a whisper that the title >is coming. Jason posted the following to the playtest group on Decemer29th 2006 (and subsequently OK'd David Smart repeating it to the Yahoo BRP group, so I'm assuming he'll be OK with me doing the same here...): "- Chaosium have the most recent copies of the manuscript in hand, though I'm still fiddling with some of the tables of equipment and the bestiary. - All feedback has been read, incorporated, or at least considered in the development of the manuscript." Chaosium these day's don't announce books until they know they can get the out on time, so until layout is complete on "Basiic Role Playing, The Chaosium d100 System" (current full title I believe, if warehouse23 and some other online sources are to be believed), I doubt they'll say a peep. >Can anyone shed some light on the progress of DBRP? Jason has done a sterling job - the manuscript was excellent, the one thorny issue the playtest group spotted (fitting the ambitiously generic Powers chapter in) was addressed in an intelligent and timely fashion (by revising in to a number of succint by separate but largely interoperable systems). I'm really loooking forward to seeing th efinal product. No I mean REALLY REALLY :D. In fact, I'm probably going to resurrect the BRP fanzine idea I was discussing on the BRP Yahoo group a year ago, I'm that enthused... Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 03:01:27 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:01:27 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070123/f4147fee/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 03:13:36 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:13:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <20070123160141.DEB7D12DEB17@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20070123161336.84936.qmail@web53905.mail.yahoo.com> Er, somewhere in the communications pipe my last e-mail got a prefix of *** JUNK MAIL *** in the title. I'm sending from yahoo, but the message didn't have that when I sent. Does anyone have a clue where the (at least annoying) flag came from? Steve (who's also looking forward to DBRP and the sound of a BRP newsletter) From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 03:15:57 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:15:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: References: <20070123151205.93347.qmail@web53909.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Oh, if ONLY they'd just go with "Chaosium's D100 System"...I really, REALLY want them to make a success of this. And if they could sell better than Mongoose RQ, I'd be in heaven. I'd be up for contributing to a BRP magazine as well. ->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/20070123/d0b836d9/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Jan 24 03:35:02 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:35:02 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Nick, I'm intrigued by the idea of a BRP magazine... >what did you envision for it? >A different world written up every time?? Or what? Stuff that helps a GM run a fun game. Interesting NPC's, fun creatures, unusual artefacts/objects (not necessarily magical), scenarios seeds and full adventures. Think of the Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics idea, but not solely scenario based: something that recaptures the immediacy and imagination of early BRP games (RQII, Stormrbinger I/-/III, Worlds of Wonder). Or, if your memory stretches back that far, the UK 'zine Tortured Souls. Why spend pages describing the cultures of a place, when actually it's stealing the High martian Chieftains staff (with it's supiciously manufactured looking crystal crown) and flying away in a stolen screw galley that is the point of the adventure? I'd want stats, maps, and some succinct but effective notes on implementing the aerial chase using the vehicle chase rules in BRP, with probably a few notes on aerial combat (since it's a fun possibility that the PC's might get caught up in). If the GM likes the setting, he can elaborate details to suit himself at leisure, but when the player characters burst on to the deck he needs definite answers to specific questions fo rthe game to keep flowing IME... Not self indulgent theoretical discussions, not interminable setting descriptions, not endless fiddling with or elaboration of BRP for the sake of it, NOT using any previously published sources (so NOT Glorantha/RuneQuest, NOT Stormbringer/Young Kingdoms, NOT Call of the Cthulhu / Delta Green: these are either already well served by existing websites / magazines, or mired in legal complexities I have no interest in touching...). New places, people, things: stuff that can save a GM's bacon when they're stumped and the players are turning up in half an hour and that can also inspire whne reviewd at leisure. Or at least, that's the dream I have - what's proves to be practical we'll have to see. I've have already started work in a small way on this idea... Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 03:40:23 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:40:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting; sounds like a lot of what I have up on the Chaos Project might be suitable, unless that counts as being previously available. What's your format going to be? What sort of distribution? ->Peter On 1/23/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > >Nick, I'm intrigued by the idea of a BRP magazine... > >what did you envision for it? > >A different world written up every time? Or what? > > Stuff that helps a GM run a fun game. Interesting NPC's, fun creatures, > unusual artefacts/objects (not necessarily magical), scenarios seeds and > full adventures. > > Think of the Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics idea, but not solely > scenario based: something that recaptures the immediacy and imagination of > early BRP games (RQII, Stormrbinger I/-/III, Worlds of Wonder). Or, if > your > memory stretches back that far, the UK 'zine Tortured Souls. > > Why spend pages describing the cultures of a place, when actually it's > stealing the High martian Chieftains staff (with it's supiciously > manufactured looking crystal crown) and flying away in a stolen screw > galley that is the point of the adventure? I'd want stats, maps, and some > succinct but effective notes on implementing the aerial chase using the > vehicle chase rules in BRP, with probably a few notes on aerial combat > (since it's a fun possibility that the PC's might get caught up in). If > the > GM likes the setting, he can elaborate details to suit himself at leisure, > but when the player characters burst on to the deck he needs definite > answers to specific questions fo rthe game to keep flowing IME... > > Not self indulgent theoretical discussions, not interminable setting > descriptions, not endless fiddling with or elaboration of BRP for the sake > of it, NOT using any previously published sources (so NOT > Glorantha/RuneQuest, NOT Stormbringer/Young Kingdoms, NOT Call of the > Cthulhu / Delta Green: these are either already well served by existing > websites / magazines, or mired in legal complexities I have no interest in > touching...). New places, people, things: stuff that can save a GM's > bacon > when they're stumped and the players are turning up in half an hour and > that can also inspire whne reviewd at leisure. > > Or at least, that's the dream I have - what's proves to be practical we'll > have to see. I've have already started work in a small way on this idea... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus > detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own > virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability > for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents > of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended > for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally > privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other > person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify > us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd > (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - > Tel 01249 441441 > Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys > Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. > Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070123/86cf8eed/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Jan 24 03:54:42 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:54:42 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B63DD2.1030507@zunder.org.uk> Despite our other big project heading MRQ wards I would be keen to help support a BRP zine. I think that doing it as a nice sizeable publication via lulu.com or similar would be good. Those who want printed (me) could have it and those that want pdf could too. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jan 24 10:28:41 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:28:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Status of DBRP? In-Reply-To: <45B63DD2.1030507@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <129629.1367.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You can count me in on such a project as well.. --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > Despite our other big project heading MRQ wards I > would be keen to help > support a BRP zine. I think that doing it as a nice > sizeable publication > via lulu.com or similar would be good. Those who > want printed (me) could > have it and those that want pdf could too. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Jan 24 19:30:54 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:30:54 +0000 Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Re: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Status of DBRP?] Message-ID: Grr! STILL can't post to the list from my home e-mail address, so have had to foward the reply I drafted last night to work! Peter Maranci wrote: > Interesting; sounds like a lot of what I have up on the Chaos Project > might be suitable, unless that counts as being previously available. Since this will be a "not for profit" fanzine and all work remains entirely the property of the author / artist I certainly wouldn't turn down ANYTHING from your site Peter# (an old character of mine who damn near lost an arm to certain Smilodon's might baulk, but I'm perfectly happy... :D) - my only stipulations would be it couldn't use the trademark "RuneQuest" (rules references would thus have to be to either "Monograph BRP" or BRP), or otherwise refrence other trademarks or copyright material and that I'd prefer new material - that scenario you consulted the list on a while back for example. > What's your format going to be? That's a bit fluid at present. definetly print and almost certainly PDF. Probably A4, perfect bound colour covers with B&W interiors. The dream is something of the size / scale of Worlds of Cthulhu or the Black Seal (100 - 150 pages), ideally a couple of times (or possibly even three times) a year. The more modest initial aim is for an annual 70pp+ job, but ultimately it depends on how much interest and enthusiasm there is once I formally announce things and start trying to attract submissions. >What sort of distribution? Again, yet to be finalised, but at least initially and in terms of back issues PoD (specifically Lulu.com) will be playing some sort of role for certain. One of the issues that is vexing me at present is squaring using Lulu or some other PoD service (which knocks start up and running costs down HUGELY) with a desire to see this in FLGS, as the sorts of margins gaming distributors expect (and which they would expect the Lulu retail sales price to reflect) pushes the retail price up or precludes selling direct via Lulu... Tom Zunder wrote >Despite our other big project heading MRQ wards I would be keen to help >support a BRP zine. Cool. And to be honest, this idea owes as much to the discussions we've had at the Tavern about Tortured Souls and similar projects as it does to the discussion on the Yahoo BRP group. > I think that doing it as a nice sizeable >publication via lulu.com or similar would be good. That's the ideal, and a distinct possibility. The sticky bit as I've said is conventional distribution, so I'm still mulling over what exact approach to take. >Those who want >printed (me) could have it and those that want pdf could too. Indeed. Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Thu Jan 25 00:19:24 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:19:24 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: <20070123232851.8EF3212E3F74@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070123232851.8EF3212E3F74@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550701240519s66bfe611p20616481a3b5e33f@mail.gmail.com> > > From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.comStuff that helps a GM run a fun game. > Interesting NPC's, fun creatures, > unusual artefacts/objects (not necessarily magical), scenarios seeds and > full adventures. > > Think of the Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics idea, but not solely > scenario based: something that recaptures the immediacy and imagination of > early BRP games (RQII, Stormrbinger I/-/III, Worlds of Wonder). Or, if > your > memory stretches back that far, the UK 'zine Tortured Souls. > > Why spend pages describing the cultures of a place, when actually it's > stealing the High martian Chieftains staff (with it's supiciously > manufactured looking crystal crown) and flying away in a stolen screw > galley that is the point of the adventure? I'd want stats, maps, and some > succinct but effective notes on implementing the aerial chase using the > vehicle chase rules in BRP, with probably a few notes on aerial combat > (since it's a fun possibility that the PC's might get caught up in). If > the > GM likes the setting, he can elaborate details to suit himself at leisure, > but when the player characters burst on to the deck he needs definite > answers to specific questions fo rthe game to keep flowing IME... > > Not self indulgent theoretical discussions, not interminable setting > descriptions, not endless fiddling with or elaboration of BRP for the sake > of it, NOT using any previously published sources (so NOT > Glorantha/RuneQuest, NOT Stormbringer/Young Kingdoms, NOT Call of the > Cthulhu / Delta Green: these are either already well served by existing > websites / magazines, or mired in legal complexities I have no interest in > touching...). New places, people, things: stuff that can save a GM's > bacon > when they're stumped and the players are turning up in half an hour and > that can also inspire whne reviewd at leisure. > > Or at least, that's the dream I have - what's proves to be practical we'll > have to see. I've have already started work in a small way on this idea... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton That's an ambitious goal you are setting yourself. But I have to agree with the thrust of your argument. IMAO Roleplaying = game = fun activity Therefore Good Magazine = focused on game = snappy information = easy for GM = snappy game = maximum fun In fact, what are doing contributing to this mailing list? Get writing now. Al Who is writing only partly in jest -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070124/acfcacfa/attachment.html From wbcreighton at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 25 03:03:48 2007 From: wbcreighton at yahoo.ca (Warren Creighton) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:03:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <20070123161336.84936.qmail@web53905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <412403.92744.qm@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Someone had mentioned previously that some of the e-mail from this list was getting identified as junk mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address book the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your bulk folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the ***junk mail***tag. Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk folder.( I thought the list was just quiet). So now at least I get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk mail*** tag. You just have to live with it unless you want to get inundated with spam. Warren --- Steve Davies wrote: > Er, somewhere in the communications pipe my last > e-mail got a prefix of *** JUNK MAIL *** in the > title. > I'm sending from yahoo, but the message didn't have > that when I sent. Does anyone have a clue where the > (at least annoying) flag came from? > > Steve (who's also looking forward to DBRP and the > sound of a BRP newsletter) > _______________________________________________ > 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 carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 03:37:23 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:37:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <412403.92744.qm@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <907171.28877.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My rq-rules have come through my regular route without problems other than the offensive junk mail tag. I do recall having to mark a large number of postings in my bulk mail as "not spam" to get them there, however. Try this: When replying to a post with the junk mail tag on it, first remove the offending designation from the Subject line. Then post your comments as usual. If this post goes through without the junk mail reappearing, you will know it works. If not, you will know Yahoo is sticking it on and should be contacted by the rq-rules moderator to cut that out. If the tag has been removed on this post, any replies to this thread should also be without the tag. Go and do likewise to any other tagging you find offensive. Paul Cardwell --- Warren Creighton wrote: > Someone had mentioned previously that some of the > e-mail from this list was getting identified as junk > mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam > filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address book > the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your > bulk > folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the > e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the > ***junk > mail***tag. > > Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would > lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk > folder.( > I thought the list was just quiet). So now at least > I > get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk > mail*** > tag. You just have to live with it unless you want > to > get inundated with spam. > > Warren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 03:38:35 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:38:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <907171.28877.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <982925.49820.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yea! It worked. Now go and do the same. Paul Cardwell --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > My rq-rules have come through my regular route > without > problems other than the offensive junk mail tag. I > do > recall having to mark a large number of postings in > my > bulk mail as "not spam" to get them there, however. > > Try this: > When replying to a post with the junk mail tag on > it, > first remove the offending designation from the > Subject line. > > Then post your comments as usual. > > If this post goes through without the junk mail > reappearing, you will know it works. If not, you > will > know Yahoo is sticking it on and should be contacted > by the rq-rules moderator to cut that out. > > If the tag has been removed on this post, any > replies > to this thread should also be without the tag. > > Go and do likewise to any other tagging you find > offensive. > > Paul Cardwell > > > --- Warren Creighton wrote: > > Someone had mentioned previously that some of the > > e-mail from this list was getting identified as > junk > > mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam > > filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address > book > > the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your > > bulk > > folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the > > e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the > > ***junk > > mail***tag. > > > > Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would > > lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk > > folder.( > > I thought the list was just quiet). So now at > least > > I > > get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk > > mail*** > > tag. You just have to live with it unless you want > > to > > get inundated with spam. > > > > Warren > > > __________________________________________________ > 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 esoteric2723 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 04:44:06 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:44:06 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <412403.92744.qm@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <412403.92744.qm@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: When you receive legitimate posts from the crashbox.com server labeled "***junk mail***", then forward that post to: notjunkmail at thinbits.net so the server can learn to distinguish for future posts. When you receive spam, _from_the_crashbox.com_server_, that is not yet recognized as "***junk mail***", then forward that post to: junkmail at thinbits.net so the server can learn to distinguish for future posts. On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Warren Creighton wrote: > Someone had mentioned previously that some of the > e-mail from this list was getting identified as junk > mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam > filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address book > the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your bulk > folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the > e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the ***junk > mail***tag. > > Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would > lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk folder.( > I thought the list was just quiet). So now at least I > get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk mail*** > tag. You just have to live with it unless you want to > get inundated with spam. > > Warren > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > >> Er, somewhere in the communications pipe my last >> e-mail got a prefix of *** JUNK MAIL *** in the >> title. >> I'm sending from yahoo, but the message didn't have >> that when I sent. Does anyone have a clue where the >> (at least annoying) flag came from? >> >> Steve (who's also looking forward to DBRP and the >> sound of a BRP newsletter) >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 05:02:40 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:02:40 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <907171.28877.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <907171.28877.qm@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Paul Cardwell wrote: > If this post goes through without the junk mail > reappearing, you will know it works. If not, you will > know Yahoo is sticking it on and should be contacted > by the rq-rules moderator to cut that out. That "***junk mail***" which we see, originates at the crashbox.com server. Yahoo! marks by "[spam]" Brad Furst esoteric2723 at comcast.net There are three kinds of people in the world today: those who can count and those who can't. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070124/1bce10a9/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 25 06:52:29 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:52:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <364655.45305.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Brad. I suggest we all save this missive and forward as request to assist the server's learning process. Poor thing has a good INT, but it's fixed *and* it has a POW of 0 ;-) All the best, Lev --- Brad Furst wrote: > When you receive legitimate posts from the > crashbox.com server > labeled "***junk mail***", then forward that post > to: > notjunkmail at thinbits.net > so the server can learn to distinguish for future > posts. > > When you receive spam, > _from_the_crashbox.com_server_, that is not > yet recognized as "***junk mail***", then forward > that post to: > junkmail at thinbits.net > so the server can learn to distinguish for future > posts. > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Warren Creighton wrote: > > > Someone had mentioned previously that some of the > > e-mail from this list was getting identified as > junk > > mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam > > filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address > book > > the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your > bulk > > folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the > > e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the > ***junk > > mail***tag. > > > > Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would > > lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk > folder.( > > I thought the list was just quiet). So now at > least I > > get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk > mail*** > > tag. You just have to live with it unless you want > to > > get inundated with spam. > > > > Warren > > > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > > >> Er, somewhere in the communications pipe my last > >> e-mail got a prefix of *** JUNK MAIL *** in the > >> title. > >> I'm sending from yahoo, but the message didn't > have > >> that when I sent. Does anyone have a clue where > the > >> (at least annoying) flag came from? > >> > >> Steve (who's also looking forward to DBRP and the > >> sound of a BRP newsletter) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 25 07:02:16 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:02:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Egads Junk Mail? In-Reply-To: <412403.92744.qm@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <776114.64771.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> *nods* I noticed that as well. It's also worth marking such mail with yahoo's "Not Spam" button. It seems to get the hint after a while. --- Warren Creighton wrote: > Someone had mentioned previously that some of the > e-mail from this list was getting identified as junk > mail by Yahoo. I use Yahoo as well. If your spam > filter is on and Rq-rules isn't in your address book > the identified ***junk mail*** gets sent to your > bulk > folder. If Rq-rules is in your address book the > e-mail gets sent to your inbox but it has the > ***junk > mail***tag. > > Before I added RQ-rules to my address book I would > lose days of e-mail from the list to my bulk > folder.( > I thought the list was just quiet). So now at least > I > get it to the inbox, it just has that ***junk > mail*** > tag. You just have to live with it unless you want > to > get inundated with spam. > > Warren > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > > Er, somewhere in the communications pipe my last > > e-mail got a prefix of *** JUNK MAIL *** in the > > title. > > I'm sending from yahoo, but the message didn't > have > > that when I sent. Does anyone have a clue where > the > > (at least annoying) flag came from? > > > > Steve (who's also looking forward to DBRP and the > > sound of a BRP newsletter) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 09:29:24 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:29:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag In-Reply-To: <20070124174415.7840912ED42A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <952428.51966.qm@web53903.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry to use list bandwidth to resolve transmission problems, but: This, and the original message to which I responded, both came into my normal yahoo inbox, not to my junk folder. Neither inbound message had a *** JUNK MAIL *** flag on it. I'm getting the digest, so when I responded to the first message (and this one) I hit reply, deleted most of the body of the message, and changed the Subject. For this message, I changed the subject to "Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag" nothing else is on the subject line. I sent the message to "rq-rules at crashbox.com" I suspect that this will now get a "*** JUNK MAIL ***" extra tag on it when it goes to the list. Oh, I also BCCed myself on the last e-mail (and will on this again). In my inbox, the bcc message did NOT have the *** JUNK MAIL *** tag in the subject. So I suspect that the tag is being added at the crashbox end. Thanks for help figuring this out Steve > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:37:23 -0800 (PST) > From: Paul Cardwell > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Message-ID: > <907171.28877.qm at web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > My rq-rules have come through my regular route > without > problems other than the offensive junk mail tag. I > do > recall having to mark a large number of postings in > my > bulk mail as "not spam" to get them there, however. > > Try this: > When replying to a post with the junk mail tag on > it, > first remove the offending designation from the > Subject line. > > Then post your comments as usual. > > If this post goes through without the junk mail > reappearing, you will know it works. If not, you > will > know Yahoo is sticking it on and should be contacted > by the rq-rules moderator to cut that out. > > If the tag has been removed on this post, any > replies > to this thread should also be without the tag. > > Go and do likewise to any other tagging you find > offensive. > > Paul Cardwell > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 26 06:53:37 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:53:37 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Marancini Message-ID: <000601c740ba$82d91cf0$63409756@sickboy> Pete, Did you get my mail ? Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070125/f6d9cc2f/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Fri Jan 26 06:46:31 2007 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:46:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag In-Reply-To: <952428.51966.qm@web53903.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070124174415.7840912ED42A@mini.thinbits.net> <952428.51966.qm@web53903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20944.65.220.101.126.1169754391.squirrel@crashbox.com> Everyone, Sorry this took me so long to respond things have been busy here. On the server we use SpamAssassin to help tag incoming email as junk. (Crashbox has been around for 8 years so we are on everyone's list.) Whenever it thinks it finds junk mail it adds that tag. So indeed it is the crashbox server doing this. As Brad mentioned you can help train the server (it is a Bayesian fliter, a learning algorithm) to help it make better decisions. In general tho just because your mail is tagged unless you have a filter set up in your email program to move all mail such marked to the trash, you shouldn't see any adverse affects. In short, the email is like any other except it has that in the header. If you do have a filter that filters on that criteria, filter on stuff from the rq-rules FIRST and you won't have a problem. -Andrew > Sorry to use list bandwidth to resolve transmission > problems, but: > > This, and the original message to which I responded, > both came into my normal yahoo inbox, not to my junk > folder. Neither inbound message had a *** JUNK MAIL > *** flag on it. > > I'm getting the digest, so when I responded to the > first message (and this one) I hit reply, deleted most > of the body of the message, and changed the Subject. > For this message, I changed the subject to "Re: > Getting rid of Junk Tag" nothing else is on the > subject line. I sent the message to > "rq-rules at crashbox.com" > > I suspect that this will now get a "*** JUNK MAIL ***" > extra tag on it when it goes to the list. > > Oh, I also BCCed myself on the last e-mail (and will > on this again). In my inbox, the bcc message did NOT > have the *** JUNK MAIL *** tag in the subject. So I > suspect that the tag is being added at the crashbox > end. > > Thanks for help figuring this out > Steve > > >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:37:23 -0800 (PST) >> From: Paul Cardwell >> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Egads Junk Mail? >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> >> Message-ID: >> <907171.28877.qm at web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> My rq-rules have come through my regular route >> without >> problems other than the offensive junk mail tag. I >> do >> recall having to mark a large number of postings in >> my >> bulk mail as "not spam" to get them there, however. >> >> Try this: >> When replying to a post with the junk mail tag on >> it, >> first remove the offending designation from the >> Subject line. >> >> Then post your comments as usual. >> >> If this post goes through without the junk mail >> reappearing, you will know it works. If not, you >> will >> know Yahoo is sticking it on and should be contacted >> by the rq-rules moderator to cut that out. >> >> If the tag has been removed on this post, any >> replies >> to this thread should also be without the tag. >> >> Go and do likewise to any other tagging you find >> offensive. >> >> Paul Cardwell >> > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 28 23:57:46 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:57:46 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] culturally specific divine spells ? Message-ID: <000601c742db$e8cd05d0$7ade8e56@sickboy> I was thinking the other day about just how tied into a specific culture spells might ( or might not ) be. Now certain spells are unique in that they are grnated by one specific god....and if that god is only worshipped in a specific culture then you're only going to find that spell in that culture. So far, so good. However you've also got those spells which are granted by a certain type of god, but which aren't necessarily culturally specific. For example: True ( sword ) a sort of all purpose combat spell granted by all sorts of War gods. But if a certain god is closely tied to a specific culture is his version of True ( sword ) only going to work with the cultural weapons of his followers.? Imagine a Roman legionary from the early days of the empire - his weapon is the Gladius, a form of shortsword. He Prays to Mars god of war and receives True ( sword ). Later on he finds himself in the forests of the barbaric north, unarmed he grabs a longsword/broadsword. Now will his version of True ( sword ) going to work with this unknown sword from an unknown culture ? In other words when he gets True ( sword ) is he getting True ( sharp pointing bladed thing for killing enemies ) or is he getting True ( gladius/shortsword ) ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070128/48371ab7/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 01:25:10 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 06:25:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] culturally specific divine spells ? In-Reply-To: <000601c742db$e8cd05d0$7ade8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <905505.11429.qm@web31203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Clive Wickens wrote: > In other words when he gets True ( sword ) is he > getting True ( sharp pointing bladed thing for > killing enemies ) or is he getting True ( > gladius/shortsword ) ? Good point. I would say it depends on if the sword is the integral part of the deity. For example, if you are worshiping Thor and get True Hammer, I would say it only works on hammers that are specific in form. For Mars, on the other hand, any sword would do. Leon ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jan 29 07:19:44 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:19:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] culturally specific divine spells ? In-Reply-To: <000601c742db$e8cd05d0$7ade8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <359257.99578.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Clive Wickens wrote: (snip) > In other words when he gets True ( sword ) is he > getting True ( sharp pointing bladed thing for > killing enemies ) or is he getting True ( > gladius/shortsword ) ? It would very much depend on the culture and the diety in question. A diety of war (generic) would have a very flexible implementation of True(sword, spear, hammer) whereas a war diety of a culture which has additional myths integrated into a particular weapons (e.g., "the spear led us to these lands") would have a more restrictive version. However don't forget to modify the spell point costs according to the flexibility/limitation. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 23:24:10 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:24:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag Message-ID: <941765.94582.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Andrew Mellinger: > As Brad mentioned you can help train the server (it is a Bayesian > fliter, a learning algorithm) to help it make better decisions. In > general tho just because your mail is tagged unless you have a filter > set up in your email program to move all mail such marked to the trash, > you shouldn't see any adverse affects. All my emails now seem to end up marked as spam, which may be fairly accurate. Since I get emails in Digest form, I can't unspam each email. Is there any way to add safe users to the server's lists to override this behaviour? > In short, the email is like any other except it has that in the header. > If you do have a filter that filters on that criteria, filter on stuff > from the rq-rules FIRST and you won't have a problem. Fine if you receive individual messages, not so great if you Digest everything to avoid hundreds of emails a day. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070129/e89abdff/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 23:31:19 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:31:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: culturally specific divine spells ? Message-ID: <234243.86998.qm@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > Imagine a Roman legionary from the early days of the empire - his weapon is the Gladius, a form of > shortsword. He Prays to Mars god of war and receives True ( sword ). Later on he finds himself in > the forests of the barbaric north, unarmed he grabs a longsword/broadsword. Now will his version of > True ( sword ) going to work with this unknown sword from an unknown culture ? There is a Gloranthan precedent that Humakt Truesword does not work on Scimitars and Lunar Truesword works on any swords including Scimitars. > In other words when he gets True ( sword ) is he getting True ( sharp pointing bladed thing for killing > enemies ) or is he getting True ( gladius/shortsword ) ? Since Mars is the God of War, he would be able to grant Truesword for any type of sword, not just the Gladius. If Roman Auxilliaries from Germania worshipped Mars then his spell would work on their swords quite well. If the spell was granted by a minor legionary deity, however, then I'd say it probablt wouldn't work for all types of sword. Perhaps you have to capture the sword, take it back to an altar of Mars and consecrate it as one of the weapons that Mars blesses. That way you get the best of both worlds, limited spell effects and a way for PCs to make the spell better and more useful. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070129/3e75be03/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jan 30 00:50:41 2007 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:50:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag In-Reply-To: <941765.94582.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> References: <941765.94582.qm@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <12773.65.220.101.126.1170078641.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Andrew Mellinger: > > All my emails now seem to end up marked as spam, which may be fairly > accurate. > Since I get emails in Digest form, I can't unspam each email. > Is there any way to add safe users to the server's lists to override this > behaviour? We don't currently have any direct integration of Mailman with SpamAssassin. BTW: There was some discussion of the list being moved to a RQ/Issaries server sometime back, and consequently I haven't allocated any time to list upgrades. I'll contact those list owners and see if they want to take the list otherwise I'll see what can do with the integration. Spam is a lot of work to deal with. Some spammer has already started use *my* address as a return address so I've had to blacklist myself from the list otherwise spam would be posted masquerading as me! -Andrew From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Tue Jan 30 01:00:22 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:00:22 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag In-Reply-To: <12773.65.220.101.126.1170078641.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: Andrew, >We don't currently have any direct integration of Mailman with >SpamAssassin. BTW: There was some discussion of the list being >moved to a RQ/Issaries server sometime back, and consequently I >haven't allocated any time to list upgrades. I'll contact those >list owners and see if they want to take the list otherwise I'll >see what can do with the integration. If such a move to a RQ/Issaries server IS agreed I assume the membership of the list would be informed? Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jan 30 01:50:15 2007 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:50:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Getting rid of Junk Tag In-Reply-To: References: <12773.65.220.101.126.1170078641.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <20209.65.220.101.126.1170082215.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Andrew, > > >We don't currently have any direct integration of Mailman with > >SpamAssassin. BTW: There was some discussion of the list being > >moved to a RQ/Issaries server sometime back, and consequently I > >haven't allocated any time to list upgrades. I'll contact those > >list owners and see if they want to take the list otherwise I'll > >see what can do with the integration. > > If such a move to a RQ/Issaries server IS agreed I assume the > membership > of the list would be informed? Absolutely. And it won't happen if the new system isn't going to be acceptable to people. Of course, someone else is welcome to host, or we could move it to Yahoo or whatever if people prefer. The list only exists because of, and to serve its membership. -Andrew