From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 2 05:33:14 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:33:14 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Angus McBride dies Message-ID: <000601c7a483$b2a8dab0$02dd8e56@sickboy> Off topic I know, but I've always admired the mans work both the stuff he did for ICE and the many superb illustration he did for Osprey publishing in their ancient and medieval books, I've often used his illustrations and the text of the books for ideas for armour and weaponry in RQ games. The link below takes you to some of his work ( not the best in my opinion ) though the vikings picture shows shows what I loved about his art: it wasn't just a collection of pictures of blokes with swords, but almost little vignettes or stories waiting to be told. http://www.ospreypublishing.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070601/7ebf0267/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jun 4 16:41:07 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:41:07 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Angus McBride dies In-Reply-To: <000601c7a483$b2a8dab0$02dd8e56@sickboy> References: <000601c7a483$b2a8dab0$02dd8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <29724.196.8.104.37.1180939267.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Bad news for sure, a talekted bloke by all accounts. Methinks there are still some pics of his up at the Stabbin Cat (if that site is still alive) > Off topic I know, but I've always admired the mans work > both the stuff he did for ICE and the many superb > illustration he did for Osprey publishing in their ancient > and medieval books, I've often used his illustrations > and the text of the books for ideas for armour and weaponry > in RQ games. The link below takes you to some of his work > ( not the best in my opinion ) though the vikings picture > shows shows what I loved about his art: it wasn't just > a collection of pictures of blokes with swords, but almost > little vignettes or stories waiting to be told. > http://www.ospreypublishing.com/ From joemills at columbus.rr.com Mon Jun 4 18:36:02 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 04:36:02 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Angus McBride dies In-Reply-To: <29724.196.8.104.37.1180939267.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <000601c7a483$b2a8dab0$02dd8e56@sickboy> <29724.196.8.104.37.1180939267.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <000801c7a683$62ca7330$0201a8c0@laptop2> The site's stil up. I use it, in fact, as a fast source of the errata, among other things. -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of postmaster at runequest.za.org Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:41 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Angus McBride dies Bad news for sure, a talekted bloke by all accounts. Methinks there are still some pics of his up at the Stabbin Cat (if that site is still alive) > Off topic I know, but I've always admired the mans work > both the stuff he did for ICE and the many superb > illustration he did for Osprey publishing in their ancient > and medieval books, I've often used his illustrations > and the text of the books for ideas for armour and weaponry > in RQ games. The link below takes you to some of his work > ( not the best in my opinion ) though the vikings picture > shows shows what I loved about his art: it wasn't just > a collection of pictures of blokes with swords, but almost > little vignettes or stories waiting to be told. > http://www.ospreypublishing.com/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 14 05:57:01 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:57:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Leon, server password needs resetting ? Message-ID: <000601c7adf5$03b3db60$bd5b8456@sickboy> Leon, I keep getting that message that your site is offline everytime I try and take a peek at it....... Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070613/d4903ca4/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 01:00:54 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:00:54 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] NPCs requested Message-ID: The list has been dead quiet lately, so I'm hoping that no one will mind if I make a request. I've been copying and annotating Chaos Project data into an Excel file, in preparation for a total revamp and redeployment. There were 1462 entries, and I just finished; it was quite an experience. In the process, as a result of conversations here, I've added two new sheets: NPCs and a Bestiary. The problem is that I don't have many NPCs or species to populate the new sheet, and I'd like to have some content in those sections from day one. So I'm posting the NPC template below, and hoping to get some entries from list members. A few notes: 1. The first four fields are for information about the author. They are, of course, optional. When the new Project goes up, it will require membership (free membership) in order to make or modify entries. Spammers made that restriction necessary. 2. The new Chaos Project will be supporting all iterations of d100 - but not, particularly, Glorantha. Gloranthan entries won't be refused, but non-Gloranthan entries would be preferable (and generic NPCs would be best). Any genre is acceptable. I'd rather not have NPCs incorporating mechanics specifically from Mongoose RQ. 3. Power Level is my quick & dirty attempt to work out a mechanism for describing the power level of the NPC. It's in 25-percent increments, i.e. 50%, 75%, 100%, etc. The idea is that a power level of 75% (for example) means that the NPC is roughly equivalent to a typical human PC with their best skills in the 75% range. Magic and other enhancements can (and should) be taken into account, of course. Yes, I realize that there's no such thing as a "typical" PC. 4. If anyone has any suggestions for improving this, I'm very open to that. It wasn't until I actually started working on this that I realized that I'd left out fields for species, age, and gender! So I have no delusions that this is a perfect template. Anyway, here it is. Author: Email: Location: Date/Time: NPC Name: Summary Description: Species: Age: Gender: Strength: Constitution: Size: Intelligence: Power: Dexterity: Appearance: Additional Characteristic 1: Additional Characteristic 2: Physical Description: Personality: Background/History: Skills: Magic/Powers/Tech: Armor: Weapons: Possessions: Notes : Keywords: Power Level: System: Genre: Milieu/World/Setting: ->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/20070618/721e294e/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 08:54:12 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:54:12 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: <20070526234927.2AD882302DB@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the Lunar Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. Any help please? It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... Thanks John _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! http://mobile.msn.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 09:31:11 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: References: <20070526234927.2AD882302DB@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: I'm a little confused. Are you asking about system mechanics, or Gloranthan details? ->Peter On 6/18/07, John Pare' wrote: > > I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the > timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. > > Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the Lunar > Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. > > Any help please? > > It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... > > Thanks > > > > John > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! > http://mobile.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070618/d23cd92c/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 11:41:01 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:41:01 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn all. I know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what it was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god learners. Just over all help how to run it in the 2nd age. John >From: "Peter Maranci" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0400 > >I'm a little confused. Are you asking about system mechanics, or Gloranthan >details? > >->Peter > >On 6/18/07, John Pare' wrote: >> >>I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the >>timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. >> >>Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the Lunar >>Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. >> >>Any help please? >> >>It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... >> >>Thanks >> >> >> >>John >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! >>http://mobile.msn.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > >-- >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 12:26:51 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:26:51 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Okay. I'm not qualified to comment on Gloranthan details - does anyone know if the Glorantha list still exists? Because that might be the best place for a Dorastor discussion - but in order to discuss the system end of things, I think we need to know what system you're converting *from*. ->Peter On 6/18/07, John Pare' wrote: > > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn > all. I > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what it > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god > learners. > > Just over all help how to run it in the 2nd age. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: "Peter Maranci" > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion > >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0400 > > > >I'm a little confused. Are you asking about system mechanics, or > Gloranthan > >details? > > > >->Peter > > > >On 6/18/07, John Pare' wrote: > >> > >>I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the > >>timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. > >> > >>Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the > Lunar > >>Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. > >> > >>Any help please? > >> > >>It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... > >> > >>Thanks > >> > >> > >> > >>John > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! > >>http://mobile.msn.com > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>RQ-Rules mailing list > >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >> > > > > > >-- > >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > >The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN > http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070618/e344419c/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Tue Jun 19 12:42:16 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:42:16 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion Message-ID: In a message dated 6/18/2007 7:28:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pmaranci at gmail.com writes: does anyone know if the Glorantha list still exists? . . . I imagine the discussion of how many Yelms can dance on the end of a Lunar spear still rages on. ;-) Devin ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070618/9e6e76f3/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Jun 19 14:21:49 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:21:49 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Your informant was mistaken. The confrontation that created Dorastor and which resulted in the destruction of either Nysalor or Arkat occurred at the end of the First Age. Dorastor in the second age is described on p. 10-11 of the Dorastor book. That's all that you would really need. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 6/18/07 8:41 PM, "John Pare'" wrote: > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn all. I > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what it > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god learners. > > Just over all help how to run it in the 2nd age. > > > > > > John > > > > > > >> From: "Peter Maranci" >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Dorostar Conversion >> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0400 >> >> I'm a little confused. Are you asking about system mechanics, or Gloranthan >> details? >> >> ->Peter >> >> On 6/18/07, John Pare' wrote: >>> >>> I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the >>> timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. >>> >>> Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the Lunar >>> Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. >>> >>> Any help please? >>> >>> It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! >>> http://mobile.msn.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RQ-Rules mailing list >>> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >>> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >> Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >> The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN > http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 17:23:52 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Dorostar Conversion Message-ID: <980144.84390.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> John Pare: > I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the > timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. > > Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the Lunar > Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. You need to take into account several things: 1. Dorastor has only been awakened for a couple of generations in the Second Age setting 2. There is no Lunar Empire 3. Many of the nasty creatures from Dorastor (3rd Age) don't exist in the 2nd Age 4. Power levels are drastically different under RQM than RQ3 5. RQM doesn't have as full an idea of chaos, so things like Chaos Features are very under-described > Any help please? Right, here goes. After the Gbaji/Chaos Wars, Arkat completely destroyed Dorastor, salted it and smashed pretty much everything there, leaving it a desolate wilderness. He set guardians around so that Dorastor would not come back to life. Then it was left alone for a couple of centuries. But some things are too good to be left alone and Dorastor slowly woke up. The God Learners sent a couple of expeditions into Dorastor, the first was lost, the second may have been (I can't remember). The EWF sent an expedition flying over Dorastor and they reported forests and the sounds of gigantic things moving through the trees, then everyone on the expedition died within a few years coughing up blood. There were reports of a greasefire in Dorastor and the burning of forests. The Godlearners supposedly woke Ralzakark on their first expedition and he now has some pet Godlearner sorcerers. Ralzakark then went around waking the rest of his buddies up. With that, the land woke up and tried to revert to normality, or passes for normality in Dorastor. The EWF don't really want chaos bursting forth from Dorastor as it will impact on Dara Happa and Aggar. The Jrusteli don't want chaos bursting from Dorastor either as it might have an effect on Ralios. But, both know that there are many secrets in Dorastor, from the Feldichi to the Second Council and its remnants. So, I can see them mounting more expeditions there. So, there is a lot of scope in helping or opposing both Empires. There is also scope for the normal chaos-bash or treasure hunt scenarios. There's a lot more on Second Age Dorastor on the Mongoose Forums at http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26381 including who is there and which part of the Timeline is relevant. RQ3 has a form of Super RuneQuest when describing Dorastor, something which I personally liked but a lot of people didn't. There are several problems converting this to RQM: 1. Dedicated POW means that the number and quantity of Divine Magic is severely restricted, so the chaos priests with nearly 100 points of divine magic need completely rewriting. 2. Many Chaos cults have not been described/written up for RQM. Since RQM uses Runemagic, Divinemagic, Dragonmagic, Sorcery and Spirit Magic for its cults, we need to know which type of magic is used by which cult. Bagog, for instance, uses Spirit Magic not Divine Magic, so Bagogi Priests don't need loads of points of Divine Magic, they just need to learn a few Spirit Magic spells. 3. Many of the creatures don't have RQM stats, so you have to use RQ3 equivalents and add special abilities 4. There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones from RQ3. I would guess that Chaotics would be able to get some of their raw powers from new Legendary Abilities in addition to Chaos Features. > It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... It's my favourite setting by far. > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn all. I > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what it > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god learners. The Godlearners have awoken Ralzakark who they intended to control, but he ended up controlling them. Andrew Larsen: > Your informant was mistaken. The confrontation that created Dorastor and > which resulted in the destruction of either Nysalor or Arkat occurred at the > end of the First Age. Dorastor in the second age is described on p. 10-11 > of the Dorastor book. That's all that you would really need. Well, there's more to it than that. You have to take into account the surrounding cultures, the fact that creatures are being awakened, the power play between emerging factions, how that will affect the Poisonthorn Elves and so on. Nothing is simple. Hope that helps a bit. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070619/122759e5/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Jun 19 19:37:30 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:37:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: <980144.84390.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <980144.84390.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1182245850.0fd5136e8d746@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I can't help a bit of self-advertisment myself. I've got a nifty cult for Dorastor: http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl0nje/runequest/ensiki.htm Certainly I think the idea of a 2nd Age Dorastor campaign sounds like a pretty kewl idea. Nikk From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 22:25:46 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Dorastor Conversion Message-ID: "There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones from RQ3" - at the risk over over-promoting, there are 296 additional chaotic features on the Chaos Project archives on my site, and 614 features in all. Although the "current" ones are probably hard to reach right now, as the service I'm using for them is a mess. But if anyone is desperate to see the whole list, I have it as a Google document and can make it viewable online; email me. On a semi-related note, did anyone get my recent request to the list for NPCs? It's in the list archives, but I don't think it was emailed out for some reason. ->Peter On 6/19/07, Simon Phipp wrote: > > John Pare: > > > I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the > > timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. > > > > Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the > Lunar > > Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. > > You need to take into account several things: > 1. Dorastor has only been awakened for a couple of generations in the > Second Age setting > 2. There is no Lunar Empire > 3. Many of the nasty creatures from Dorastor (3rd Age) don't exist in the > 2nd Age > 4. Power levels are drastically different under RQM than RQ3 > 5. RQM doesn't have as full an idea of chaos, so things like Chaos > Features are very under-described > > > Any help please? > > Right, here goes. After the Gbaji/Chaos Wars, Arkat completely destroyed > Dorastor, salted it and smashed pretty much everything there, leaving it a > desolate wilderness. He set guardians around so that Dorastor would not come > back to life. Then it was left alone for a couple of centuries. But some > things are too good to be left alone and Dorastor slowly woke up. The God > Learners sent a couple of expeditions into Dorastor, the first was lost, the > second may have been (I can't remember). The EWF sent an expedition flying > over Dorastor and they reported forests and the sounds of gigantic things > moving through the trees, then everyone on the expedition died within a few > years coughing up blood. There were reports of a greasefire in Dorastor and > the burning of forests. > > The Godlearners supposedly woke Ralzakark on their first expedition and he > now has some pet Godlearner sorcerers. Ralzakark then went around waking the > rest of his buddies up. With that, the land woke up and tried to revert to > normality, or passes for normality in Dorastor. > > The EWF don't really want chaos bursting forth from Dorastor as it will > impact on Dara Happa and Aggar. The Jrusteli don't want chaos bursting from > Dorastor either as it might have an effect on Ralios. But, both know that > there are many secrets in Dorastor, from the Feldichi to the Second Council > and its remnants. So, I can see them mounting more expeditions there. So, > there is a lot of scope in helping or opposing both Empires. There is also > scope for the normal chaos-bash or treasure hunt scenarios. > > There's a lot more on Second Age Dorastor on the Mongoose Forums at > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26381 including > who is there and which part of the Timeline is relevant. > > RQ3 has a form of Super RuneQuest when describing Dorastor, something > which I personally liked but a lot of people didn't. There are several > problems converting this to RQM: > 1. Dedicated POW means that the number and quantity of Divine Magic is > severely restricted, so the chaos priests with nearly 100 points of divine > magic need completely rewriting. > 2. Many Chaos cults have not been described/written up for RQM. Since RQM > uses Runemagic, Divinemagic, Dragonmagic, Sorcery and Spirit Magic for its > cults, we need to know which type of magic is used by which cult. Bagog, for > instance, uses Spirit Magic not Divine Magic, so Bagogi Priests don't need > loads of points of Divine Magic, they just need to learn a few Spirit Magic > spells. > 3. Many of the creatures don't have RQM stats, so you have to use RQ3 > equivalents and add special abilities > 4. There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones > from RQ3. I would guess that Chaotics would be able to get some of their raw > powers from new Legendary Abilities in addition to Chaos Features. > > > It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... > > It's my favourite setting by far. > > > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn > all. I > > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what > it > > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god > learners. > > The Godlearners have awoken Ralzakark who they intended to control, but he > ended up controlling them. > > Andrew Larsen: > > Your informant was mistaken. The confrontation that created Dorastor > and > > which resulted in the destruction of either Nysalor or Arkat occurred at > the > > end of the First Age. Dorastor in the second age is described on p. > 10-11 > > of the Dorastor book. That's all that you would really need. > > Well, there's more to it than that. You have to take into account the > surrounding cultures, the fact that creatures are being awakened, the power > play between emerging factions, how that will affect the Poisonthorn Elves > and so on. > > Nothing is simple. > > Hope that helps a bit. > > See Ya > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070619/cc340395/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 22:40:44 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:40:44 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Dorastor Conversion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I see, my main reason to see if what playable in this era. I will to do some conversions on my part, but I will do what I can. My main concern was who controlls Riskland at this time, is it the EWF?? I think that the possibilities that all forces will collide here is just great right now... John >From: "Peter Maranci" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Dorastor Conversion >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:25:46 -0400 > >"There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones >from RQ3" - at the risk over over-promoting, there are 296 additional >chaotic features on the Chaos Project archives on my site, and 614 features >in all. > >Although the "current" ones are probably hard to reach right now, as the >service I'm using for them is a mess. But if anyone is desperate to see the >whole list, I have it as a Google document and can make it viewable online; >email me. > >On a semi-related note, did anyone get my recent request to the list for >NPCs? It's in the list archives, but I don't think it was emailed out for >some reason. > >->Peter > >On 6/19/07, Simon Phipp wrote: >> >> John Pare: >> >> > I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the >> > timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. >> > >> > Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the >>Lunar >> > Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. >> >>You need to take into account several things: >>1. Dorastor has only been awakened for a couple of generations in the >>Second Age setting >>2. There is no Lunar Empire >>3. Many of the nasty creatures from Dorastor (3rd Age) don't exist in the >>2nd Age >>4. Power levels are drastically different under RQM than RQ3 >>5. RQM doesn't have as full an idea of chaos, so things like Chaos >>Features are very under-described >> >> > Any help please? >> >>Right, here goes. After the Gbaji/Chaos Wars, Arkat completely destroyed >>Dorastor, salted it and smashed pretty much everything there, leaving it a >>desolate wilderness. He set guardians around so that Dorastor would not >>come >>back to life. Then it was left alone for a couple of centuries. But some >>things are too good to be left alone and Dorastor slowly woke up. The God >>Learners sent a couple of expeditions into Dorastor, the first was lost, >>the >>second may have been (I can't remember). The EWF sent an expedition flying >>over Dorastor and they reported forests and the sounds of gigantic things >>moving through the trees, then everyone on the expedition died within a >>few >>years coughing up blood. There were reports of a greasefire in Dorastor >>and >>the burning of forests. >> >>The Godlearners supposedly woke Ralzakark on their first expedition and he >>now has some pet Godlearner sorcerers. Ralzakark then went around waking >>the >>rest of his buddies up. With that, the land woke up and tried to revert to >>normality, or passes for normality in Dorastor. >> >>The EWF don't really want chaos bursting forth from Dorastor as it will >>impact on Dara Happa and Aggar. The Jrusteli don't want chaos bursting >>from >>Dorastor either as it might have an effect on Ralios. But, both know that >>there are many secrets in Dorastor, from the Feldichi to the Second >>Council >>and its remnants. So, I can see them mounting more expeditions there. So, >>there is a lot of scope in helping or opposing both Empires. There is also >>scope for the normal chaos-bash or treasure hunt scenarios. >> >>There's a lot more on Second Age Dorastor on the Mongoose Forums at >>http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26381 including >>who is there and which part of the Timeline is relevant. >> >>RQ3 has a form of Super RuneQuest when describing Dorastor, something >>which I personally liked but a lot of people didn't. There are several >>problems converting this to RQM: >>1. Dedicated POW means that the number and quantity of Divine Magic is >>severely restricted, so the chaos priests with nearly 100 points of divine >>magic need completely rewriting. >>2. Many Chaos cults have not been described/written up for RQM. Since RQM >>uses Runemagic, Divinemagic, Dragonmagic, Sorcery and Spirit Magic for its >>cults, we need to know which type of magic is used by which cult. Bagog, >>for >>instance, uses Spirit Magic not Divine Magic, so Bagogi Priests don't need >>loads of points of Divine Magic, they just need to learn a few Spirit >>Magic >>spells. >>3. Many of the creatures don't have RQM stats, so you have to use RQ3 >>equivalents and add special abilities >>4. There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones >>from RQ3. I would guess that Chaotics would be able to get some of their >>raw >>powers from new Legendary Abilities in addition to Chaos Features. >> >> > It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... >> >>It's my favourite setting by far. >> >> > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn >>all. I >> > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what >>it >> > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god >>learners. >> >>The Godlearners have awoken Ralzakark who they intended to control, but he >>ended up controlling them. >> >>Andrew Larsen: >> > Your informant was mistaken. The confrontation that created Dorastor >>and >> > which resulted in the destruction of either Nysalor or Arkat occurred >>at >>the >> > end of the First Age. Dorastor in the second age is described on p. >>10-11 >> > of the Dorastor book. That's all that you would really need. >> >>Well, there's more to it than that. You have to take into account the >>surrounding cultures, the fact that creatures are being awakened, the >>power >>play between emerging factions, how that will affect the Poisonthorn Elves >>and so on. >> >>Nothing is simple. >> >>Hope that helps a bit. >> >>See Ya >> >>Simon >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> > > >-- >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 22:41:19 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:41:19 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Dorostar Conversion In-Reply-To: <980144.84390.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Simon, very helpfull INDEED John >From: Simon Phipp >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Dorostar Conversion >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:23:52 -0700 (PDT) > >John Pare: > > > I want to make this supplement compatible with MRQ, even though the > > timel;ines do match the setting, it was there. > > > > Any ideas how to do this? A lot of the campaign area is ran by the >Lunar > > Empire, I was told the EWF is now in control of it. > >You need to take into account several things: >1. Dorastor has only been awakened for a couple of generations in the >Second Age setting >2. There is no Lunar Empire >3. Many of the nasty creatures from Dorastor (3rd Age) don't exist in the >2nd Age >4. Power levels are drastically different under RQM than RQ3 >5. RQM doesn't have as full an idea of chaos, so things like Chaos Features >are very under-described > > > Any help please? > >Right, here goes. After the Gbaji/Chaos Wars, Arkat completely destroyed >Dorastor, salted it and smashed pretty much everything there, leaving it a >desolate wilderness. He set guardians around so that Dorastor would not >come back to life. Then it was left alone for a couple of centuries. But >some things are too good to be left alone and Dorastor slowly woke up. The >God Learners sent a couple of expeditions into Dorastor, the first was >lost, the second may have been (I can't remember). The EWF sent an >expedition flying over Dorastor and they reported forests and the sounds of >gigantic things moving through the trees, then everyone on the expedition >died within a few years coughing up blood. There were reports of a >greasefire in Dorastor and the burning of forests. > >The Godlearners supposedly woke Ralzakark on their first expedition and he >now has some pet Godlearner sorcerers. Ralzakark then went around waking >the rest of his buddies up. With that, the land woke up and tried to revert >to normality, or passes for normality in Dorastor. > >The EWF don't really want chaos bursting forth from Dorastor as it will >impact on Dara Happa and Aggar. The Jrusteli don't want chaos bursting from >Dorastor either as it might have an effect on Ralios. But, both know that >there are many secrets in Dorastor, from the Feldichi to the Second Council >and its remnants. So, I can see them mounting more expeditions there. So, >there is a lot of scope in helping or opposing both Empires. There is also >scope for the normal chaos-bash or treasure hunt scenarios. > >There's a lot more on Second Age Dorastor on the Mongoose Forums at >http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26381 including >who is there and which part of the Timeline is relevant. > >RQ3 has a form of Super RuneQuest when describing Dorastor, something which >I personally liked but a lot of people didn't. There are several problems >converting this to RQM: >1. Dedicated POW means that the number and quantity of Divine Magic is >severely restricted, so the chaos priests with nearly 100 points of divine >magic need completely rewriting. >2. Many Chaos cults have not been described/written up for RQM. Since RQM >uses Runemagic, Divinemagic, Dragonmagic, Sorcery and Spirit Magic for its >cults, we need to know which type of magic is used by which cult. Bagog, >for instance, uses Spirit Magic not Divine Magic, so Bagogi Priests don't >need loads of points of Divine Magic, they just need to learn a few Spirit >Magic spells. >3. Many of the creatures don't have RQM stats, so you have to use RQ3 >equivalents and add special abilities >4. There is no Chaos Feature Table in RQM, so you may have to use the ones >from RQ3. I would guess that Chaotics would be able to get some of their >raw powers from new Legendary Abilities in addition to Chaos Features. > > > It is too damned cool of a setting to let it RIP... > >It's my favourite setting by far. > > > kind of both, I want to convert to 2nd age Glorantha. Creatures adn >all. I > > know Doraostar is in the 2nd age, but I was told it was not quite what >it > > was as far as Chaos. Some god had not been created yet by the god >learners. > >The Godlearners have awoken Ralzakark who they intended to control, but he >ended up controlling them. > >Andrew Larsen: > > Your informant was mistaken. The confrontation that created Dorastor >and > > which resulted in the destruction of either Nysalor or Arkat occurred at >the > > end of the First Age. Dorastor in the second age is described on p. >10-11 > > of the Dorastor book. That's all that you would really need. > >Well, there's more to it than that. You have to take into account the >surrounding cultures, the fact that creatures are being awakened, the power >play between emerging factions, how that will affect the Poisonthorn Elves >and so on. > >Nothing is simple. > >Hope that helps a bit. > >See Ya > >Simon >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. It?s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07 From tcantine at incentre.net Wed Jun 20 00:35:30 2007 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:35:30 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Dorastor Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5490FC1A-1E72-11DC-A34A-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> On 19-Jun-07, at 6:25 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > > On a semi-related note, did anyone get my recent request to the list > for NPCs? It's in the list archives, but I don't think it was emailed > out for some reason. > I received it. I just don't have any NPCs written up for it just now. That, and my spam filter has shut down. I have to wade through about 200 viagra ads a day. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 07:02:41 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Sea Griffon In-Reply-To: <20070526234927.2AD882302DB@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: <748432.26935.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Actually, the rear opening marsupium is quite common - in quadruped marsupials. The thylacine and Tasmanian devil both have this arrangement, although the far more numerous (the thylacine is presumed extinct) kangaroos, wallabies, etc., being predominatedly bipedal, do have a forward opening marsupium as for that matter the often arborial possums. There are a large number of marsupials, both extinct and extant, which resemble placental mammals sufficiently that the stats of the placentals can substitute quite well except for life-cycle chronology and possibly population density figures. Still, it is nice to be reminded of the large marsupials for settings such as Oz where they would be the common life form. Paul Cardwell --- Mechashef wrote: > I've run a Mythic Australian inspired campaign on > and off for years. > > Here is my take on Thylacoleo carnifex. > > I'm gradually adding many of the creatures from my > campaign to the RQ3 Yahoo > Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rq3/ > > So far I have the Carnifex and the Drop Bear, but > will be adding Bunyips, > Megalania's, Mimis etc. > > One problem is that while a Drop Bear or a Bunyip is > a unique creature, > there is not really much that makes a Megalania > different from the standard > RQ Rock Lizard. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From superninja42 at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 07:45:38 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:45:38 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: <4183445e0706231445w269bb586yf66f13f6f48509cd@mail.gmail.com> Good Afternoon Ladies and Gents! I recently found this mail list and have been going over several of the archived messages. I must say it is nice to see a group dedicated to keeping RQ alive and well! I am a new GM for RuneQuest. I have only been running in about a year so I am sure there are many questions I will have :) But I will of course look through the archives first. I have been running and playing in RPGs for about 14 years (I am 28..I know..A youngin') and have found Rune Quest to be by far my favorite system. Thats not to say that I haven't had to add or modify some of the rules to fit my groups play style. I look forward to being a member of this list! -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070623/ff26c6cd/attachment.html From anders at california.com Sun Jun 24 07:59:37 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:59:37 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706231445w269bb586yf66f13f6f48509cd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4183445e0706231445w269bb586yf66f13f6f48509cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:45:38 -0500 Robert wrote: > Good Afternoon Ladies and Gents! > > I recently found this mail list and have been going over several of the > archived messages. I must say it is nice to see a group dedicated to > keeping RQ alive and well! > > I am a new GM for RuneQuest. I have only been running in about a year so I > am sure there are many questions I will have :) But I will of course look > through the archives first. I have been running and playing in RPGs for > about 14 years (I am 28..I know..A youngin') and have found Rune Quest to > be > by far my favorite system. Thats not to say that I haven't had to add or > modify some of the rules to fit my groups play style. > > I look forward to being a member of this list! > > Welcome. --Anders From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Jun 24 09:10:21 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706231445w269bb586yf66f13f6f48509cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <132040.32639.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert wrote: > Good Afternoon Ladies and Gents! > > I recently found this mail list and have been going > over several of the > archived messages. I must say it is nice to see a > group dedicated to > keeping RQ alive and well! > > I am a new GM for RuneQuest. I have only been > running in about a year so I > am sure there are many questions I will have :) But > I will of course look > through the archives first. I have been running and > playing in RPGs for > about 14 years (I am 28..I know..A youngin') and > have found Rune Quest to be > by far my favorite system. Thats not to say that I > haven't had to add or > modify some of the rules to fit my groups play > style. > > I look forward to being a member of this list! > Greetings and salutations! Tell us a little more about the RQ you're playing and what house-rules you're using... All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ From parejf63 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 24 09:38:08 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:38:08 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706231445w269bb586yf66f13f6f48509cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Welcome Robert. This is a great game and a great list, when it is not quiet (HINT)... Which version are you playing? II, III, or Mongoose Runequest, I play Mongoose version. They seem to keep the supplements coming, which is what I like. Tell us about your house rules? John >From: Robert >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: RQ >Subject: [Rq-rules] Introduction >Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:45:38 -0500 > >Good Afternoon Ladies and Gents! > >I recently found this mail list and have been going over several of the >archived messages. I must say it is nice to see a group dedicated to >keeping RQ alive and well! > >I am a new GM for RuneQuest. I have only been running in about a year so I >am sure there are many questions I will have :) But I will of course look >through the archives first. I have been running and playing in RPGs for >about 14 years (I am 28..I know..A youngin') and have found Rune Quest to >be >by far my favorite system. Thats not to say that I haven't had to add or >modify some of the rules to fit my groups play style. > >I look forward to being a member of this list! > > > >-- >Robert Parrish >superninja42 at gmail.com >www.finding42.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 03:36:44 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Dorastor Conversion Message-ID: <422216.80918.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com> John Pare: > My main concern was who controlls Riskland at this time, is it the EWF?? Well, Riskland was only really created by the Lunars as part of their moving troublesome tribesmen to nasty areas plan, hence the brilliant poster for Dorastor. But, the area is still unsettled in the Second Age, so there's no reason why people can't go there. It is uncontrolled at this time. It might be part of Talastar, but it's too close to dorastor for anyone to care who lives there - if people are stupid enough to go there then fine, as long as they don't bring broos etc back with them. > I think that the possibilities that all forces will collide here is just > great right now... That's the great thing about a GM - if you want the Empires to clash in Dorastor then they will. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070624/bb66eb3f/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Jun 25 17:59:32 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:59:32 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Sea Griffon In-Reply-To: <20070526234927.2AD882302DB@m0.velocity.net.au> References: <25252.196.8.104.37.1180085396.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <20070526234927.2AD882302DB@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: <33605.196.8.104.31.1182758372.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Yes, Megalania I think would just have been a bit bigger and supposedly had toxic slobber much like Komodo Dragon, perhaps a bit more toxic. > I've run a Mythic Australian inspired campaign on and off for years. > > Here is my take on Thylacoleo carnifex. > > I'm gradually adding many of the creatures from my campaign to the RQ3 > Yahoo > Group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rq3/ > > So far I have the Carnifex and the Drop Bear, but will be adding Bunyips, > Megalania's, Mimis etc. > > One problem is that while a Drop Bear or a Bunyip is a unique creature, > there is not really much that makes a Megalania different from the > standard > RQ Rock Lizard. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From superninja42 at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 01:33:19 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:33:19 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> First thank you for the welcome. It has been a long time since I was part of a mailing list so if this reply ends up as a 'new' discussion I apologize up front. My gaming troupe plays RQIII. I had never been exposed to any other version of the game and happened across a great purchase for shrink-wrapped box sets. I own many of the books for RQ - Monster Coliseum, Vikings, Gods of Glorantha, Glorantha, Trollpak, Trollgods, Elder Secrets, and the Deluxe Box Set for RQIII. I also have several smaller supplements and locations - RuneQuest Cities, The Haunted Ruins, Gloranthan Bestiary and my favorite Snake Pipe Hollow. As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never liked the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I have fenced and done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed to being able to parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on each additional parry you attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. We also added rules for fighting florentine. I love fighting with dual short swords. So we made it where you could make two strikes per MR when using 1H weapons you are proficient in. The first attack at you full A%, but the second attack at a 10% penalty. I am still working on making the sorcery rules easier to follow and quicker to use. I find them cumbersome in their current state. Though I do love the magic in RQ -- msot of it being very day to day, practical. -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com Welcome Robert. This is a great game and a great list, when it is not quiet (HINT)... Which version are you playing? II, III, or Mongoose Runequest, I play Mongoose version. They seem to keep the supplements coming, which is what I like. Tell us about your house rules? John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070625/f19fda2a/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jun 26 09:03:22 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:03:22 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.co m> References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> >As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never >liked the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I >have fenced and done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we >changed to being able to parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty >imposed on each additional parry you attempt per MR. You still only >get one attack. When we did something like this years ago, we found that higher level combats became interminable. From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Jun 26 11:39:39 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:39:39 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> Message-ID: <46806E5B.8050107@inetnebr.com> Stormbringer had rather higher penalties.... you gained an additional attack against a particular opponent if you did well on a parry it made combat a flurry.. without begin interminable Wayne Shaw wrote: > >> As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never >> liked the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I have >> fenced and done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed >> to being able to parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on >> each additional parry you attempt per MR. You still only get one >> attack. > > When we did something like this years ago, we found that higher level > combats became interminable. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > . > From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jun 26 15:41:07 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:41:07 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> Message-ID: <003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> On the other hand, I figure that having to roll dice is sufficient penalty, so I do not exact any reduction to subsequent parry attempts. Of course, with SPQR's multiple success system, which I may be increasing considerably by cribbing from my Black 9 Ops game, the chance of a high %ile hit being blocked by a high %ile parry goes down. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:03 PM Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > >>As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never liked >>the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I have fenced and >>done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed to being able to >>parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on each additional parry >>you attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. > > When we did something like this years ago, we found that higher level > combats became interminable. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 26 21:41:06 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:41:06 -0400 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: Overall, I see that as being soemwhat unblanced adn definately distrupting combat at later levels. John >From: "Steve Perrin" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:41:07 -0700 > >On the other hand, I figure that having to roll dice is sufficient penalty, >so I do not exact any reduction to subsequent parry attempts. > >Of course, with SPQR's multiple success system, which I may be increasing >considerably by cribbing from my Black 9 Ops game, the chance of a high >%ile hit being blocked by a high %ile parry goes down. > >Steve Perrin > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:03 PM >Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > > >> >>>As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never liked >>>the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I have fenced >>>and done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed to being >>>able to parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on each >>>additional parry you attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. >> >>When we did something like this years ago, we found that higher level >>combats became interminable. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 _________________________________________________________________ Picture this ? share your photos and you could win big! http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Jun 26 22:35:41 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:35:41 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4681081D.6050309@inetnebr.com> If you have to succeed by an amount greater than the attack success (sounds like the kind of rule he is referring to) then combat at higher levels "against challenging adversaries" the combat would flow like it was between two low level combatants. Not particularly imbalanced either... it is still tougher fighting against two opponents than one... etc. its just not really much different fighting one after the other than two at one time... And depending on what genre you are looking at this may be your target.... In some genres unless the adversaries know how to team fight using the same style and are practiced together even people on the same side commonly interfere rather than improve each others chances. The value of team fighting skill might just be a progression of reduced chances John Pare' wrote: > Overall, I see that as being soemwhat unblanced adn definately > distrupting combat at later levels. > > > > > > John > > > > > > >> From: "Steve Perrin" >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction >> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:41:07 -0700 >> >> On the other hand, I figure that having to roll dice is sufficient >> penalty, so I do not exact any reduction to subsequent parry attempts. >> >> Of course, with SPQR's multiple success system, which I may be >> increasing considerably by cribbing from my Black 9 Ops game, the >> chance of a high %ile hit being blocked by a high %ile parry goes down. >> >> Steve Perrin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" >> To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:03 PM >> Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction >> >> >>> >>>> As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for one. I never >>>> liked the idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. I >>>> have fenced and done SCA type sword fighting for years and so we >>>> changed to being able to parry EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty >>>> imposed on each additional parry you attempt per MR. You still >>>> only get one attack. >>> >>> When we did something like this years ago, we found that higher >>> level combats became interminable. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Picture this ? share your photos and you could win big! > http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > . > From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jun 27 07:56:18 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:56:18 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <46806E5B.8050107@inetnebr.com> References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> <46806E5B.8050107@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145450.0340d098@caprica.com> At 06:39 PM 6/25/2007, you wrote: >Stormbringer had rather higher penalties.... you gained an >additional attack against a particular opponent if you did well on a parry >it made combat a flurry.. without begin interminable This had more to do with it making it rather too easy for Runelord or close level characters being able to fairly reliably parry multiple opponents, even those of their own capability level. It tilted the equation to defense pretty noticeably at those levels. From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jun 27 07:58:18 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:58:18 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> <003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145703.0340f118@caprica.com> At 10:41 PM 6/25/2007, you wrote: >On the other hand, I figure that having to roll dice is sufficient >penalty, so I do not exact any reduction to subsequent parry attempts. I'm curious if you ever saw this in actual use with higher skilled opponents (in th 70%+ range); even simply allowing two parries noticeably tilted things to defense in our experience at those levels. >Of course, with SPQR's multiple success system, which I may be >increasing considerably by cribbing from my Black 9 Ops game, the >chance of a high %ile hit being blocked by a high %ile parry goes down. That would make a considerable difference. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 27 09:13:33 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145450.0340d098@caprica.com> Message-ID: <866728.73349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 06:39 PM 6/25/2007, you wrote: > >Stormbringer had rather higher penalties.... you > gained an > >additional attack against a particular opponent if > you did well on a parry > >it made combat a flurry.. without begin > interminable > > This had more to do with it making it rather too > easy for Runelord or > close level characters being able to fairly reliably > parry multiple > opponents, even those of their own capability level. > It tilted the > equation to defense pretty noticeably at those > levels. > A question, from a simulationist perspective, is whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple attackers lined against a single defender. It was not unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jun 27 12:11:11 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:11 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <866728.73349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145450.0340d098@caprica.com> <866728.73349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626191016.033e7968@caprica.com> >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is >whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple >attackers lined against a single defender. It was not >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. Where they fencing in the round, and were the attackers as skilled or close to it as the defender? If both of those were the case, I find this hard to believe (and I have some fencing experience of my own.) From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 27 12:45:25 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626191016.033e7968@caprica.com> Message-ID: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > >whether or not this should be the case. Many years > ago > >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > >attackers lined against a single defender. It was > not > >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > > Where they fencing in the round, and were the > attackers as skilled or > close to it as the defender? If both of those were > the case, I find > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing > experience of my own.) > Trained, but not Commonwealth games material, like the defender. The main point being however that one can react/parry more times per round than one can attack, imo.. 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 superninja42 at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 13:19:34 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:19:34 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626191016.033e7968@caprica.com> <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0706262019g5cb6b420l6f43e5786968f2c8@mail.gmail.com> I agree and that's why I let my players do it. It's not free, there is a penalty. Of course ultimately it comes down to my judgment whether or not they can dot it at the time. Situation can carry allot of weight in any combat. ~robert On 6/26/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > > >whether or not this should be the case. Many years > > ago > > >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > > >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > > >attackers lined against a single defender. It was > > not > > >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > > >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > > > > Where they fencing in the round, and were the > > attackers as skilled or > > close to it as the defender? If both of those were > > the case, I find > > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing > > experience of my own.) > > > > Trained, but not Commonwealth games material, like the > defender. The main point being however that one can > react/parry more times per round than one can attack, > imo.. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070626/d66b4a97/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jun 27 13:23:43 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:23:43 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com><003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145703.0340f118@caprica.com> Message-ID: <002201c7b86a$909ad9a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Of course there was a problem with high levels bouncing off each other all night with most of the published versions of RQ. That's why I set up SPQR with the multiple success mechanic. My current thoughts on the matter is that, instead of getting extra successes with rolling half, 10%, and 01% of what you need, you get extra successess for every 10%iles you beat the basic roll by. Thus, if you have a 75% chance and roll 33, you get 4 successes (or maybe 5, I'm still cogitating on whether to allow partials to be successes, it might be easier to count that way). The person opposing you, with a 100% parry, rolls 65, thus getting only 3 (or 4) successes. You have the advantage in successes, you get a hit. If you get more than one extra success, you get bonuses as shown in the SPQR rules which many of you have already seen. Maximum success is 3 extra. Characters can also throw away successes (declared before rolling) to get special benefits. Still cogitating on those, too. Haven't had a chance to try it out, yet. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > At 10:41 PM 6/25/2007, you wrote: >>On the other hand, I figure that having to roll dice is sufficient >>penalty, so I do not exact any reduction to subsequent parry attempts. > > I'm curious if you ever saw this in actual use with higher skilled > opponents (in th 70%+ range); even simply allowing two parries noticeably > tilted things to defense in our experience at those levels. > > >>Of course, with SPQR's multiple success system, which I may be increasing >>considerably by cribbing from my Black 9 Ops game, the chance of a high >>%ile hit being blocked by a high %ile parry goes down. > > That would make a considerable difference. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jun 27 13:27:38 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:27:38 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> According to one martial arts expert (albeit the guy who invented the modern form of Aikido), if you can handle five people at once, you can handle an army, because only five can reach you at a time. One assumes he is assuming all hand-to-hand fighting. Since the person doing the handling probably cannot attack five at once, one assumes again that he is dodging five and taking out one, thus letting another back ranker step in to be one of the five for the next round... :) Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lev Lafayette" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > > --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > >> >> >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is >> >whether or not this should be the case. Many years >> ago >> >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit >> >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple >> >attackers lined against a single defender. It was >> not >> >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry >> >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. >> >> Where they fencing in the round, and were the >> attackers as skilled or >> close to it as the defender? If both of those were >> the case, I find >> this hard to believe (and I have some fencing >> experience of my own.) >> > > Trained, but not Commonwealth games material, like the > defender. The main point being however that one can > react/parry more times per round than one can attack, > imo.. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 27 20:40:57 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:40:57 +0000 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: I know drills where you face multiple attackers. I allso know that if you're good at positioning yourself; then you're perhaps able to eaven out the ods somewhat. But from 4 years of mass-combat on battlefields with melee-weapons, I know that if two face one, then the one that is allone allways dies. He sometimes manages to take out one of the adversaries, but unless there is a huge skill-gap between the single and the pair, the single ALLWAYS dies. > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:11 -0700> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> From: shaw at caprica.com> Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction> > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is> >whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago> >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit> >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple> >attackers lined against a single defender. It was not> >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry> >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals.> > Where they fencing in the round, and were the attackers as skilled or > close to it as the defender? If both of those were the case, I find > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing experience of my own.)> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070627/5b8f89fc/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 27 20:50:05 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:50:05 +0000 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: The main point being however that one can> react/parry more times per round than one can attack,> imo.. If you go to the historical manuals, you see that people that only parry/react falls victim to having their hands sliced off. You should never only parry, as you don't pose a threat to the attacker, so that he can go for your hands, feint you, etc. Now, if you use shields, the story is somewhat different, but a shield is heavy and slower than a sword, so heigh-low-feints usually does it. The shield is to heavy to be able to parry faster than a swordsman can attack anyway, and only works when it's kept in the centre to force the attacker to go in larger circles with his sword than he would need if he was not facing a shield. melee fighting (and unarmed as well) is all about keeping control of the centre, and most manuals from historical europe, as well as asian styles are about attacking while controlling the centre (i.e. a latent parry). The winner is the one that manages to outwit, take the initiative and to be mentally on top of the situation; not the one that can do the fastest parries. IMHO _________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Windows Live Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. It?s free.? http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_June07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070627/0e5449fb/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 22:23:54 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:23:54 -0400 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: No one seems to have brought up the mechanic (was it an optional RQ2 rule? I can't remember) in which a parry or attack skill of 100% or higher could be split and directed against more than one attack/parry. As I recall, that worked for skill increments of 50%, i.e. if you had a 150% skill you could make three attacks or parries at 50%. Presumably you could instead choose to make two attempts at 75% each instead. Of course, if unlimited parries are allowed that's not such a great deal for the attacker. Another mechanism that stuck in my head was "every percent of attack skill over 100% subtracts one percent from the opponent's chance to parry/dodge". That certainly sped up battles between skilled (90-100% parry/dodge) warriors and those with substantially higher skills. In RQ3 Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a single attack in a round, if I recall correctly. I don't have a point to make about that, but it strikes me as interesting. ->Peter On 6/26/07, Steve Perrin wrote: > According to one martial arts expert (albeit the guy who invented the > modern > form of Aikido), if you can handle five people at once, you can handle an > army, because only five can reach you at a time. One assumes he is > assuming > all hand-to-hand fighting. > > Since the person doing the handling probably cannot attack five at once, > one > assumes again that he is dodging five and taking out one, thus letting > another back ranker step in to be one of the five for the next round... :) > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lev Lafayette" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:45 PM > Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > > > > > > --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > >> > >> >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > >> >whether or not this should be the case. Many years > >> ago > >> >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > >> >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > >> >attackers lined against a single defender. It was > >> not > >> >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > >> >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > >> > >> Where they fencing in the round, and were the > >> attackers as skilled or > >> close to it as the defender? If both of those were > >> the case, I find > >> this hard to believe (and I have some fencing > >> experience of my own.) > >> > > > > Trained, but not Commonwealth games material, like the > > defender. The main point being however that one can > > react/parry more times per round than one can attack, > > imo.. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070627/e3c8baa2/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 22:29:12 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:29:12 +0800 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <9ebd81400706270529k2e25f547mc9d7bfa9ce8a1acd@mail.gmail.com> On 27/06/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > In RQ3 Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a single > attack in a round, if I recall correctly. I don't have a point to make about > that, but it strikes me as interesting. Not quite. You can use your full Dodge against all attacks from a single source, but only once per attack. Thus, for example if a lion has 3 attacks, you can Dodge all three of them. Two lions, and you need to split your Dodge (only if over 100%). Cormac's Saga has a relevant example. -- GAZZA From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Jun 27 22:55:17 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:55:17 +0200 (SAST) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <11139.196.8.104.27.1182948917.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Peter wrote: > No one seems to have brought up the mechanic (was it an optional RQ2 rule? > I > can't remember) in which a parry or attack skill of 100% or higher could > be > split and directed against more than one attack/parry. > > As I recall, that worked for skill increments of 50%, i.e. if you had a > 150% > skill you could make three attacks or parries at 50%. Presumably you could > instead choose to make two attempts at 75% each instead. Of course, if > unlimited parries are allowed that's not such a great deal for the > attacker. > > Another mechanism that stuck in my head was "every percent of attack skill > over 100% subtracts one percent from the opponent's chance to > parry/dodge". > That certainly sped up battles between skilled (90-100% parry/dodge) > warriors and those with substantially higher skills. > > In RQ3 Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a single > attack in a round, if I recall correctly. I don't have a point to make > about > that, but it strikes me as interesting. > > ->Peter > Interesting, don't ever recall this from RQIII but then again I tend to forget ceratin not every day use rules. I like it though, makes a hellava lot of sence and takes one into the realms of allowing specialisation skills on top of standard weapon skills. Extra Attack, Extra Parry, Free disarm, easy knockdown etc. Tony From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Jun 27 23:05:16 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:05:16 +0100 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter > No one seems to have brought up the mechanic (was it an optional RQ2 > rule? I can't remember) in which a parry or attack skill of 100% or > higher could be split and directed against more than one attack/parry. > > As I recall, that worked for skill increments of 50%, i.e. if you > had a 150% skill you could make three attacks or parries at 50%. > Presumably you could instead choose to make two attempts at 75% each > instead. Of course, if unlimited parries are allowed that's not such > a great deal for the attacker. The RQII rule was, IIRC, that once over 100% you could split your attack (or parry) how you wished, provided no portion was less than 50% (and subject to timing requirements I can't remember). So a character with 260% could (if fast enough) squeeze 5(!) attacks (four at 50% and one at 60%) off in a round... RQIII Player's Book is more conservative - you can split your Att / Par of 100%+ in to two equal halves (second attack at +3SR). > Another mechanism that stuck in my head was "every percent of attack > skill over 100% subtracts one percent from the opponent's chance to > parry/dodge". That certainly sped up battles between skilled > (90-100% parry/dodge) warriors and those with substantially higher skills. That's one of the benefits of being a RuneLord from RQII IIRC - one could optionally penalise ones opponent by the amount ones skill exceeded 100. > In RQ3 Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a > single attack in a round, if I recall correctly. I don't have a > point to make about that, but it strikes me as interesting. Not quite: if you take "Dodge" as one of your two "actions" that round you can apply it against ALL MELEE attacks FROM ONE SOURCE. A Dodge of 100%+ can be split as Par 100%+ can, and then counts as "two actions" and allows the Character to Dodge ALL MELEE attacks from TWO sources. Dodging missile attacks (by inference from one source) takes an entire round, to the exclusion of other activities. (In case you are wondering, I happen to have a copy of the RQIII Player's Book to hand, which is the only reason I can remember all these details!) 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 Thu Jun 28 01:12:02 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:12:02 -0400 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400706270529k2e25f547mc9d7bfa9ce8a1acd@mail.gmail.com> References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <9ebd81400706270529k2e25f547mc9d7bfa9ce8a1acd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, that was a typo - I meant to write "...Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a single attackER". Whoops! ->Peter On 6/27/07, Gary Sturgess wrote: > > On 27/06/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > In RQ3 Dodge can be used an unlimited number of times against a single > > attack in a round, if I recall correctly. I don't have a point to make > about > > that, but it strikes me as interesting. > > Not quite. > > You can use your full Dodge against all attacks from a single source, > but only once per attack. Thus, for example if a lion has 3 attacks, > you can Dodge all three of them. Two lions, and you need to split your > Dodge (only if over 100%). > > Cormac's Saga has a relevant example. > -- > GAZZA > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070627/2009474c/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Jun 28 01:35:47 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:35:47 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626191016.033e7968@caprica.com> <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070627083430.0343de80@caprica.com> At 07:45 PM 6/26/2007, you wrote: >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > > >whether or not this should be the case. Many years > > ago > > >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > > >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > > >attackers lined against a single defender. It was > > not > > >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > > >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > > > > Where they fencing in the round, and were the > > attackers as skilled or > > close to it as the defender? If both of those were > > the case, I find > > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing > > experience of my own.) > > > >Trained, but not Commonwealth games material, like the >defender. The main point being however that one can >react/parry more times per round than one can attack, >imo.. Yes, but again, were they fencing in the round? Line fencing constrains the field of parry far more than most routine field combat is going to do; the closest thing to it is defending a doorway. I'll give you there are some situations involving the latter and compareable situations that BRP doesn't address, but I think that's perhaps getting a bit fiddly even for RQ. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Jun 28 01:36:35 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:36:35 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706262019g5cb6b420l6f43e5786968f2c8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070626191016.033e7968@caprica.com> <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4183445e0706262019g5cb6b420l6f43e5786968f2c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070627083613.03406438@caprica.com> At 08:19 PM 6/26/2007, you wrote: >I agree and that's why I let my players do it. It's not free, there >is a penalty. Of course ultimately it comes down to my judgment >whether or not they can dot it at the time. Situation can carry >allot of weight in any combat. I tend to not find rules that are that much at the mercy of the GM's judgement a good thing. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Jun 28 01:39:50 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:39:50 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070627083754.033e4588@caprica.com> At 05:23 AM 6/27/2007, you wrote: >No one seems to have brought up the mechanic (was it an optional RQ2 >rule? I can't remember) in which a parry or attack skill of 100% or >higher could be split and directed against more than one attack/parry. > >As I recall, that worked for skill increments of 50%, i.e. if you >had a 150% skill you could make three attacks or parries at 50%. >Presumably you could instead choose to make two attempts at 75% each >instead. Of course, if unlimited parries are allowed that's not such >a great deal for the attacker. That's correct, but it didn't tend to have the problem since at least the secondary parry tended to be comparatively low (after all, you had to be near 200% to be approximating your normal single parry twice). From shaw at caprica.com Thu Jun 28 01:42:09 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:42:09 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <002201c7b86a$909ad9a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070625160232.033cc638@caprica.com> <003001c7b7b4$98048da0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <7.0.1.0.1.20070626145703.0340f118@caprica.com> <002201c7b86a$909ad9a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070627084107.03428100@caprica.com> >My current thoughts on the matter is that, instead of getting extra >successes with rolling half, 10%, and 01% of what you need, you get >extra successess for every 10%iles you beat the basic roll by. Thus, >if you have a 75% chance and roll 33, you get 4 successes (or maybe >5, I'm still cogitating on whether to allow partials to be >successes, it might be easier to count that way). The person >opposing you, with a 100% parry, rolls 65, thus getting only 3 (or >4) successes. You have the advantage in successes, you get a hit. If >you get more than one extra success, you get bonuses as shown in the >SPQR rules which many of you have already seen. Maximum success is 3 extra. That ironically might make it a little too _hard_ to parry, given the varience in a large linear die roll like a D100. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Jun 28 01:44:25 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:44:25 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <16830.91708.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070627084245.0343c660@caprica.com> At 08:27 PM 6/26/2007, you wrote: >According to one martial arts expert (albeit the guy who invented >the modern form of Aikido), if you can handle five people at once, >you can handle an army, because only five can reach you at a time. >One assumes he is assuming all hand-to-hand fighting. > >Since the person doing the handling probably cannot attack five at >once, one assumes again that he is dodging five and taking out one, >thus letting another back ranker step in to be one of the five for >the next round... :) There's certainly been an ongoing argument I've seen in the martial arts and related fields that except when well coordinated, its easy for multiple attackers to get in each other's way. I think this is more defensible for unarmed attacks and things like knife fighters than when talking about weapons with greater reach. I'm particularly dubious about how well it'll work out for someone fighting people with spears and other pole weapons. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 01:40:48 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorta ignores fatigue, doesn't it? Paul Cardwell --- Steve Perrin wrote: > According to one martial arts expert (albeit the guy > who invented the modern > form of Aikido), if you can handle five people at > once, you can handle an > army, because only five can reach you at a time. One > assumes he is assuming > all hand-to-hand fighting. > > Since the person doing the handling probably cannot > attack five at once, one > assumes again that he is dodging five and taking out > one, thus letting > another back ranker step in to be one of the five > for the next round... :) > > Steve Perrin ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 02:50:43 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:50:43 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> Generalizations like this always have an exception. I can think of several occasions in my own life both in Real-Life ('Nam -- hand-to-hand w/o anyone being able to shoot) & in the SCA (as well as the Ravens, & Dagorhir, etc) where I took on 10 or more opponents & won without there being a significant skill difference & some possibly better than myself. It was a matter of reading your foes, using the terrain, utilizing one's skills in the most efficacious manner while preventing my opponents from using their strengths, &/or keeping moving. I mean one can use a doorway or a corner wall to prevent more than a couple reaching you at a time. Or keep moving when your out of ammo & slashing one or two at a time so they couldn't use their ammo well (Plus, I confess, the thick undergrowth helped & it helped when they started accidentally shooting themselves in their panic -- after all I'm no superman, I'm just an ordinary joe). Nor am I the only one I know who has had similar experiences. I do volunteer work with other vets & the ones returning from Iraq also have similar stories to tell, plus I still have many SCA friends. I mean no disrespect to you, for in a more formal setting like a salle & given a pair who know how to work a fighter from 120 degrees (not 180 as you might think), I suspect you would be correct. Your experience I'm sure has given you good reason for your belief & admittedly my frequent SCA experience is a couple of decades past and perhaps the experience levels have evened out & the very formal setting there would lend to that opinion. Just as War has changed in real-life over the past 50 years, I've seen re-enactment combat evolve over the past 50 years. Heck, I remember Paul of Bellatrix's adage that "you can't throw a killing blow from in front of you" which caused everyone to switch their stance (except me, because I had taken a shoulder wound years before & couldn't get my sword in the classic Paul stance so I used my own style) & now look at the SCA style - the stance is flatter & most blows start from in front of your shoulder. Skal & with all due respect, Sven Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I know drills where you face multiple attackers. I allso know that if > you're good at positioning yourself; then you're perhaps able to eaven > out the ods somewhat. But from 4 years of mass-combat on battlefields > with melee-weapons, I know that if two face one, then the one that is > allone allways dies. He sometimes manages to take out one of the > adversaries, but unless there is a huge skill-gap between the single > and the pair, the single ALLWAYS dies. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:11 -0700 > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > From: shaw at caprica.com > > Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > > > > > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > > >whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago > > >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > > >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > > >attackers lined against a single defender. It was not > > >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > > >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > > > > Where they fencing in the round, and were the attackers as skilled or > > close to it as the defender? If both of those were the case, I find > > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing experience of my own.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check > it out! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070627/9118f1de/attachment.html From the.iqari at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 02:54:34 2007 From: the.iqari at gmail.com (Pete Nash) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:54:34 +0200 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d5c4aa40706270954g708911adv4997585cdf1d646c@mail.gmail.com> > > Sorta ignores fatigue, doesn't it? I use multiple opponents as a method of training endurance for exactly that reason. From an SCA perspective the best many-on-one odds I can normally beat is 5 to 1. My foes are usually one high level fighter (almost white belt level for those who understand), two competent but unimaginative mid level fighters and two starting level fighters. This is not a battlefield situation, but a training exercise held in a sports hall (10m x 15m) to improve mobility. In general it is easy for me to limit the number of opponents able to strike at me to either one or two at any moment. Conversely, most of my time is spent maneuvering leaving only brief moments to snipe an attack when I change either the direction or the range between myself and my foes. Of course, whilst I maneuver my opponents are trying to pin me against the walls, or trap me in a corner. When it comes to weapon ranges, it is actually easier to foul up opponent's using great weapons than those using sword and shield. The shafts and hafts of longer weapons are more difficult to move around allies standing to the sides, or before the wielder. As for combat tactics when heavily outnumbered, I either attack the best fighter straight away - relying on the poorer maneuvering skills of the rest to give me a brief opportunity to take him out... OR I handle the lesser skilled opponents one by one, and try to out-endure the best opponent by always interposing one of the others between us, forcing him to move more than me in order to get a clean line of attack. Whatever the tactics, you can only survive by constantly moving. By the end of such a fight I am _completely_ exhausted! Such fighting only works when the opponents are a rabble, or you can break them into a rabble. In a battlefield situation, ordered formations are effectively impervious to melee from outnumbered irregulars. Please note however, that I am fighting in a large open area with no obstacles and perfectly level footing. Two factors it is rare to find in the real world! :) Pete Nash -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070627/3acba6eb/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 06:35:22 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:35:22 -0400 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> References: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> Message-ID: Very interesting indeed! My combat experience is nil (unless you count getting beaten up daily by school bullies) - I haven't even done the SCA. But it sounds as if the difference is between a formal duel vs. something a lot less structured, more like guerilla warfare. That sounds reasonable to me. I can buy that in a more chaotic environment, one smart combatant can take out multiple enemies through creative use of terrain. On the other hand, if you're surrounded by enemies, you've probably had it. Unless you have virtually superhuman abilities, of course. Hmm. For some reason I'm thinking of The Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess. In my (admittedly lame) experience, it's a lot easier to take on multiple enemies when you have terrain, or at least some space to move in. Specifically, space to move AWAY from enemies. If you're surrounded, or up against a barrier that limits your mobility, you're screwed. I don't know if TLoZ:TTP is a particularly accurate portrayal of combat, though. But if that's the case, how can we tweak the rules to make the game better reflect the reality of one-on-several combat? Without getting over-complex? ->Peter On 6/27/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Generalizations like this always have an exception. I can think of several > occasions in my own life both in Real-Life ('Nam -- hand-to-hand w/o anyone > being able to shoot) & in the SCA (as well as the Ravens, & Dagorhir, etc) > where I took on 10 or more opponents & won without there being a significant > skill difference & some possibly better than myself. It was a matter of > reading your foes, using the terrain, utilizing one's skills in the most > efficacious manner while preventing my opponents from using their strengths, > &/or keeping moving. I mean one can use a doorway or a corner wall to > prevent more than a couple reaching you at a time. Or keep moving when your > out of ammo & slashing one or two at a time so they couldn't use their ammo > well (Plus, I confess, the thick undergrowth helped & it helped when they > started accidentally shooting themselves in their panic -- after all I'm no > superman, I'm just an ordinary joe). > > Nor am I the only one I know who has had similar experiences. I do > volunteer work with other vets & the ones returning from Iraq also have > similar stories to tell, plus I still have many SCA friends. I mean no > disrespect to you, for in a more formal setting like a salle & given a pair > who know how to work a fighter from 120 degrees (not 180 as you might > think), I suspect you would be correct. Your experience I'm sure has given > you good reason for your belief & admittedly my frequent SCA experience is a > couple of decades past and perhaps the experience levels have evened out & > the very formal setting there would lend to that opinion. Just as War has > changed in real-life over the past 50 years, I've seen re-enactment combat > evolve over the past 50 years. Heck, I remember Paul of Bellatrix's adage > that "you can't throw a killing blow from in front of you" which caused > everyone to switch their stance (except me, because I had taken a shoulder > wound years before & couldn't get my sword in the classic Paul stance so I > used my own style) & now look at the SCA style - the stance is flatter & > most blows start from in front of your shoulder. > > Skal & with all due respect, > Sven > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > I know drills where you face multiple attackers. I allso know that if > you're good at positioning yourself; then you're perhaps able to eaven out > the ods somewhat. But from 4 years of mass-combat on battlefields with > melee-weapons, I know that if two face one, then the one that is allone > allways dies. He sometimes manages to take out one of the adversaries, but > unless there is a huge skill-gap between the single and the pair, the single > ALLWAYS dies. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:11 -0700 > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > From: shaw at caprica.com > > Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > > > > > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is > > >whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago > > >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit > > >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple > > >attackers lined against a single defender. It was not > > >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry > > >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals. > > > > Where they fencing in the round, and were the attackers as skilled or > > close to it as the defender? If both of those were the case, I find > > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing experience of my own.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > ------------------------------ > Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check it > out! > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing listRQ-Rules at crashbox.comhttp://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- 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/20070627/a64229b9/attachment.html From the.iqari at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:05:10 2007 From: the.iqari at gmail.com (Pete Nash) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:05:10 +0200 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d5c4aa40706271505u105b1441o1904c507e5e7efb9@mail.gmail.com> > > But if that's the case, how can we tweak the rules to make the game better > reflect the reality of one-on-several combat? Without getting over-complex? > Whilst working on an alternative (and more fun) version of the MRQ combat rules I came up with the following idea. Using an Opposed Test, you match the Evasion(*) skill of the solo fighter against the Evasion skills of the opponents. Those opponent's who beat the roll of the lone fighter can attack him that round. Those that fail to beat him are caught out of position. No matter how successful the lone fighter is, they always face at least one of the opponents (usually the one with the best success). (*)Evasion is effectively the Dodge skill from most BRP games, except my system only uses it for maneuvering in combat or evading missile fire. Dodging in close combat is simply considered to be part of the defensive roll of a weapon skill. Pete Nash -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/f613cef2/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 28 09:27:16 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:27:16 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion Message-ID: <000601c7b912$b4b4dbd0$67618456@sickboy> I was thinking the other day, at what point does a spirit cult become a religion ( in the more formal organised sense) of the word? Is it simply a matter of size? i.e. a spirit cult is fairly small, whereas something with a couple of hundred thousand of people is a religion? I think size is important ( despite rumours to the contrary ) but not the whole story. It's perfectly plausible that you might get a whole tribe of thousands of people worshipping a local spirit at a festival.....but equally you might have some obscure religion clinging on with only a few hundred worshippers. Is it a matter of civilisation levels ? i.e.: only 'primitive' peoples worship spirit cults whereas your actual civilised types have formal religions.if so where does that leave sub cults of larger religions and hero cults. Is it a matter of organisation i.e. formal versus informal? Is it the form of the worship, i.e. shaman and priests approach the divine/spiritual in fundamentally different philosophical mindsets and this shapes the conduit or path to the spirit they contact. Why is it that some deities ( notably trollish ones in Glorantha ) can be contacted both via formal religion and spirit cult worship.yet only grant the full panoply of spells to the 'religion' I mean a god's a god right ? surely a shaman should able to access any divine spell if he/she has contacted the deity on the spirit plane. Is a god just a 'big' spirit ? All of the above, or none of the above ?. It was reading Small Gods by Terry Pratchett that triggered this rather theological train of thought. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/586757a3/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 28 09:59:32 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <000601c7b912$b4b4dbd0$67618456@sickboy> Message-ID: <322727.53595.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Clive Wickens wrote: > I was thinking the other day, at what point does a > spirit cult become a religion ( in the more formal > organised sense) of the word? > > Is it simply a matter of size? i.e. a spirit cult is > fairly small, whereas something with a couple of > hundred thousand of people is a religion? I think > size is important ( despite rumours to the contrary > ) but not the whole story. It's perfectly plausible > that you might get a whole tribe of thousands of > people worshipping a local spirit at a > festival.....but equally you might have some obscure > religion clinging on with only a few hundred > worshippers. > > > Is it a matter of civilisation levels ? i.e.: only > 'primitive' peoples worship spirit cults whereas > your actual civilised types have formal religions.if > so where does that leave sub cults of larger > religions and hero cults. > > > Is it a matter of organisation i.e. formal versus > informal? > > Is it the form of the worship, i.e. shaman and > priests approach the divine/spiritual in > fundamentally different philosophical mindsets and > this shapes the conduit or path to the spirit they > contact. ... > > All of the above, or none of the above ?. A bit of all of the above. >From a sociological and anthropological perspective the change in mode of consciousness from the mythic-primitive viewpoint (spirit magic) to a religious-traditional (divine magic) is of qualitative significance, equal in importance to the centralisation of congregations (not just size per se), the formality of worship, the establishment of specialist classes and so forth. 'Small Gods' is perhaps my favourite Pratchett book.... Here's an old essay I've mine which discusses the subject; http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/9603magic.html HTH HAND, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 28 10:11:38 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0706250833l5725dfb3oa68d15928ff7e1eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <942670.96561.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, Good to have you here, and as you can see you spurred some discussion which is always a good thing when it's all friendly like (which I've noticed this list is pretty good at). May I also say that's a mighty fine collection you have and congratulations in finding them. One of the things I do like about MRQ is the Combat Actions system; essentially you get one action and one reaction per six points of DEX. They've capped it at 19, for no good reason, but one can assume an "etc" after that for a more realistic and scalable game. So the average combatant would have two attacks and two parries (or two dodges, or one parry and one dodge) per round. IIRC you can give up an Action for a Reaction but not the other way around. All the best, Lev --- Robert wrote: > First thank you for the welcome. It has been a long > time since I was part > of a mailing list so if this reply ends up as a > 'new' discussion I apologize > up front. > My gaming troupe plays RQIII. I had never been > exposed to any other version > of the game and happened across a great purchase for > shrink-wrapped box > sets. I own many of the books for RQ - Monster > Coliseum, Vikings, Gods of > Glorantha, Glorantha, Trollpak, Trollgods, Elder > Secrets, and the Deluxe Box > Set for RQIII. I also have several smaller > supplements and locations - > RuneQuest Cities, The Haunted Ruins, Gloranthan > Bestiary and my favorite > Snake Pipe Hollow. > > As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for > one. I never liked the > idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. > I have fenced and done > SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed > to being able to parry > EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on each > additional parry you > attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. > > We also added rules for fighting florentine. I love > fighting with dual > short swords. So we made it where you could make > two strikes per MR when > using 1H weapons you are proficient in. The first > attack at you full A%, > but the second attack at a 10% penalty. > > I am still working on making the sorcery rules > easier to follow and quicker > to use. I find them cumbersome in their current > state. Though I do love > the magic in RQ -- msot of it being very day to day, > practical. > > -- > Robert Parrish > superninja42 at gmail.com > > Welcome Robert. This is a great game and a great > list, when it is not quiet > (HINT)... > > Which version are you playing? II, III, or Mongoose > Runequest, I play > Mongoose version. They seem to keep the supplements > coming, which is what I > like. > > Tell us about your house rules? > > > > > > John > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From parejf63 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 28 10:42:21 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:42:21 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ - Lev In-Reply-To: <942670.96561.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I like that too Lev, I also really enjoy how they took the runes and made ruinic abilities. To me, in all, the game is simpler... Yet just as playable. At first, I was not happy with Glorantha 2d Age, but now I enjoy it. We play in the Dorostar region. I also really enjoy and appreciate the supplements and how they keep them coming. I found that to be lacking in previous releases. Though I have 3rd edition, I still play MRQ.. John >From: Lev Lafayette >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:11:38 -0700 (PDT) > > >Hi Robert, > >Good to have you here, and as you can see you spurred >some discussion which is always a good thing when it's >all friendly like (which I've noticed this list is >pretty good at). May I also say that's a mighty fine >collection you have and congratulations in finding >them. > >One of the things I do like about MRQ is the Combat >Actions system; essentially you get one action and one >reaction per six points of DEX. They've capped it at >19, for no good reason, but one can assume an "etc" >after that for a more realistic and scalable game. So >the average combatant would have two attacks and two >parries (or two dodges, or one parry and one dodge) >per round. IIRC you can give up an Action for a >Reaction but not the other way around. > >All the best, > > > >Lev > > >--- Robert wrote: > > > First thank you for the welcome. It has been a long > > time since I was part > > of a mailing list so if this reply ends up as a > > 'new' discussion I apologize > > up front. > > My gaming troupe plays RQIII. I had never been > > exposed to any other version > > of the game and happened across a great purchase for > > shrink-wrapped box > > sets. I own many of the books for RQ - Monster > > Coliseum, Vikings, Gods of > > Glorantha, Glorantha, Trollpak, Trollgods, Elder > > Secrets, and the Deluxe Box > > Set for RQIII. I also have several smaller > > supplements and locations - > > RuneQuest Cities, The Haunted Ruins, Gloranthan > > Bestiary and my favorite > > Snake Pipe Hollow. > > > > As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules for > > one. I never liked the > > idea of only being able to parry one attack per MR. > > I have fenced and done > > SCA type sword fighting for years and so we changed > > to being able to parry > > EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on each > > additional parry you > > attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. > > > > We also added rules for fighting florentine. I love > > fighting with dual > > short swords. So we made it where you could make > > two strikes per MR when > > using 1H weapons you are proficient in. The first > > attack at you full A%, > > but the second attack at a 10% penalty. > > > > I am still working on making the sorcery rules > > easier to follow and quicker > > to use. I find them cumbersome in their current > > state. Though I do love > > the magic in RQ -- msot of it being very day to day, > > practical. > > > > -- > > Robert Parrish > > superninja42 at gmail.com > > > > Welcome Robert. This is a great game and a great > > list, when it is not quiet > > (HINT)... > > > > Which version are you playing? II, III, or Mongoose > > Runequest, I play > > Mongoose version. They seem to keep the supplements > > coming, which is what I > > like. > > > > Tell us about your house rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search >that gives answers, not web links. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 28 11:03:24 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ - Lev In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <143743.12003.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, WRT to the way that runes and runic abilities have been implemented there are probably three serious contributions... A modest, yet persistent, initial voice was myself who kept going on about how the name of the game must be implemented in the rules. Possibly to the point of annoying some of the playtesters ;-) Steve Perrin who wrote an epic magic system who made the various runes as something to be integrated and whereby they could be combined depending on type, somewhat reminiscent of Ars Magica's techniques and forms, imo... However Steve's offer was something so weighty it would have required a book in its own right... Matthew Sprange's condemnation of it was umm.. not the best decision or means, imo.. However, the core concepts were taken by Matthew, cut-down, reworked, developed and... ... that's the rules in MRQ. The AH production schedule would have been quite reasonable (1-2 major products per year) but the first few left a lot to be desired. See the following: http://web.archive.org/web/20050112013353/http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mrmob/ruinedquest.html (Can't believe MOB has let his account lapse! - I'd better save those pages!) HTH, Lev --- John Pare' wrote: > I like that too Lev, I also really enjoy how they > took the runes and made > ruinic abilities. > > To me, in all, the game is simpler... Yet just as > playable. > > At first, I was not happy with Glorantha 2d Age, but > now I enjoy it. > > We play in the Dorostar region. > > I also really enjoy and appreciate the supplements > and how they keep them > coming. I found that to be lacking in previous > releases. > > Though I have 3rd edition, I still play MRQ.. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Lev Lafayette > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction > >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:11:38 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >Hi Robert, > > > >Good to have you here, and as you can see you > spurred > >some discussion which is always a good thing when > it's > >all friendly like (which I've noticed this list is > >pretty good at). May I also say that's a mighty > fine > >collection you have and congratulations in finding > >them. > > > >One of the things I do like about MRQ is the Combat > >Actions system; essentially you get one action and > one > >reaction per six points of DEX. They've capped it > at > >19, for no good reason, but one can assume an "etc" > >after that for a more realistic and scalable game. > So > >the average combatant would have two attacks and > two > >parries (or two dodges, or one parry and one dodge) > >per round. IIRC you can give up an Action for a > >Reaction but not the other way around. > > > >All the best, > > > > > > > >Lev > > > > > >--- Robert wrote: > > > > > First thank you for the welcome. It has been a > long > > > time since I was part > > > of a mailing list so if this reply ends up as a > > > 'new' discussion I apologize > > > up front. > > > My gaming troupe plays RQIII. I had never been > > > exposed to any other version > > > of the game and happened across a great purchase > for > > > shrink-wrapped box > > > sets. I own many of the books for RQ - Monster > > > Coliseum, Vikings, Gods of > > > Glorantha, Glorantha, Trollpak, Trollgods, Elder > > > Secrets, and the Deluxe Box > > > Set for RQIII. I also have several smaller > > > supplements and locations - > > > RuneQuest Cities, The Haunted Ruins, Gloranthan > > > Bestiary and my favorite > > > Snake Pipe Hollow. > > > > > > As for house rules I modified parry/attack rules > for > > > one. I never liked the > > > idea of only being able to parry one attack per > MR. > > > I have fenced and done > > > SCA type sword fighting for years and so we > changed > > > to being able to parry > > > EACH attack. There is a 5% penalty imposed on > each > > > additional parry you > > > attempt per MR. You still only get one attack. > > > > > > We also added rules for fighting florentine. I > love > > > fighting with dual > > > short swords. So we made it where you could > make > > > two strikes per MR when > > > using 1H weapons you are proficient in. The > first > > > attack at you full A%, > > > but the second attack at a 10% penalty. > > > > > > I am still working on making the sorcery rules > > > easier to follow and quicker > > > to use. I find them cumbersome in their current > > > state. Though I do love > > > the magic in RQ -- msot of it being very day to > day, > > > practical. > > > > > > -- > > > Robert Parrish > > > superninja42 at gmail.com > > > > > > Welcome Robert. This is a great game and a > great > > > list, when it is not quiet > > > (HINT)... > > > > > > Which version are you playing? II, III, or > Mongoose > > > Runequest, I play > > > Mongoose version. They seem to keep the > supplements > > > coming, which is what I > > > like. > > > > > > Tell us about your house rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > >that gives answers, not web links. > >http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. > Play Clink now. > http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ From parejf63 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 28 11:18:04 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ - Lev In-Reply-To: <143743.12003.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Lev. I can only imagine what transpired in the creation of the new runequest. there was a lot of talk for a while on this list and others, regarding them. Many were not happy. I was expecting it to be a little d20ey. And it was. Though still Runequest. What was d20? Legendary abilities (Aka Feats), Combat Actions, and a few other things, but in all I still play it, and I ENJOY it... There are far more things I like about MRQ than the things I do not. My players and I are very happy it, though at times, I still revert to some rules in RQ III. Dorostar, as mentioned before, is not the same in the 2nd Age, but it will not be re-done because of legalities I take it. So, I took it upon myself to do a little converting and time frame adjusting to make it work... I really appreciate the game and all that made it possible. I know there are still some who do not like it, but as I said before, they have a taken a basically dead game and brought it back to life. Anyway, if I still had all the Glorantha 3rd age stuff (now long gone) I would run it in that time frame. I did not like the way Glorantha was doomed, but I guess from talking to others, it always was, even in the 3rd age. John _________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. It?s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07 From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Jun 28 16:43:26 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:43:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46915.196.8.104.27.1183013006.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> > Sorta ignores fatigue, doesn't it? > > Paul Cardwell > Fatigue is like Encumberance, if you ignore it it doesn't exists (ha ha). Seriously though, I reckon its up to each group to find what tey deem a good balance between playability and realism - can a game exist that is ultimatly realistic without being tiresomly bogged down in rules at the same time? From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Jun 28 16:51:45 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:51:45 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction References: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> <8d5c4aa40706271505u105b1441o1904c507e5e7efb9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006e01c7b950$cb2af1e0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> I use Maneuver Skill to much the same effect. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Nash To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:05 PM Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction But if that's the case, how can we tweak the rules to make the game better reflect the reality of one-on-several combat? Without getting over-complex? Whilst working on an alternative (and more fun) version of the MRQ combat rules I came up with the following idea. Using an Opposed Test, you match the Evasion(*) skill of the solo fighter against the Evasion skills of the opponents. Those opponent's who beat the roll of the lone fighter can attack him that round. Those that fail to beat him are caught out of position. No matter how successful the lone fighter is, they always face at least one of the opponents (usually the one with the best success). (*)Evasion is effectively the Dodge skill from most BRP games, except my system only uses it for maneuvering in combat or evading missile fire. Dodging in close combat is simply considered to be part of the defensive roll of a weapon skill. Pete Nash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070627/10f17b2d/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Jun 28 17:45:57 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:45:57 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <000601c7b912$b4b4dbd0$67618456@sickboy> References: <000601c7b912$b4b4dbd0$67618456@sickboy> Message-ID: <8267.196.8.104.27.1183016757.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Clive Wrote: > I was thinking the other day, at what point does a spirit cult become a > religion ( in the more formal organised sense) of the word? > Oddly I have beenn thinking along similar lines as well, and for the same reason:= Small Gods:) > > > Is it simply a matter of size? i.e. a spirit cult is fairly small, whereas > something with a couple of hundred thousand of people is a religion? I > think size is important ( despite rumours to the contrary ) but not the > whole story. It's perfectly plausible that you might get a whole tribe of > thousands of people worshipping a local spirit at a festival.....but > equally you might have some obscure religion clinging on with only a few > hundred worshippers. > I feel the same way. Reckon that if a cult can have a shrine its one thing, but if it has enoough worshippers to hahve a temple, then it implies more belief, which attrachs more interest from the god. the more belief and prayers, the more powerful the god becomes, so in a way its like a kind of mutualism (symbiosis) where both parties benefit. In fact, thinking that way, would spirit magic be a kind of commensalism (only one benefist, no adverse affectt on the other) or even a kind of parasitism (one benefits to the detriment of the other) although parisitism may be more from when a daemon/spirit is summoned and takes over the summoner. > > > Is it a matter of civilisation levels ? i.e.: only 'primitive' peoples > worship spirit cults whereas your actual civilised types have formal > religions.if so where does that leave sub cults of larger religions and > hero cults. > Goes back to size I think, civilisation usually means more people in bigger concentrations. So, for exampe my one long dead character Logar of the Light Foot was a primitive from the far north who worshipped the Snow Leopard. In civilized climes most of the people he met and spoke of the Snow Leopard thought he was a bit of a loonie. However, if say he had done some major feat and sparked some interest and word spread and a bit of a cult developed, specially with more people being around and potentially receptive, the power of the Snow Leopard would have grown. > > > Is it a matter of organisation i.e. formal versus informal? > As above, wit civilisation comes rules and formalities.... > > > Is it the form of the worship, i.e. shaman and priests approach the > divine/spiritual in fundamentally different philosophical mindsets and > this shapes the conduit or path to the spirit they contact. > Can't comment here. > > > Why is it that some deities ( notably trollish ones in Glorantha ) can be > contacted both via formal religion and spirit cult worship.yet only grant > the full panoply of spells to the 'religion' I mean a god's a god right ? > surely a shaman should able to access any divine spell if he/she has > contacted the deity on the spirit plane. Is a god just a 'big' spirit ? > Why not i say. From my Snow Leoard ecample. Lets suppose it becomes quite a religion in the civilised lands. That does not mean n it stops being a spirit cult in primitive lands, the ways of contacting it should not change. Maybe it would be more for the formal religion porctitioners to learn the rituals to contact from the informal people? > > > All of the above, or none of the above ?. > > > > It was reading Small Gods by Terry Pratchett that triggered this rather > theological train of thought. My thoughts, hope they worth soomething:) Cheers tony PS - Great book, prob the best one Pratchett wrote IMO. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 21:17:17 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: spirit cults versus religion Message-ID: <114630.65404.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > I was thinking the other day, at what point does a spirit cult become a religion ( in the more formal > organised sense) of the word? > Is it simply a matter of size? i.e. a spirit cult is fairly small, whereas something with a couple of > hundred thousand of people is a religion? I think size is important ( despite rumours to the contrary ) > but not the whole story. It's perfectly plausible that you might get a whole tribe of thousands of > people worshipping a local spirit at a festival.....but equally you might have some obscure religion > clinging on with only a few hundred worshippers. > Is it a matter of civilisation levels ? i.e.: only 'primitive' peoples worship spirit cults whereas your > actual civilised types have formal religions.if so where does that leave sub cults of larger religions > and hero cults. This is more likely to be the case. In the "new" Glorantha, there is a big split between theist and animist people (something that I don't particularly like), so "primitive" people are more likely to be animist and worship through spirit cults and "civilised" people are more likely to be theist and worship through standard cults. Of course, that is a generalisation and there would be many examples where it isn't the case. > Is it a matter of organisation i.e. formal versus informal? Sometimes. Quite often, a small family or clan will contact a spirit/deity in a very casual way and set up a spirit cult around it. This gives some benefit but not the same as a formal cult. It also means that people could worship deities that are normally seen as hostile to the local culture. So, Sazdorf trolls can worship Humakt in a spirit cult, even though Humakt is an enemy of trolls. > Is it the form of the worship, i.e. shaman and priests approach the divine/spiritual in fundamentally > different philosophical mindsets and this shapes the conduit or path to the spirit they contact. Perhaps, although I think that the mind-set argument is vastly overrated. People are quite flexible and can fairly easily accomodate different styles of worship. But, a shaman can contact a spirit in several ways. He can gain one-off magic by contacting a spirit and doing a deal. He can get personal magic from his relationship with the spirit. He can arrange a spirit cult that grants magic to casual worshippers. Priests, on the other hand, worship a deity because they belong to a cult, subcult or associate cult, so are far more closely entwined with the cult rather than with the deity. A shaman's experience is far more intimate and personal than a priest's. > Why is it that some deities ( notably trollish ones in Glorantha ) can be contacted both via formal > religion and spirit cult worship.yet only grant the full panoply of spells to the 'religion' I mean a god's > a god right ? surely a shaman should able to access any divine spell if he/she has contacted the deity > on the spirit plane. Is a god just a 'big' spirit ? Once again, in the new Glorantha, a god is a god and a spirit is a spirit. But, I like to play things a little bit differently. Shamans can access gods and priests could set up divine cults for spirits. It might be a bit harder to do than normal, but it is perfectly possible. So, Humakt is worshipped as a god in most places but in Prax he is worshipped in the iron man Spirit Cult. So, I think that people access the divinities in the way they are accustomed to. Praxians usually access them shamanically, because most of their holy people are shamans. Waha has shamans as priests, as does Daka Fal. In trollish culture, Kyger Litor priests are also shamans, so are priests of Aranea and Gorakiki, so there are a lot of shamans available to contact divinities shamanically. However, there are also many divine cults around and they can access some divinities as subcults or associate deities. Aldryami can do the same - they have priests and shamans - but their cults are not as well written up. In non-Gloranthan settings, it becomes even easier as shamans can access the divine powers as the GM sees fit without thinking of any other consequences. > All of the above, or none of the above ?. Both. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/50c83440/attachment.html From rjmeints at aol.com Thu Jun 28 23:10:46 2007 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Dorastor for 2nd Age MRQ In-Reply-To: <20070628111816.865381B7CD1D@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070628111816.865381B7CD1D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <8C9879CDFB8F348-8E4-37AF@FWM-R18.sysops.aol.com> Dorostar, as mentioned before, is not the same in the 2nd Age, but it will not be re-done because of legalities I take it. As the "Third Age" glorantha publisher, I have?discussed with Mongoose, the "Second Age" glorantha publisher,?and Issaries, the overall Glorantha licensor, how we can all publish?as one big happy family. There are no legal limitations imposed on Mongoose for publishing new 2nd age Dorastor material. One thing Mongoose cannot do is reprint the RQ3 Dorastor supplement.?It's mainly Third Age material anyway, other than the history section. Regards, Rick Meints Moon Design Publications ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/3873ce4a/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 00:45:26 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <322727.53595.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <88540.1745.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cult is more a sociological (and criminalogical) than theological term. It usually involves an infallible living leader, social (if not physical) isolation, unquestionable dogma, total control over all of life, etc. The terms I think the question is looking for are sect and denomination - both are religions (as, for that matter, are most cults). One of my seminary professors used the definition given him by a clergy lamenting that his sect was becoming a denomination, "A sect has more people at worship than it has member on the roll, while a denomination is the opposite." I suppose someone might nit-pick and find an exception, but it has always been a good working definition for me. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 01:03:02 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <46915.196.8.104.27.1183013006.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <388248.82728.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On the other hand, if one does not ignore these factors, they soon become second nature to the players and so can be used in the game without slowing anything down. I agree that a nit-picking minutia of rules is inherently a bad thing, but logical rules reflecting real life become as easy to use as they are in real life. Yeah, the beginner has a little difficulty, but quickly adapts - especially if the veterans are patient in their teaching. And I gave a ha-ha at your encumbrance analogy too! There are no bags of holding in Mythworld whose magic is as low-key as the RuneQuest from which it developed. Paul Cardwell --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Sorta ignores fatigue, doesn't it? > > > > Paul Cardwell > > Fatigue is like Encumberance, if you ignore it it > doesn't exists (ha > ha). Seriously though, I reckon its up to each group > to find what tey > deem a good balance between playability and realism > - can a game exist > that is ultimatly realistic without being tiresomly > bogged down in rules > at the same time? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From superninja42 at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 01:12:28 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:12:28 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <388248.82728.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <46915.196.8.104.27.1183013006.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <388248.82728.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0706280812s38889f8br4b41c04d0670d362@mail.gmail.com> You know... with the right amount of knowledge some great Magus could create a bag of holding :) ~Robert www.finding42.com On 6/28/07, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > On the other hand, if one does not ignore these > factors, they soon become second nature to the players > and so can be used in the game without slowing > anything down. > > I agree that a nit-picking minutia of rules is > inherently a bad thing, but logical rules reflecting > real life become as easy to use as they are in real > life. > > Yeah, the beginner has a little difficulty, but > quickly adapts - especially if the veterans are > patient in their teaching. > > And I gave a ha-ha at your encumbrance analogy too! > There are no bags of holding in Mythworld whose magic > is as low-key as the RuneQuest from which it > developed. > > Paul Cardwell > > > --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > > Sorta ignores fatigue, doesn't it? > > > > > > Paul Cardwell > > > Fatigue is like Encumberance, if you ignore it it > > doesn't exists (ha > > ha). Seriously though, I reckon its up to each group > > to find what tey > > deem a good balance between playability and realism > > - can a game exist > > that is ultimatly realistic without being tiresomly > > bogged down in rules > > at the same time? > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > TV dinner still cooling? > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. > http://tv.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/d2ed89b3/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Fri Jun 29 03:39:14 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:39:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <88540.1745.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There is another definition of cult that is commonly used by historians, anthropologists, and some scholars of religion. A 'cult', I usually tell my students, is a body of beliefs and practices that evolves around a religious figure or a religious object. It isn't characterized by isolation, mind-control, or an absolute religious authority. So in the Middle Ages, there was the cult of the Virgin Mary, which includes prayers to the Virgin, reverence of her relics, the erection of shrines to her, pilgrimage to those shrines, and so on. This cult eventually become so mainstream that it is essentially a core element of modern Catholicism. There was also the Cult of the Eucharist, which emphasized the elevation of the Host, religious processions in which the Host was paraded around a town, especially on the Feast of Corpus Christi, notions that the Host could perform miracles, including transforming into the bleeding flesh of Christ or sustaining those who were otherwise fasting. RQ spirit cults are cults in this sense. Although very few of them have been articulated in real detail, they all seem to involve the worship of a set spirit or spirits, regular sacrifices to them, the maintenance of a shrine site, perhaps pilgrimage to those sites, and rules of conduct, such as Frog Woman's demand that frogs be killed with the Peaceful Cut. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 6/28/07 9:45 AM, "Paul Cardwell" wrote: > Cult is more a sociological (and criminalogical) than > theological term. It usually involves an infallible > living leader, social (if not physical) isolation, > unquestionable dogma, total control over all of life, > etc. > > The terms I think the question is looking for are sect > and denomination - both are religions (as, for that > matter, are most cults). > > One of my seminary professors used the definition > given him by a clergy lamenting that his sect was > becoming a denomination, "A sect has more people at > worship than it has member on the roll, while a > denomination is the opposite." I suppose someone > might nit-pick and find an exception, but it has > always been a good working definition for me. > > Paul Cardwell > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Never miss an email again! > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 29 05:37:02 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:37:02 +0000 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: If you have been able to take out 10 attackers when you were alone, you were not on their skill-level... Beeing able to utilize tactical postition to a level where you allone is able to take out 10 people on a flat field without any obstacles, the opposition is either incredably slow or dum? I have no problems with the fact that once in a while you're lucky and manages to take out 10 enemies; Personally, I know of people having taken out close to 10 people, but that have been in mass-battles, where they've been able to circle the enemy line and attacking them in the rear, without them beeing aware of the incoming attack ...or perhaps you SCA-guys simply are so good that you take on and defeat 10 enemies regularely??? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:50:43 -0700From: vikingjarl at gmail.comTo: rq-rules at crashbox.comSubject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Generalizations like this always have an exception. I can think of several occasions in my own life both in Real-Life ('Nam -- hand-to-hand w/o anyone being able to shoot) & in the SCA (as well as the Ravens, & Dagorhir, etc) where I took on 10 or more opponents & won without there being a significant skill difference & some possibly better than myself. It was a matter of reading your foes, using the terrain, utilizing one's skills in the most efficacious manner while preventing my opponents from using their strengths, &/or keeping moving. I mean one can use a doorway or a corner wall to prevent more than a couple reaching you at a time. Or keep moving when your out of ammo & slashing one or two at a time so they couldn't use their ammo well (Plus, I confess, the thick undergrowth helped & it helped when they started accidentally shooting themselves in their panic -- after all I'm no superman, I'm just an ordinary joe).Nor am I the only one I know who has had similar experiences. I do volunteer work with other vets & the ones returning from Iraq also have similar stories to tell, plus I still have many SCA friends. I mean no disrespect to you, for in a more formal setting like a salle & given a pair who know how to work a fighter from 120 degrees (not 180 as you might think), I suspect you would be correct. Your experience I'm sure has given you good reason for your belief & admittedly my frequent SCA experience is a couple of decades past and perhaps the experience levels have evened out & the very formal setting there would lend to that opinion. Just as War has changed in real-life over the past 50 years, I've seen re-enactment combat evolve over the past 50 years. Heck, I remember Paul of Bellatrix's adage that "you can't throw a killing blow from in front of you" which caused everyone to switch their stance (except me, because I had taken a shoulder wound years before & couldn't get my sword in the classic Paul stance so I used my own style) & now look at the SCA style - the stance is flatter & most blows start from in front of your shoulder.Skal & with all due respect,SvenBjorn Stolen wrote: I know drills where you face multiple attackers. I allso know that if you're good at positioning yourself; then you're perhaps able to eaven out the ods somewhat. But from 4 years of mass-combat on battlefields with melee-weapons, I know that if two face one, then the one that is allone allways dies. He sometimes manages to take out one of the adversaries, but unless there is a huge skill-gap between the single and the pair, the single ALLWAYS dies. > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:11 -0700> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> From: shaw at caprica.com> Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction> > > >A question, from a simulationist perspective, is> >whether or not this should be the case. Many years ago> >when I regularly did fencing a standard circuit> >activity was to have increasing numbers of multiple> >attackers lined against a single defender. It was not> >unusual for a (skilled) single individual to parry> >against 1/2 dozen and more individuals.> > Where they fencing in the round, and were the attackers as skilled or > close to it as the defender? If both of those were the case, I find > this hard to believe (and I have some fencing experience of my own.)> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. Check it out! _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live Hotmail, you can personalize your inbox with your favorite color. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0607 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/6b8e98f7/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 29 05:42:39 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:42:39 +0000 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: But if that's the case, how can we tweak the rules to make the game better reflect the reality of one-on-several combat? Without getting over-complex? ->Peter Personally, I've skipped the dodge and parry all together, and operate with a close-play and a long-play skill (inspired by Fiore di Liberi, german battlemanuals and the closing rules in RQ3) I then pit the opponents skills against eachother in a resistance-table, letting the victory-margin deciding the direness of the outcome. Quick, simple and haven't found any cathces with the system so far. (people with large shields may roll shield-saves if they loose; kind of inspired by Warhammer battle, and someone fighting mulitiple opponents, subtract 20% pr. opponent from their skills, and roll seperately against all adversaries.) _________________________________________________________________ Play free games, earn tickets, get cool prizes! Join Live Search Club.? http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_wlmailtextlink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070628/a7bd5567/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 29 06:04:43 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:04:43 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Seems to me, being a Catholic, that cult and religion are indeed the same things, with stress being placed on the name. But both are words, that is all. Definations are but the expression of words. John >From: Andrew Larsen >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: Rq-Rules List >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:39:14 -0500 > >There is another definition of cult that is commonly used by historians, >anthropologists, and some scholars of religion. A 'cult', I usually tell >my >students, is a body of beliefs and practices that evolves around a >religious >figure or a religious object. It isn't characterized by isolation, >mind-control, or an absolute religious authority. So in the Middle Ages, >there was the cult of the Virgin Mary, which includes prayers to the >Virgin, >reverence of her relics, the erection of shrines to her, pilgrimage to >those >shrines, and so on. This cult eventually become so mainstream that it is >essentially a core element of modern Catholicism. There was also the Cult >of the Eucharist, which emphasized the elevation of the Host, religious >processions in which the Host was paraded around a town, especially on the >Feast of Corpus Christi, notions that the Host could perform miracles, >including transforming into the bleeding flesh of Christ or sustaining >those >who were otherwise fasting. > RQ spirit cults are cults in this sense. Although very few of them >have >been articulated in real detail, they all seem to involve the worship of a >set spirit or spirits, regular sacrifices to them, the maintenance of a >shrine site, perhaps pilgrimage to those sites, and rules of conduct, such >as Frog Woman's demand that frogs be killed with the Peaceful Cut. > >Andrew E. Larsen >"But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." >Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > >On 6/28/07 9:45 AM, "Paul Cardwell" wrote: > > > Cult is more a sociological (and criminalogical) than > > theological term. It usually involves an infallible > > living leader, social (if not physical) isolation, > > unquestionable dogma, total control over all of life, > > etc. > > > > The terms I think the question is looking for are sect > > and denomination - both are religions (as, for that > > matter, are most cults). > > > > One of my seminary professors used the definition > > given him by a clergy lamenting that his sect was > > becoming a denomination, "A sect has more people at > > worship than it has member on the roll, while a > > denomination is the opposite." I suppose someone > > might nit-pick and find an exception, but it has > > always been a good working definition for me. > > > > Paul Cardwell > > > > > > > > >______________________________________________________________________________ > > ______ > > Never miss an email again! > > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. > > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 From parejf63 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 29 06:12:41 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:12:41 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BTW, I was not upset about that, I thought it was interesting... John >From: "John Pare'" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:04:43 -0400 > >Seems to me, being a Catholic, that cult and religion are indeed the same >things, with stress being placed on the name. > >But both are words, that is all. > >Definations are but the expression of words. > > > > > >John > > > > > > >>From: Andrew Larsen >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>To: Rq-Rules List >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion >>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:39:14 -0500 >> >>There is another definition of cult that is commonly used by historians, >>anthropologists, and some scholars of religion. A 'cult', I usually tell >>my >>students, is a body of beliefs and practices that evolves around a >>religious >>figure or a religious object. It isn't characterized by isolation, >>mind-control, or an absolute religious authority. So in the Middle Ages, >>there was the cult of the Virgin Mary, which includes prayers to the >>Virgin, >>reverence of her relics, the erection of shrines to her, pilgrimage to >>those >>shrines, and so on. This cult eventually become so mainstream that it is >>essentially a core element of modern Catholicism. There was also the Cult >>of the Eucharist, which emphasized the elevation of the Host, religious >>processions in which the Host was paraded around a town, especially on the >>Feast of Corpus Christi, notions that the Host could perform miracles, >>including transforming into the bleeding flesh of Christ or sustaining >>those >>who were otherwise fasting. >> RQ spirit cults are cults in this sense. Although very few of them >>have >>been articulated in real detail, they all seem to involve the worship of a >>set spirit or spirits, regular sacrifices to them, the maintenance of a >>shrine site, perhaps pilgrimage to those sites, and rules of conduct, such >>as Frog Woman's demand that frogs be killed with the Peaceful Cut. >> >>Andrew E. Larsen >>"But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." >>Alan Moore--V for Vendetta >> >> >>On 6/28/07 9:45 AM, "Paul Cardwell" wrote: >> >> > Cult is more a sociological (and criminalogical) than >> > theological term. It usually involves an infallible >> > living leader, social (if not physical) isolation, >> > unquestionable dogma, total control over all of life, >> > etc. >> > >> > The terms I think the question is looking for are sect >> > and denomination - both are religions (as, for that >> > matter, are most cults). >> > >> > One of my seminary professors used the definition >> > given him by a clergy lamenting that his sect was >> > becoming a denomination, "A sect has more people at >> > worship than it has member on the roll, while a >> > denomination is the opposite." I suppose someone >> > might nit-pick and find an exception, but it has >> > always been a good working definition for me. >> > >> > Paul Cardwell >> > >> > >> > >> > >>______________________________________________________________________________ >> > ______ >> > Never miss an email again! >> > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. >> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > >_________________________________________________________________ >Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. >http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 From aelarsen at mac.com Fri Jun 29 07:19:41 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To some extent, but cult activity doesn't have a lot to do with belief. It's more focused on practice. And cults are mostly subsets of larger religious practices. For example, practitioners of the cult of the Virgin Mary are Catholics, more or less, while not all Catholics have a strong devotion to Mary. Replace Mary with any other patron saint for a different cult, but still part of Catholicism. Andrew E. Larsen On 6/28/07 3:04 PM, "John Pare'" wrote: > Seems to me, being a Catholic, that cult and religion are indeed the same > things, with stress being placed on the name. > > But both are words, that is all. > > Definations are but the expression of words. > > > > > > John > > > > > > >> From: Andrew Larsen >> Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> To: Rq-Rules List >> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] spirit cults versus religion >> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:39:14 -0500 >> >> There is another definition of cult that is commonly used by historians, >> anthropologists, and some scholars of religion. A 'cult', I usually tell >> my >> students, is a body of beliefs and practices that evolves around a >> religious >> figure or a religious object. It isn't characterized by isolation, >> mind-control, or an absolute religious authority. So in the Middle Ages, >> there was the cult of the Virgin Mary, which includes prayers to the >> Virgin, >> reverence of her relics, the erection of shrines to her, pilgrimage to >> those >> shrines, and so on. This cult eventually become so mainstream that it is >> essentially a core element of modern Catholicism. There was also the Cult >> of the Eucharist, which emphasized the elevation of the Host, religious >> processions in which the Host was paraded around a town, especially on the >> Feast of Corpus Christi, notions that the Host could perform miracles, >> including transforming into the bleeding flesh of Christ or sustaining >> those >> who were otherwise fasting. >> RQ spirit cults are cults in this sense. Although very few of them >> have >> been articulated in real detail, they all seem to involve the worship of a >> set spirit or spirits, regular sacrifices to them, the maintenance of a >> shrine site, perhaps pilgrimage to those sites, and rules of conduct, such >> as Frog Woman's demand that frogs be killed with the Peaceful Cut. >> >> Andrew E. Larsen >> "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." >> Alan Moore--V for Vendetta >> >> >> On 6/28/07 9:45 AM, "Paul Cardwell" wrote: >> >>> Cult is more a sociological (and criminalogical) than >>> theological term. It usually involves an infallible >>> living leader, social (if not physical) isolation, >>> unquestionable dogma, total control over all of life, >>> etc. >>> >>> The terms I think the question is looking for are sect >>> and denomination - both are religions (as, for that >>> matter, are most cults). >>> >>> One of my seminary professors used the definition >>> given him by a clergy lamenting that his sect was >>> becoming a denomination, "A sect has more people at >>> worship than it has member on the roll, while a >>> denomination is the opposite." I suppose someone >>> might nit-pick and find an exception, but it has >>> always been a good working definition for me. >>> >>> Paul Cardwell >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _____________________________________________________________________________>> _ >>> ______ >>> Never miss an email again! >>> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. >>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. > http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 29 09:06:53 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:06:53 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults etc Message-ID: <001e01c7b9d9$0ac5b780$b5688456@sickboy> Well, when I posed the questions I was using the term spirit cult in the Gloranthan sense of the word ie: a small localised religion and/or shamanic based form of worship as opposed to a more formalised hierarchial religion......maybe I've just answered my own question there, but I was curious asto how one might transform into the other ( assuming they do of course ) and that gotr me thinking about the various other questions I went on to pose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070629/dc5ef99e/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 29 09:17:34 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] spirit cults etc In-Reply-To: <001e01c7b9d9$0ac5b780$b5688456@sickboy> Message-ID: <433103.30839.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Clive Wickens wrote: > Well, when I posed the questions I was using the > term spirit cult in the Gloranthan sense of the word > ie: a small localised religion and/or shamanic based > form of worship as opposed to a more formalised > hierarchial religion......maybe I've just answered > my own question there, but I was curious asto how > one might transform into the other ( assuming they > do of course ) and that gotr me thinking about the > various other questions I went on to pose. > Shamatic traditions transform into religious traditions through the same means as other social institutions; the generation of agricultural surpluses, and the establishment of landed property and the class system. HTH, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 17:46:29 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: spirit cults versus religion Message-ID: <369922.74479.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Paul Cardwell: > The terms I think the question is looking for are sect > and denomination - both are religions (as, for that > matter, are most cults). In RuneQuest, then term is "cult" and that has always worked. It doesn't really matter what the real-world definitiion of a cult/religion/sect/denomination is. I always thought a denomination was a faction within a religion, so you have various protestant denominations withing Christianity, for example. But, for RQ purposes, it is irrelevant. In RQ, a cult is a set of worshippers who gain magical and spiritual benefit/powers through the worship of a particular divinity. Spirit cults gain these benefits through direct contact with the divinity using shamanic practices. Rune/Divine cults gain these benefits through worship in a divine cult. Malkioni, in Glorantha, gain their benefits through sorcerous cults which honour saints and prophets. But, essentially they do the same job. So, please, let's not get tied down in dictionary definitions and debates of cult/sect/denomination and other real world terms. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070629/1346bfdc/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 20:23:58 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: spirit cults etc Message-ID: <916862.62202.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > Well, when I posed the questions I was using the term spirit cult in the Gloranthan sense of the word > ie: a small localised religion and/or shamanic based form of worship as opposed to a more > formalised hierarchial religion......maybe I've just answered my own question there, but I was > curious asto how one might transform into the other ( assuming they do of course ) and that gotr me > thinking about the various other questions I went on to pose. Well, this is the way I see it happening. Joe Shaman contacts Spear Within The Earth, a spirit he met on a spirit quest to gain fire magic. Spear Within the Earth gives Joe the spell Firespear. Then Joe goes back to his clan and says "Hey, I've met this really great spirit who can help us in our fight against the cold winters, he gave me Firespear and I can use it to drive off the Ice Demons." He then sets up a Spirit Cult and some of the clan participate on an appropriate day and some of them gain Firespear and everyone is happy. Then, just occasionally, Spear Within the Earth grants Earthwarm as well as Firespear, not often but more than once. So, Joe tries to contact Spear within the Earth again so that he can get Earthwarm regularly. He manages to do so and comes back with a Firespear, a burnt spear, that helps contact Spear Within the Earth and allows them to get Earthwarm more regularly. Joe goes on another Spirit Quest and contacts Spear Within the Earth and goes deeper beneath the earth, getting access to Fire Within the Earth, another part of Spear Within the Earth, and gains access to Summon Salamander, so he returns and the clan combine the two and get Firespear, Earthwarm and Summon Salamander. They start worshipping Spear Within the Earth and Fire Within the Earth every Season, then every week, and gain a few more sacred objects that help the contact. In fact, now the link is so strong that it never fails. Several shamans are involved in summoning Spear Within the Earth and many clan members attend every week. Then Spear Within the Earth sends a smaller spirit to live permanently within the shrine. Now, you have a cult that worships Spear Within the Earth, a form of Lodril, in a shrine. It just takes a bit more worship before membership becomes permanent, the spirit becomes a temple guardian and the shamans become priests of the cult. He carries on teachingFirespear, Earthwarm and Summon Salamander, but they can get more and more spells as their worship deepens. Finally, a priest of Lodril finds out about the cult, goes there and shows them via a small heroquest that they are actually worshipping Lodril and opens up access to more spells. At that point it becomes a temple. Anyway, that;s the way I see it working. Not necessarily about number of worshippers, more about nature and frequency of worship. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070629/7c50be60/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 05:36:52 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: spirit cults etc Message-ID: <776513.19491.qm@web51010.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I suppose another way of getting a spirit cult moved up to a normal divine cult would be if the spirit cult had very many worshippers in very many places. It would then be easy to contact the spirit and would sporadically turn into cults in many places. Cultists would travel and see the cults being worshipped and would bring them together into a more organised cult. So, I suppose that when a divinity is worshipped individually by people who summon up the spirit to get powers then it is a spirit cult. When there is no longer a need to summon it up, when it is permanently present in a shrine, or perhaps has a permanent shrine, then it becomes a worshipped divinity. So, maybe that's the answer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070629/0d689ad9/attachment.html