From shaw at caprica.com Mon Oct 1 02:57:56 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:57:56 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0709282056l326c19f6l320ee50293cd069@mail.gmail.com > References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> <34430.196.8.104.27.1190975795.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0709280723j7b3fb3e8ma53d44a7f8acab39@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070928091330.033d6ac8@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0709282056l326c19f6l320ee50293cd069@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070930095652.03471de8@caprica.com> At 08:56 PM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >On 9/28/07, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote: >... A plate, which protects MUCH better against energy > >because it does resist rigidly, will also be (necessarily) absorbing > >that energy more completely. This means that when it does fail - > >when the energy finally reaches that critical level (which is going > >to be reduced over time by metal fatigue as well), it will fail > >catastrophically and completely. > >Again, not entirely accurate; while the failure of a piece of rigid >armor tends to be more severe, its possible to have a hole in a >breastplate and still have the breastplate be providing some >protection. The only time it doesn't if failure involves, >essentialy, a whole location getting a sufficiently large crack in it >to, essentially, fall off. > > >No beef with any of the points you made. >For correctness' sake, however, I'm going to clarify my point - when >energy in whatever form is striking a metal plate, and finally >exceeds the strength of the plate, it fails catastrophically and >totally AT THAT POINT. (Ie an arrow punches through completely, >leaving a hole and effectively no armor on that precise spot). This >would be as a contrast to flexible armor which, by allowing much of >the kinetic energy to pass through to the substrate/target, is much >harder to actually cause to FAIL structurally at that point. > >Just wanted to clear that up. That's probably true (though with chain I have to wonder if you aren't going to get some of the same effect with a weapon with a reasonable cross-section; its only going to take out so many links, but I'd think a hole is a hole). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070930/de099538/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Mon Oct 1 02:59:02 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:59:02 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <995307.98949.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928150201.033dae30@caprica.com> <995307.98949.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070930095818.03470e08@caprica.com> >You have to select the armor stat out of all the other >stats on the character sheet anyway. If you can't >handle that, how can you play? This is devolving into That's an arguement for any level of bookkeeping whatsoever; the question is when someone finds it a step too far. >the ridiculous, and I am logging off the subject. That's your choice. From stephenlposey at earthlink.net Mon Oct 1 13:34:37 2007 From: stephenlposey at earthlink.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:34:37 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> Message-ID: <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > This is a good point. Personally, I've "beefed up" the RQ3-rules, adding > both blunt damage, cutting damage and piercing damage, feeling that it's > highly relevant. I've been pondering coming up with something similar myself, based somewhat on the damage types from FGU's Aftermath!. I'd like to see what you've come up with if you're in the mood to share. > I've used my houserules for some 3 years, now, not > feeling that it slows down gameplay. But then again, I'm allso doing > medieval re-enactment, making a replica of a knights armor from 1380, > and I'm perfectly aware that allthough I find it highly rewarding to add > (more) realism to RQ3 in combat, it isn't nessecarily worth the troubble > for people more occupied with other aspects of playing RQ than I. Personally I like having a variety of options for greater and lesser detail that I can use when I want or need them. Stephen Posey stephenlposey at earthlink.net From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Oct 1 18:00:37 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:00:37 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > It depends on the weapon. You can do as much damage with a cucumber as you > like, it will still not hurt a breastplate. What you say is true for a > warhammer, an iron mace, perhaps even for a solid axe and a halebard. But > for a sword like a rapier... it's no way that a rapier can pierce plate > armor, and if you land enough damage with the rapier, the blade should > break sonner than the breastplate. > > If you do not believe me, take some spring steel, 4mm thick take it out > and start banging it towards the corner of a wooden house and see how the > corner prevails and the spring steel blade bends and/or breaks > _________________________________________________________________ > No worries, I believe you. Actually not so much plate that I was tinking of mine, more bezanted, ringmail etc, where because teh bits are sewed on, its possible (I would think, but can't exacltly back this up) to pop off a bezant or ring here and there, leaving the proverbial chink in the armour which should be in some way quantified into some sort of penalty, until repaired. It also makes teh Crafter - Armourer occupation quite a valuable one to have in the party:) From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 19:21:27 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:21:27 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I don't have any fancy homepage to link to, and my system is written in MS-Publisher, pretty big files, so I won't write it in detail, but I can give you the principles, which are pretty simple. First I take all the armourtypes in the armour-list of RQ3, deletes the AP-column, and add 4 columns, one for it's protection-value against a slicing-attack (like from a katana, a silat-knife, etc), against piercing-attacks (like from a rapier/spear), against blunt attacks (like from a cudgel/singlestick/swordpommel) and against weapons with more or less armour-piercing-capability, like the spiked end of a warhammer or a bodkin(if you buy the theory that they were anti-armor-arrowheads, something I'm not quite sure of). A breasplate gives OK protection against blunt attacks, 100% protection against cutting, Very good protection against piercing attacks and OK protection against armour-piercing attacks. A chainmail gives little protection against blunt, 100% against cutting, some protection against piercing and little protection against armour-pirecing attacks. A textile-armor, like a Linothorax (layers of linen glued together, used by greeks, and depictured on the cover of Sun Dome) would give some protection against blunt attacks, some protectiona against cutting, little protection against Piercing, and little protection against Armor-Piercing attacks. Then I take the weapons-table from RQ3, and delete it. Then I make a completely new table, not based on weapons, but on types of damagedelivery. (so instead of picking a weapon, you compose a weapon from the "shopping-list". Now, say you want a greatsword/zweihender. Then you "shop" a pommel, a crossguard and a long, straight blade. I don't remember the stats entirely, but say the long, straight blade does 2d8 slicing damage, 1d12 piercing-damage, no blunt damage and 1d6 armour-piercing damage. The pommel/crossguard does only 1d6+1 blunt damage. (I keep the rules of weapon SR, it's armour value, encumbrance, etc) So when two opponents fight, the guy with the Zweihender must know how to use his weapon to his best ability against his opponent, depending on what he's wearing. If he faces an unprotected person, he can cut away, doing terrible damage. But if he's facing someone wearing mail, he cannot do cutting-damage, so he must try to thrust a lot, use the crossguard to smash something beneath the mail, or -perhaps the best option- enter into grappeling. If we look at historical fighting-manuals, the first thing you notice is how prominent place grappeling is given, even in he swordsections. > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:34:37 -0600> From: stephenlposey at earthlink.net> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class> > Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > This is a good point. Personally, I've "beefed up" the RQ3-rules, adding > > both blunt damage, cutting damage and piercing damage, feeling that it's > > highly relevant. > > I've been pondering coming up with something similar myself, > based somewhat on the damage types from FGU's Aftermath!.> > I'd like to see what you've come up with if you're in the mood to > share.> > > I've used my houserules for some 3 years, now, not > > feeling that it slows down gameplay. But then again, I'm allso doing > > medieval re-enactment, making a replica of a knights armor from 1380, > > and I'm perfectly aware that allthough I find it highly rewarding to add > > (more) realism to RQ3 in combat, it isn't nessecarily worth the troubble > > for people more occupied with other aspects of playing RQ than I.> > Personally I like having a variety of options for greater and > lesser detail that I can use when I want or need them.> > Stephen Posey> stephenlposey at earthlink.net> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071001/93bacb2c/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 19:26:08 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:26:08 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: Yes, that is a relevant question, I agree. Well, I'd improvise. If it was a piercing attack that removed a metal disk or ring, I wouldn't let it affect the AP value of the opponent. Make a coin-shaped mark on something, then let a partner swing it around in front of you, while he tries to bang you with a stick. Then try to hit the exact coin-shaped mark with a stick of your own, and see how seldom you manage to hit it! But if it was some sort of slicing attack that was done with a superior metal, and it was a devastating attack, giving much damage in excess of the AP-value of the bezeinted/ring'ed cloth, then I could improvise that the attack left a huge opening in the cloth, giving the opponent -say 50% chanse of hitting an unprotected part of the target-area next time he attacks and hits the same location? > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:00:37 +0200> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class> From: postmaster at runequest.za.org> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > > > It depends on the weapon. You can do as much damage with a cucumber as you> > like, it will still not hurt a breastplate. What you say is true for a> > warhammer, an iron mace, perhaps even for a solid axe and a halebard. But> > for a sword like a rapier... it's no way that a rapier can pierce plate> > armor, and if you land enough damage with the rapier, the blade should> > break sonner than the breastplate.> >> > If you do not believe me, take some spring steel, 4mm thick take it out> > and start banging it towards the corner of a wooden house and see how the> > corner prevails and the spring steel blade bends and/or breaks> > _________________________________________________________________> >> No worries, I believe you. Actually not so much plate that I was tinking> of mine, more bezanted, ringmail etc, where because teh bits are sewed on,> its possible (I would think, but can't exacltly back this up) to pop off a> bezant or ring here and there, leaving the proverbial chink in the armour> which should be in some way quantified into some sort of penalty, until> repaired. It also makes teh Crafter - Armourer occupation quite a valuable> one to have in the party:)> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071001/53868776/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Tue Oct 2 02:20:07 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:20:07 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Fire & Sword Message-ID: Anders Swenson wrote: > I need to put a feedback link on the site. How do you > like RQ without locations and hit points? Sorry for the late reply -- buried under schoolwork. Combat without hit locations isn't too bad. On the upside, F&S speeds combat by only considering hit locations it they disable a character. Something similar was done with the old Stormbringer rules, where a character gets a major wound after taking 50% HP damage in a single hit. Having different armor for different body areas is lost in this system, though. Cover is also easier to handle with hit location rules. The lack of hit points in F&S works well because critical hits give a 1D10 incapacitation roll even for large creatures. Previous attempts at this in RQ (using the resistance table) usually ran afoul of big creatures being invulnerable. Michael ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 2 09:49:34 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <228544.19040.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just want to say I appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. It really has been useful and there's clearly some good knowledge about both the subject matter and the integration into game mechanics in a playable manner. Once again, thanks. Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From anders at california.com Wed Oct 3 02:16:35 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:16:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:34:37 -0600 Stephen Posey wrote: > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > This is a good point. Personally, I've "beefed up" the RQ3-rules, adding > > both blunt damage, cutting damage and piercing damage, feeling that it's > > highly relevant. > > I've been pondering coming up with something similar myself, based somewhat > on the damage types from FGU's Aftermath!. > > I'd like to see what you've come up with if you're in the mood to share. > > > I've used my houserules for some 3 years, now, not > > feeling that it slows down gameplay. But then again, I'm allso doing > > medieval re-enactment, making a replica of a knights armor from 1380, > > and I'm perfectly aware that allthough I find it highly rewarding to add > > (more) realism to RQ3 in combat, it isn't nessecarily worth the troubble > > for people more occupied with other aspects of playing RQ than I. > > Personally I like having a variety of options for greater and lesser detail > that I can use when I want or need them. > > Stephen Posey > stephenlposey at earthlink.net > RQIII already has a lot of bookkeeping. --Anders From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Oct 8 21:41:09 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:41:09 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Penelope Love Message-ID: <13562.196.8.104.27.1191843669.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Got a message from the tradetalk people. Seems a new novel is iminent (at printers apparently) by the lady who gace us The Widows Tale. Tony From tiggermb at verizon.net Fri Oct 12 07:45:38 2007 From: tiggermb at verizon.net (tiggermb at verizon.net) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:45:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Hello all. Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't think the adventure was all it could have been. The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... Thanks in advance MB From gazza666 at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 12:18:20 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:18:20 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> > The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Well, here's my counter argument: most of the time, when I'm running a new campaign, I will make every effort to expunge all non-human intelligent races from the setting. The reason I do this is because - in my opinion - having lots of nonhumans running around actually DECREASES diversity, counterintuitively. It is difficult to have multiple different elven societies, for example, if there are gray elves, high elves, wood elves, dark elves, wild elves, and valley elves as distinct subspecies, let alone the various types of dwarfs, trolls, orcs, and whatnot. So races tend to become very stereotypical by necessity - unless you play your (eg) gray elf as snotty and superior, how do we remember that he's not actually a high elf? I realised that the reason all of these nonhumans existed - at least for me - was to basically represent various aspects of humanity. Orcs, for example, are essentially violent bad smelling humans; elves are effete slender woods loving humans; dwarfs are claustrophiliac short humans, and so on. I don't mean to denigrate anyone who is breaking away from these stereotypes at all - my point is that the more intelligent races you have, the harder it is to not fall into a stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a contradiction in terms. So I tend to just ditch nonhumans for the most part, and just have a human setting (though there's no reason you couldn't make your base race elf, dwarf, Aslan, or pink furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, if you liked). I still use a few nonhuman intelligent species, but these are rarely encountered and generally meet my "alien" requirement (D&D's illithids, for example). To be fair Gloranthan nonhuman species typically ARE alien in most senses of the word - they are distinctly different from humans in mindset, and they don't generally interact with humanity or each other. But D&D was the example used, and D&D elves, dwarfs, and so on are typically just humans with the serial numbers filed off - which I see as a basically inevitable consequence of the profusion of intelligent species. Off the top of my head, there are at least 7 species in D&D that qualify as potential player character material (humans, elves, dwarfs, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins, kobolds), and that's without counting subspecies, Monster Manuals 2 or greater, or anything with a level adjustment. Few medieval nations are going to have meaningful relationships with 7 other nations, so where is the room for orcs that aren't brutish, or elves that don't like forests? > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? I love Nikk Effingham's system, though you'd have to modify it a bit for non-Gloranthan settings: http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/chargen.htm His entire site is excellent. -- GAZZA From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 13:59:23 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:59:23 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: Your idea of a non-human-centric world is an interesting one. As it happens, I have a friend who took that idea several steps further. He created a setting we called the "Floating Isles". Not only did it have *no human beings at all*, but none of the other standard fantasy races were present, either. What's more, it didn't even have solid ground, except as smallish islands floating in an endless blue sky! It was an incredibly *refreshing* setting. Whenever we got bored with standard fantasy, we'd do a Floating Isles scenario. Because the geography (aerography?) of the Isles (i.e. their relationship to each other) were constantly changing due to wind forces and other unknown effects, strange creatures and new races were common. The GM worked hard to really smash all the stereotypes, and make interesting creatures that really felt new. Of course, virtually all creatures were able to fly - not as much of a challenge, since gravity as we know it only existed on the top of each Isle, not between them. Incidentally, the original concept was based on the artwork of Roger Dean (primarily his album covers for the band Yes). This was long before Niven wrote "The Smoke Ring" or anything like that, by the way. Many years later, I tried to write up the Isles in an issue of my old zine, Rack & Rune. Here's a link. The article starts on page 4. http://www.runequest.org/rr15.pdf Now, as to character design: I prefer point-based design systems to random ones, usually. And if possible, I like to throw GURPS-like advantages and disadvantages into the mix. In fact, actual GURPS ads/disads can be very easily worked into D100/RQ. However, my very favorite method came from throwing out the rulebook altogether. We only used this for "serious" games, ones with an intense focus on roleplaying. The results were almost always spectacular. The GM created each character by having a series of private discussions with each player over the course of several weeks. The conversations happened in person and on the phone (the net wasn't available in our dorms back then...it was the mid-1980s). We wouldn't discuss numbers. We'd discuss the personality and history of the character, along with the underlying concepts. And we'd do it in the terms that you'd use to describe a real person, i.e. NOT "he's got an 18 strength" but instead something like "he's apprenticed to the town blacksmith, and he doesn't know anyone in the village who is stronger than he is - although there are a couple of burly farmers who are probably about as strong". Inevitably the character concepts evolved over the weeks of creation. The GM took sole responsibility for actually designing the characters, working out statistics by fiat. I don't know how other GMs who used this system did it, but *I* didn't make a fetish out of balancing the stats: instead, my goal was to make sure that each character had one or more interesting and useful abilities which were not duplicated elsewhere in the party. In other words, my goal was to balance playing time, plot involvement, and fun for the *players*, rather than balancing the stats of the *characters*. It helped that I knew all the players well, and could judge their strengths and weaknesses. In the process, extensive histories for the characters naturally evolved. What's more, as things went forward the players would talk with each other and work out any shared history that their characters might have. We even tried playing out pre-campaign scenarios, talking in character to each other as our "young" characters in their earlier years. This built a sense of party unity and history that was unusually deep. Typically, a game that used this method of character creation was run on a "sheetless" basis, i.e. the players never saw a character sheet for their character, never saw their own ability scores or stats. Instead, they knew as much about their characters as the character knew about him- or herself. Players would often keep extensive notes, of course, but they did not include numerical data. The GM did all the system record-keeping, while the players rolled dice and employed strategy and tactics using a real-world approach. RuneQuest was an ideal system for this sort of sheetless campaign. Since it models reality well without being overcomplicated, the GM could easily accommodate the actions of the PCs without being TOO overburdened with bookkeeping. The one flaw was that some people tended to lose track of the dividing line between reality and fantasy in roleplaying games. Sheetless gaming really seems to bring that out in some players. We all got obsessed - it's almost frightening how much more *involving* a sheetless game can be - but some people just lost it altogether. But with good players, it can be a really mind-blowing experience. It's not necessary to have a sheetless game in order to use the discussion method of character design, of course. The only problem is that argumentative players may object to the GM's actualization of their character, quibbling over stats or skills. ->Peter On 10/11/07, tiggermb at verizon.net wrote: > > Hello all. > > Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am > giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't > want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. > > I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend > to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other > people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and > while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't > think the adventure was all it could have been. > > The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of > the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was > that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most > frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the > rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played > in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a > Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in > Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. > Then my imagination started working... > > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. > A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. > A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less > realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to > start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant > Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, > all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive > combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. > > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as > such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random > method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character > Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might > people come up with for BRP character design? > > On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly > Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. > Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I > fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can > convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... > > Thanks in advance > > MB > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071011/b425193a/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 17:52:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:52:14 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks Message-ID: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> As some of you may know, my RQ collection and experience is firmly set in RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors Barracks. Is this something that would be a real asset to my collection? I suppose I am opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, so to try and be more specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own world, so what published material we do use tends to be of a generic kind, that can easily be slotted into a place. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 18:05:18 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:05:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> >> The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most >> of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My >> thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being >> the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the >> land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG >> settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of >> adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our >> characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, >> most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started >> working... > Don't have any new ideas about un derground places for dwarves. However, for non human species that are a bit different, you could have a looksee at Talislanta and/or Jorune. The gear is pretty redily available on eBay most days. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 18:37:59 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:37:59 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <57706.196.8.104.27.1192178279.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Don't have any new ideas about un derground places for dwarves. However, > for non human species that are a bit different, you could have a looksee > at Talislanta and/or Jorune. The gear is pretty redily available on eBay > most days. > Tony > Hmm, further to this, I just happen to have come across a Dwarven Halls sorucebook on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/Dwarven-Halls-By-Fantasy-Games-Unlimited_W0QQitemZ120170201282QQihZ002QQcategoryZ2545QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 18:34:06 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <91437.38756.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MB (or Tigger): > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness > where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven > mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf > country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant > Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I > want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Sounds good, especially the different underground settings. RQ is perfect for this kind of thing because it can be tweaked to give as flexible a background as you want. > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas > and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random > methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might > people come up with for BRP character design? RQ is a really good system for this as it can be very flexible. RQM has a very easy to use character generation system, even if you don't like the other rules. But, assuming RQ3, you can tweak the character generation quite easily. One way to do this is to allocate characteristics, so you start off with a number of points equal to the total average characetristics times a multiplier depending on how superior you want the PCs. I'll do an example for humans as I don;t have stats for non-humans with me. STR/CON/POW/DEX/APP have an average of 10.5, SIX/INT have an average of 13, so the total average is 78.5, or 79. If you want slightly superior PCs, multiply that by 1.10, if you want really superior PCs, multiply it by 1.5 but I wouldn't go any higher than that. Then they can allocate the characteristics however they want, no characteristic can go above species maximum (max rollabe + min rollable, 21 for the first group and 26 for the second) and any points above the normal maximam rollable (18) cost double. Obviously, you are going to get a lot of high INT and DEX characters as everyone will push those stats, but that's a disadvantage of a non-random character generation system. Once you've allocated characteristics, allocate skills. An easy way to do this is to work out a background set of skills, with cultural skills and profession skills as in the standard RQ3 rulebook, but change the skills for your setting. Have the players decide how many years previous experience their PCs have, but be careful - dwarves and elves are long-lived and RQ3 does fall down a bit when dealing with many years of previous experience. Alternatively, decide what level thePC should be at (Beginner, Standard, Experienced, Veteran, Master) and give them 5 skills at Top Level, 5 skills at Second Level, 10 skills at Third Level and the rest at Fourth Level where their levels depend on the experience level. Add the skills to the basic + Characteristic Bonus to take into account that some species/cultures arte better at some things. Skills are taken from cultural, cultic and profession lists, so a Master will not be at 40%+basci+bonus with every skill under the sun, only those to which he has been exposed. Beginner: Top Level: 20 Second Level: 10 Third Level: 5 Fourth Level: 0 Standard: Top Level: 40 Second Level: 20 Third Level: 10 Fourth Level: 5 Experienced: Top Level: 60 Second Level: 30 Third Level: 20 Fourth Level: 10 Veteran: Top Level: 80 Second Level: 50 Third Level: 40 Fourth Level: 25 Master: Top Level: 100 Second Level: 70 Third Level: 60 Fourth Level: 40 and so on. That way, your players can build a character and tailor it to how they want the character. Veterans and Masters might start off at Rune Level under this method, which might suit your campaign or might not. Assign magic similarly, with spells and magic skills known by level, depending on whether they use Sorcery or Divine Magic. I'd stick with divine cults and spirit cults, unless you specifically want sorcery-using dwarves. Divine Magic is easier to use and speeds the game up. If you use Sorcery, then give characters the same number of magic skills as normal skills, based on their experience level, but don't forget that sorcery spells are treated as skills. Beginner: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 2 Divine Magic Points: 0 Sorcery Spells: 1 Standard: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 6 Divine Magic Points: 3 Sorcery Spells: 3 Experienced: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 9 Divine Magic Points: 6 Sorcery Spells: 6 Veteran: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 12 Divine Magic Points: 9 Sorcery Spells: 9 Master: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 15 Divine Magic Points: 12 Sorcery Spells: 12 These are fairly arbitrary, but the principles can be used in any setting, just change the skill levels/spell points according to how you want the game to run. So, you want to play a Veteran Dwarf Crafstman. He has 5 skills at 80% + basic+bonus, 5 skills at 50% + basic+bonus, 10 skills at 40% + basic+bonus,and the rest at 25% + basic+bonus. He could choose Craft (Metalworking), Mineral Lore, Mine Lore, Scout (Underground) and Evaluate as his 80%+basic+bonus skills, Speak (Dwarven), Speak (Gnomic), Bargain, Fast talk and Orate as his 50%+basic+bonus skills and so on. He gets 12 Spirit Magic Points and 9 Divine Magic Points, so chooses Repair 4, Detect Gold, Light and Improve (Metalworking) 6 as his Spirit Magic and Tireless Labour 2, Truecraft 3, Gnomic Friendship 2 and Stone Strength 2 as his Divine Magic. I made up the spell names, so don't ask me for descriptions of them :-) You also want to play a Master Dwarf Sorcerer. He has 5 skills at 100% + basic+bonus, 5 skills at 70% + basic+bonus, 10 skills at 60% + basic+bonus,and the rest at 40% + basic+bonus. He could choose Human Lore, Dwarf Lore, Elf Lore, Scout (Underground) and Magic Lore as his 100%+basic+bonus skills, Speak (Dwarven), Speak (Elven), Intimidate, Fast Talk and Orate as his 70%+basic+bonus skills and so on. He gets the same number of magic skills/spells, so chooses Intensity, Duration, Range, Ceremony and Dominate Human as his 100%+basic/bonus, Enchant, Multispell, Dominate Elf, Dominate Orc and Dominate Seven-Horned Demon From the Pits of Hell as his 70%+basic+bonus and so on, he chooses Dominate Human, Dominate Orc, Dominate Seven-Horned Demon From the Pits of Hell, Mystic Vision, Project Vision, Create (Crystal Ball), Create (Familiar) ... So, it is relatively easy to generate a reasonably well-rounded character using something like this. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/9d369991/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Oct 12 19:19:28 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <212952.23413.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and > experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors > Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my > collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, > so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own > world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a > generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. > Tony It pretty much a dungeon crawl with undead, trolls, broos and the like with a bit of background and a magic item of note. It would be very easy to slot into any other fantasy world. HTH. Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 01:08:54 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It is a fairly good dungeon crawl, but suffers from a major flaw in that a giant, undead, and broos and dragonsnails are all living in the same structure at the same time with no conflict among themselves (nor interaction either) but rapid conflict with anything else that enters. Extracting each of the three as separate encounters makes a fairly good adventure but requires modifying the building accordingly. Paul Cardwell --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and > experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors > Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my > collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, > so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own > world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a > generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. > Tony ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Oct 13 01:49:57 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:49:57 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and broo co-existing.. Come on, ideas.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 250 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/8e0c77ae/attachment.vcf From shaw at caprica.com Sat Oct 13 02:22:26 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:22:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012091939.034262f0@caprica.com> >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a >contradiction in terms. I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more than they differ. There are higher animals on this planet that vary from us more than elves and dwarves do, but I don't doubt that if they were intelligent and could talk, they'd not come across as truely alien; an intelligent dog, for example, would clearly be driven in different ways than humans are, but I don't believe so much so that they'd come across as truly alien. From mason.bruce at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 04:20:44 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:20:44 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <5f3990080710121120t1fc4ca85o9ef4ccf4cd7f8315@mail.gmail.com> On 11/10/2007, tiggermb at verizon.net wrote: > > > > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. > A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. > A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less > realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to > start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant > Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, > all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Well you have to give Dwarves short sticks as they can't handle the long ones... Other than that I don't have anything intelligent to add. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/eb1e5568/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 13 08:32:21 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <291784.53607.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and > broo co-existing.. > Come on, ideas.. > It's a bit of a Keep on the Borderlands situation isn't it? The obvious answer in that case was the evil priest had hired them all but it wasn't actually mentioned in the text... A similar situation should be applied here; introduce an "overlord" Necromancer-type, who keeps the others all in line. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 13 10:27:14 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:27:14 -0400 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***RE: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:59 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Your idea of a non-human-centric world is an interesting one. As it happens, I have a friend who took that idea several steps further. He created a setting we called the "Floating Isles". Not only did it have *no human beings at all*, but none of the other standard fantasy races were present, either. What's more, it didn't even have solid ground, except as smallish islands floating in an endless blue sky! It was an incredibly *refreshing* setting. Whenever we got bored with standard fantasy, we'd do a Floating Isles scenario. Because the geography (aerography?) of the Isles (i.e. their relationship to each other) were constantly changing due to wind forces and other unknown effects, strange creatures and new races were common. The GM worked hard to really smash all the stereotypes, and make interesting creatures that really felt new. Of course, virtually all creatures were able to fly - not as much of a challenge, since gravity as we know it only existed on the top of each Isle, not between them. Incidentally, the original concept was based on the artwork of Roger Dean (primarily his album covers for the band Yes). This was long before Niven wrote "The Smoke Ring" or anything like that, by the way. Many years later, I tried to write up the Isles in an issue of my old zine, Rack & Rune. Here's a link. The article starts on page 4. http://www.runequest.org/rr15.pdf Now, as to character design: I prefer point-based design systems to random ones, usually. And if possible, I like to throw GURPS-like advantages and disadvantages into the mix. In fact, actual GURPS ads/disads can be very easily worked into D100/RQ. However, my very favorite method came from throwing out the rulebook altogether. We only used this for "serious" games, ones with an intense focus on roleplaying. The results were almost always spectacular. The GM created each character by having a series of private discussions with each player over the course of several weeks. The conversations happened in person and on the phone (the net wasn't available in our dorms back then...it was the mid-1980s). We wouldn't discuss numbers. We'd discuss the personality and history of the character, along with the underlying concepts. And we'd do it in the terms that you'd use to describe a real person, i.e. NOT "he's got an 18 strength" but instead something like "he's apprenticed to the town blacksmith, and he doesn't know anyone in the village who is stronger than he is - although there are a couple of burly farmers who are probably about as strong". Inevitably the character concepts evolved over the weeks of creation. The GM took sole responsibility for actually designing the characters, working out statistics by fiat. I don't know how other GMs who used this system did it, but *I* didn't make a fetish out of balancing the stats: instead, my goal was to make sure that each character had one or more interesting and useful abilities which were not duplicated elsewhere in the party. In other words, my goal was to balance playing time, plot involvement, and fun for the *players*, rather than balancing the stats of the *characters*. It helped that I knew all the players well, and could judge their strengths and weaknesses. In the process, extensive histories for the characters naturally evolved. What's more, as things went forward the players would talk with each other and work out any shared history that their characters might have. We even tried playing out pre-campaign scenarios, talking in character to each other as our "young" characters in their earlier years. This built a sense of party unity and history that was unusually deep. Typically, a game that used this method of character creation was run on a "sheetless" basis, i.e. the players never saw a character sheet for their character, never saw their own ability scores or stats. Instead, they knew as much about their characters as the character knew about him- or herself. Players would often keep extensive notes, of course, but they did not include numerical data. The GM did all the system record-keeping, while the players rolled dice and employed strategy and tactics using a real-world approach. RuneQuest was an ideal system for this sort of sheetless campaign. Since it models reality well without being overcomplicated, the GM could easily accommodate the actions of the PCs without being TOO overburdened with bookkeeping. The one flaw was that some people tended to lose track of the dividing line between reality and fantasy in roleplaying games. Sheetless gaming really seems to bring that out in some players. We all got obsessed - it's almost frightening how much more *involving* a sheetless game can be - but some people just lost it altogether. But with good players, it can be a really mind-blowing experience. It's not necessary to have a sheetless game in order to use the discussion method of character design, of course. The only problem is that argumentative players may object to the GM's actualization of their character, quibbling over stats or skills. ->Peter On 10/11/07, tiggermb at verizon.net wrote: Hello all. Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't think the adventure was all it could have been. The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... Thanks in advance MB _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/47ab7c05/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Oct 13 13:34:51 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... they are rather tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there story... Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as servents of various types they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from humans although some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular purposes by the designers Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage. Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from existance in spite of near immortality Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from that earlier era with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they didnt need to learn in the past they were just reprogrammed. Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice. (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all the time where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or even a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might know how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and often keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are the most likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in modern times Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types. Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with nearly no air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins including magical ones and can see in near dark. Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Sat Oct 13 16:24:03 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:24:03 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > It is a fairly good dungeon crawl, but suffers from a > major flaw in that a giant, undead, and broos and > dragonsnails are all living in the same structure at > the same time with no conflict among themselves (nor > interaction either) but rapid conflict with anything > else that enters. > > Extracting each of the three as separate encounters > makes a fairly good adventure but requires modifying > the building accordingly. > > Paul Cardwell > Interesting, one tends to forget the classic early days of role playing type adventures with dungeons full of ununlikley stuff. like a dungeon deep underground with nowt but a tiny entrance yet had dragons and such inside:) Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Sat Oct 13 16:35:26 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:35:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and broo co-existing.. > Come on, ideas.. > > Hmm, well the undead, if they were perhaps undead because of some sort of chaos taint, maybe that would explain the broos and undead at least. One would then wonder if it were possible for said broos to hubradise with said undead (I am sthinking zombies and/or ghouls here, skeletons being more a type of construct). The giant on the other hand, dunno, ubless it was possibly kidnapped as a child and is some sort of slave/plaything that is con stantly taunted bu the broos. Use it/don't use it. Tony From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Oct 13 18:52:49 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:52:49 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47108761.6030805@zunder.org.uk> How about: The Giant is a giant broo, the sick result of the broo cult's depredations. The broo are led by the evil priest (who is also a broo) who is a Vivamort worshipper who raises the dead kin as undead, or possible the clan has a Chaos trait that means they rise as undead or possibly the very place has a chunk of Chaos rock in it that causes all who die to rise as undead, say within 10 minutes.. The whole place seems odd but as the slain start to rise the whole thing will feel like Day of the Dead. Wheel on the Humakti.. What I find interesting is not that we can all come up with cool scenarios.. but that in the early days no-one did.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 250 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/c13c479b/attachment.vcf From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 13 19:21:10 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:21:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Basic Roleplaying In-Reply-To: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Jason Durall have started a thread on the basic roleplaying forum called "Q&A with the new BRP Author". So if anyone have some questions regarding the new system, drop by BRP Central - http://basicroleplaying.com For those who REALLY dislike forums (how can anyone dislike forums by the way?), you could try posing your questions on the new Basic_Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ Cheers, Sverre. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/297af786/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 13 21:36:38 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:36:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Your words on a sheet-less game really got me interested in trying out something like that. So, the players did all their normal rolls, and the GM just told if it was a success or not? I'm really intrigued how that would work with my group. How did the GM manage the book-keeping by the way? Had he simplified the system in any way (broader skills, etc.?) Would it be okay if I posted the part of your post about char-gen on the basic roleplaying forum to get some more views on this? (or if you would like to post it yourself?) Sverre. Peter Maranci skrev: Now, as to character design: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message group! http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/35d2fc83/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 23:19:05 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:19:05 -0400 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sure, go ahead; I don't mind. Which forum will you be posting it on? You know, I should write it up in more detail and post it as an article on my site, and on d100.org. ->Peter On 10/13/07, Trifletraxor wrote: > > Your words on a sheet-less game really got me interested in trying out > something like that. So, the players did all their normal rolls, and the GM > just told if it was a success or not? > > I'm really intrigued how that would work with my group. > > How did the GM manage the book-keeping by the way? Had he simplified the > system in any way (broader skills, etc.?) > > Would it be okay if I posted the part of your post about char-gen on the > basic roleplaying forum to get some more views on this? (or if you would > like to post it yourself?) > > Sverre. > > > *Peter Maranci * skrev: > > Now, as to character design: > > > > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message > group! > > http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. > http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20071013/96f1d50f/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Oct 14 00:24:18 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:24:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <230629.13996.qm@web28005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'll be posting it on the Basic Roleplaying forum on BRP Central. I agree, you should write it up in detail. It's somewhat of a gem! When will the chaos project be up on d100.org by the way? Cheers, Sverre. Peter Maranci skrev: Sure, go ahead; I don't mind. Which forum will you be posting it on? You know, I should write it up in more detail and post it as an article on my site, and on d100.org. ->Peter http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message group! http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/4cf298e5/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 01:23:09 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <271372.32823.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Interesting, one tends to forget the classic early > days of role playing > type adventures with dungeons full of ununlikley > stuff. like a dungeon > deep underground with nowt but a tiny entrance yet > had dragons and such inside:) > Tony To say nothing of how those monsters were fed. Were there that many adventurers going in (but not coming out) to keep them healthy? Why didn't they eat each other? And similar questions. How were such elaborate mazes carved out of solid rock with nothing but late bronze- and early iron-age tools? Was the unlikely (considering the energy required) rock to mud or similar nonsense magic all that common? Etc. This is why Mythworld has most of its adventures either in the open or in relatively normal structures built by reasonable technology. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From shaw at caprica.com Sun Oct 14 03:35:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:35:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Basic Roleplaying In-Reply-To: <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071013103441.03435d88@caprica.com> >For those who REALLY dislike forums (how can anyone dislike forums >by the way?), you could try posing your questions on the new >Basic_Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - >http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ While I use several (RPG.net and the Atomic Think Tank come to mind), I find it much preferable to deal with mailing lists. Among other things, I'm still on dial-up, and not having to deal with the erraticities of load times is a blessing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/b58f8bdd/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 09:42:46 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks Message-ID: <333868.65787.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tony: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. Balastor's Barracks was a stand-alone product that was then incorporated into the Big Rubble pack, I believe. It's a dungeon hack with a slight difference in that the "prize" is a magical axe that used to be owned by Balastor, the last Champion of Pavis. So, if you want to run a Pavis campaign then it's useful, but if that's the case then buy Pavis and Big Rubble instead as it contains a hell of a lot of good background and scenarios. If you want to collect all the old RQ stuff, then it's worth buying Balastor's Barracks. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/4b3f5df0/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 22:57:56 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:57:56 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: I just wanted to say that I loved this interpretation of dwarves. The last bit, about becoming mortal and reproducing is somthing I allso have incorporated to my mostali dwarves (but they have to abandon their strongholds and wander about in order to achieve this, and I never let the player who currently is a dwarf really know wether he's still imortal or not and wether he can reproduce or not. > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0500> From: lancelot at inetnebr.com> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned.> > I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... > they are rather> tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there story...> > Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as servents of > various types> they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from > humans although> some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular > purposes by the designers> > Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage.> Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from> existance in spite of near immortality> > Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from > that earlier era> with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they > didnt need to learn> in the past they were just reprogrammed.> > Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice.> (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the> "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all > the time> where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or even> a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might know> how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art> > Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and > often> keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are > the most> likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in > modern times> > Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types.> > Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with nearly no> air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins including> magical ones and can see in near dark.> > Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children.> > > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071015/d2bcd262/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Oct 16 00:03:30 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:03:30 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <47137332.7050202@inetnebr.com> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I just wanted to say that I loved this interpretation of dwarves. Glad you like it. The storyline makes dwarves for me actively interesting. conceptually unique yet still touching the myths. Very powerful in their own ways yet limited in others and gives them some fodder for motivations > The last bit, about becoming mortal and reproducing is somthing > I allso have incorporated to my mostali dwarves (but they have to > abandon their strongholds and wander about in order to achieve this, Well of course it is a quest .. perhaps for mystical evolvement perhaps to find the right bit of magic / science or the non-existant female dwarve which will enable it. > and I never let the player who currently is a dwarf really know wether > he's still imortal or not and wether he can reproduce or not. hmmm you need something climactic to enable this I think if it is a part of the character concept ... so that it will feel like an appropriate development > > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0500 > > From: lancelot at inetnebr.com > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. > > > > I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... > > they are rather > > tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there > story... > > > > Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as > servents of > > various types > > they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from > > humans although > > some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular > > purposes by the designers > > > > Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage. > > Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from > > existance in spite of near immortality > > > > Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from > > that earlier era > > with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they > > didnt need to learn > > in the past they were just reprogrammed. > > > > Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice. > > (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the > > "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all > > the time > > where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or > even > > a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might > know > > how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art > > > > Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and > > often > > keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are > > the most > > likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in > > modern times > > > > Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types. > > > > Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with > nearly no > > air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins > including > > magical ones and can see in near dark. > > > > Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Oct 18 00:39:09 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:39:09 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> Hi > >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem > >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a > >contradiction in terms. > > I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be > enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in > suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to > humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more > than they differ. Hmmm... The mere fact of having lifespans that embrace centuries should produce persons with a far different mindset to humans'. Gianni From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 18 01:01:13 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:01:13 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> At 07:39 AM 10/17/2007, you wrote: >Hi > > > >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem > > >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a > > >contradiction in terms. > > > > I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be > > enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in > > suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to > > humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more > > than they differ. > >Hmmm... The mere fact of having lifespans that embrace centuries should >produce persons with a far different mindset to humans'. Again, not convinced. I suspect younger members of such species would be next to indistinguishable from younger members of others, and the older members would not be materially different, except in degree, from older humans. Humanity now has lifespans in the developed world approaching 4-5 generations, and I expect that by the time you're reached that level you've already hit the worst of it. Now it might have some differences in _society_ (because power tends to accrue toward the old, and the older one is, on the whole, the more conservative one is) but that shouldn't make a dramatic difference inherently in individual psychology. From tiggermb at verizon.net Thu Oct 18 02:49:19 2007 From: tiggermb at verizon.net (tiggermb at verizon.net) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:49:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> I just wanted to say thanks for all the character suggestions, links, and ideas everyone gave. I have some sorting out to do, but I think I am starting to get the basis of a good character system going. I must admit that Pete???s suggestion of a sheetless game has a lot going for it. My players might be less intimidated to learn a new system if I was doing most of the record keeping. I also wonder if the players main recordkeeping consisted of equipment and encumbrance, then those often overlooked aspects of the game might be more accurately accounted for (They tend to be the most overlooked in games I have played ??? at least!) I have plenty of time before anyone will adventure in this world (a few months) so I have time to look at how I would keep records. The success will depend mostly on my ability to discipline myself and live with the awkward silences and delays that might occur while keeping records. When you are a GM, sometimes 10 seconds of silence can seem like an eternity. I am having some thoughts about what to let players know/deal with as part of a sheetless campaign. Letting players know some information (like Strike ranks) might help the flow of the game ??? especially if you are using miniatures on a square or hex ruled pad. PS ??? I am I the only person that likes the idea of strike ranks as presented in RQ3? seems most of the stuff I recall reading from earlier on this list was pretty negetive on it. Then again my memory is most likely failing me... MB From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 18 03:49:24 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:49:24 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvc s.net> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> >PS ?????? I am I the only person that likes the >idea of strike ranks as presented in RQ3? seems >most of the stuff I recall reading from earlier >on this list was pretty negetive on it. Then >again my memory is most likely failing me... The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs problematic because they interwove movement with it; this could be something of a problem with RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Oct 18 05:57:26 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:57:26 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071017/dc420045/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 18 06:19:59 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:19:59 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> At 12:57 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote: >As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them >entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, >where they are only used to determine initiative between two >fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try >to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think >about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases >(what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the >weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it >becomes far more trouble than it is worth. > >The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I >didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real >use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. > >Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for >initiative, or use RQ2's system. Even with the special casing, I found that the older version provided enough of a feel of distinction to be worth the trouble; it was at the least no worse than other fixed or random initiative systems. But the movement thing really was a pain in the behind. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 18 19:17:46 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:46 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> Message-ID: <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Again, not convinced. I suspect younger members of such species > would be next to indistinguishable from younger members of others, > and the older members would not be materially different, except in > degree, from older humans. Humanity now has lifespans in the > developed world approaching 4-5 generations, and I expect that by the > time you're reached that level you've already hit the worst of > it. Now it might have some differences in _society_ (because power > tends to accrue toward the old, and the older one is, on the whole, > the more conservative one is) but that shouldn't make a dramatic > difference inherently in individual psychology. > > Adding to that trian of thought, no reason why not on a fantasy world humasn due to climate, food, air gas mix, minerals in water or whatever could not have a greatly enhanced lifecycle. Hmm, or maybe one could go for like "elves/whatever" are basically humans who arrived millenia before and have adaped to the world and are now so different, but at base chromosonal lever are still human and thus the possibility of iunterbreeding. Not my cup of tea but ja nee, could supply some sort of plausability. Converse could also apply. Or maybe in the case of dwarves, they have been stunted and made very strong by higher gravity compared to earth. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 18 19:45:57 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:45:57 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> Message-ID: <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is > that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs > problematic because they interwove movement with > it; this could be something of a problem with > RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a > group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who > moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. > Use a chess board. 1 square = 1 square meter, or 3 square meters depending on what scaleability you need. Big scenarios may require a few extra boards to be borrowed. From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 23:19:45 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:19:45 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710180619g37a2165bo5f4703586987e22a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/07, steve wrote: > > > As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them entirely. > > LOL. I've had a fairly complex system worked out, but have lately been tending to MGF over verisimilitude. So I'm going with a basic die-roll for init, modified slightly by dex (like D&D). In a tie, longest weapon goes first if they're coming into contact, shorter weapon goes 1st if they are already in melee with each other. I do vary the DIE ROLL, which I haven't heard of others doing. In tight, constricted spaces where raw hand/eye coordination and balance are at a premium, I have them roll d6's, in wide open spaces like an open plain, they roll d12s. I've not analyzed this too carefully, but it really does add a 'feel' to close-quarters combat that feels "tight" - everything is happening at the same time. In the open, players clearly feel like they have a lot more options. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071018/d4828236/attachment.html From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 23:59:06 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> Message-ID: SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it doesnt make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time window. SRs to me make things simple because you don't so much have the round any more; actions cost time, the inate abilities of the characters modify their effective action SR, weapon impact on combat is modeled by giving it an SR modifier. It only makes sense to me that movement is captured by dividing up a characters movement rate and allowing a mix of movement and combat within the round. In short I really like it an think it actualy de-complicates things. I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept (which to me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our group does combat, we head to the table top, so positions are tracked automatically by the pieces as combat develops. I think another thing that probably helps us is the fact that we are not super anal about things in the Panzer Blitz way. We just want things to roughly approximate things that we want modeled and for instance, could care less that a sword is 2.5' long and a dagger is 8" long. In short, for whatever reason, I have really enjoyed using the SR concept and it works for our group very well; but its value is probably a function of style of game play, how you execute combat where you play, and how deep you like to get into the nitty gritty of minute details (although SRs would seem to appeal the to the overly anal crowd at least at first glance). Fred> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:19:59 -0700> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> From: shaw at caprica.com> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> > At 12:57 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:> > > >As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them > >entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, > >where they are only used to determine initiative between two > >fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try > >to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think > >about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases > >(what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the > >weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it > >becomes far more trouble than it is worth.> >> >The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I > >didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real > >use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out.> >> >Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for > >initiative, or use RQ2's system.> > Even with the special casing, I found that the older version provided > enough of a feel of distinction to be worth the trouble; it was at > the least no worse than other fixed or random initiative > systems. But the movement thing really was a pain in the behind.> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071018/d4b73460/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 01:33:42 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- steve wrote: As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, where they are only used to determine initiative between two fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases (what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it becomes far more trouble than it is worth. The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for initiative, or use RQ2's system. Steve Perrin People in this discussion keep coming up with problems which either should not be problems at all or are easily remedied. Action ranks (Mythworld's term for this) do not involve movement; that is a separate matter. However, the other "problems" Steve mentions can and should be covered in the stats for the weapons. Long weapons (pikes, for instance) have minimum as well as maximum ranges. Get inside that minimum and you are relatively safe - at least from that weapon - shortswords and daggers are another matter. Weapons have their own AR. Heavy weapons are slower, despite a generally heavier damage when they hit. Therefore they have a higher AR than a light (and less damaging) weapon of the same range. If all this is built into the rules and stats, it is quite easy to handle. It is just when these details are left out in the interest of "simplicity" (Greg Stafford's argument for rejecting my rules for RQ3) that things get complicated. Yeah, it is closer to RQ2, but then I have never denied Mythworld's origin in my attempt to suggest rules for the then in progress RQ3. I lost that attempt and thus Mythworld was published. Someone once said that as long as only one person can fit in a door at a time, then there must be some rule of etiquite to determine who goes first. It is the same with SR/AR. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shaw at caprica.com Fri Oct 19 02:45:24 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:45:24 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> At 02:45 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: > > > > The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is > > that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs > > problematic because they interwove movement with > > it; this could be something of a problem with > > RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a > > group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who > > moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. > > >Use a chess board. 1 square = 1 square meter, or 3 square meters depending >on what scaleability you need. Big scenarios may require a few extra >boards to be borrowed. Its not the movement; its remembering what individual movement _each character did_. Remember, moving delayed strike rank, so if you had a bunch of bandits who were hitting normally on strike rank 5, but they moved different distances, it meant I had to remember one hit at SR 7, 3 at SR 8, 5 at SR 9 and 1 at SR 10. This was a nuisance, to say the least (honestly, I suspect I simply lost track more often than not). From shaw at caprica.com Fri Oct 19 02:47:01 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:47:01 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> At 06:59 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: >SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it >doesnt make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time >window. SRs to me make things simple because you don't so much have >the round any more; actions cost time, the inate abilities of the >characters modify their effective action SR, weapon impact on combat >is modeled by giving it an SR modifier. It only makes sense to me >that movement is captured by dividing up a characters movement rate >and allowing a mix of movement and combat within the round. In >short I really like it an think it actualy de-complicates things. > >I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept >(which to me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our >group does combat, we head to the Its not a huge problem with and individual opponent, but the more opponents yhou have out there, the easier it is to lose track of the SR delay because of movement among varied opposition. From anders at california.com Fri Oct 19 08:10:22 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:10:22 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:46 +0200 (SAST) postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: [snip] Or maybe in the case of dwarves, > they have been stunted and made very strong by higher gravity compared to > earth. > Tony Nah, they evolved on Mars, and Earth gravity smushed 'em --Anders From anders at california.com Fri Oct 19 08:16:15 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:16:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Srtike Ranks In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:47:01 -0700 Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 06:59 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: > >SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it doesnt > make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time window. SRs to me > make things simple because you don't so much have the round any more; > actions cost time, the inate abilities of the characters modify their > effective action SR, weapon impact on combat is modeled by giving it an SR > modifier. It only makes sense to me that movement is captured by dividing > up a characters movement rate and allowing a mix of movement and combat > within the round. In short I really like it an think it actualy > de-complicates things. > > > >I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept (which to > me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our group does combat, we > head to the > > Its not a huge problem with and individual opponent, but the more opponents > yhou have out there, the easier it is to lose track of the SR delay because > of movement among varied opposition. > I point out that in RayQuest we dispense with them entirly, see the rules for Fire and Sword at my polyhedral.net site. --Anders From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Oct 19 17:32:14 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:32:14 +0100 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 17/10/2007 20:57:26: > As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them > entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, > where they are only used to determine initiative between two > fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try > to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think > about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases > (what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the > weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it > becomes far more trouble than it is worth. > > The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I > didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real > use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. > > Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for > initiative, or use RQ2's system. I oscillate between really liking SR as is (accepting that they model "enough" of the complexities of real combat to "taste right"), regarding it as all to much faff and just using DEX rank and some simple closing rules for reach (when I'm in a "life's too short!" mood, and / or channelling my fourteen year old self playing Stormbringer 1), and desperately wanting to find a simple tweak that will address the issue of timing speed and reach in the same system... One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. After statement of intent has determined which combatants are directly interacting, compare Reach SR's to determine who is at a disadvantage (has the highest Reach SR using standard RQIII numbers) and penalised the disadvantaged combatants Speed SR by the amount their Reach SR exceeded their opponents. So if Karl's Reach SR is 4 an d he's fighting Johan who's Reach is 2, Karl's Speed SR is penalised (raised) by 2... Not sure the numbers work though. Interestingly enough, I don't think know I'd be comfortable dropping back to the RQII system that divides more heavily between engaged and unengaged. Ah well, I'm about to start running Call of Cthulhu for the winter, so am swinging back in to "life's too short" mode anyway! :D 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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 20:07:48 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:07:48 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1497.196.8.104.27.1192788468.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > People in this discussion keep coming up with problems > which either should not be problems at all or are > easily remedied. > > Action ranks (Mythworld's term for this) do not > involve movement; that is a separate matter. However, > the other "problems" Steve mentions can and should be > covered in the stats for the weapons. > > Long weapons (pikes, for instance) have minimum as > well as maximum ranges. Get inside that minimum and > you are relatively safe - at least from that weapon - > shortswords and daggers are another matter. > > Weapons have their own AR. Heavy weapons are slower, > despite a generally heavier damage when they hit. > Therefore they have a higher AR than a light (and less > damaging) weapon of the same range. > > If all this is built into the rules and stats, it is > quite easy to handle. It is just when these details > are left out in the interest of "simplicity" (Greg > Stafford's argument for rejecting my rules for RQ3) > that things get complicated. > > Yeah, it is closer to RQ2, but then I have never > denied Mythworld's origin in my attempt to suggest > rules for the then in progress RQ3. I lost that > attempt and thus Mythworld was published. > > Someone once said that as long as only one person can > fit in a door at a time, then there must be some rule > of etiquite to determine who goes first. It is the > same with SR/AR. > > Paul Cardwell I always though RQ3 SR was lower the longer a weapon was (plus the bigger/faster the character), which is quite easy to understand IMO. Then if one gets close, the situation reverses itself, where the roman with the gladius suddenly has the advantage over teh macedonian with the long spear who must either fight at SR/attach disadvantage or drop spear and pull sword, thereby opening himself up to a free attack or two from his roman adversary. Then again this is from memory, so I may be off the mark in terms of the exact rules. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 20:09:15 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:09:15 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> Message-ID: <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > > Its not the movement; its remembering what individual movement _each > character did_. Remember, moving delayed strike rank, so if you had > a bunch of bandits who were hitting normally on strike rank 5, but > they moved different distances, it meant I had to remember one hit at > SR 7, 3 at SR 8, 5 at SR 9 and 1 at SR 10. This was a nuisance, to > say the least (honestly, I suspect I simply lost track more often than > not). > > Ah, I missed that. Oh well, in my game the players can be trusted to be honest (mostly anyway, ha ha) and sometimes actually correct me when I gm, so its not really a problem I have had to opout serious thought to. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 20:23:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:23:14 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <34864.196.8.104.27.1192789394.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Nah, they evolved on Mars, and Earth gravity smushed 'em > > --Anders > _______________________________________________ Or living under ground and breathing strong fumes like Ragin from the Edda/Walendrain Saga (SP?) stunted them. OR maybe the original dward was made as so from wearig the mea strong tarn helm (way before fadhmir got it). Damn, now i wanna go read some talkes of Sigifrith etc... From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 01:09:13 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:09:13 -0500 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710190809v60577b91vfcdd5617073095b4@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate > Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. I have this, have used it, and it basically works. I find that in multiple-assailant combats (something that RQ's never handled easily anyway) it really bogs everything down, to the point where the players just trust me to tell them who goes when without really understanding it - ie too complex. I'm going to fall back to something less simulationist, but more fun/quick/simple. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/1b41a5ed/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Sat Oct 20 01:12:46 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:12:46 +0100 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710190809v60577b91vfcdd5617073095b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 19/10/2007 16:09:13: > On 10/19/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate > Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. > > I have this, have used it, and it basically works.? I find that in > multiple-assailant combats (something that RQ's never handled easily > anyway) it really bogs everything down, to the point where the > players just trust me to tell them who goes when without really > understanding it - ie too complex. > > I'm going to fall back to something less simulationist, but more > fun/quick/simple. Hmm, rather reinforces the "life's too short!" instinct to just use DEX rank and some simple closing rules, much as Steve suggested. :D bet this comes up again next year though... 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 01:18:50 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:18:50 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> My problem with the SR system from the get-go was that there was entirely too much predictability. Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. If Joe and John are coming up against each other, and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but certainly? Every time? Should they both expect it as inevitable? Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of the system, where every trollkin aims for your head because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. Also never liked: - how it dealt with missile weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D. - the scales were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/8c577282/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 01:31:21 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:31:21 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other, and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but certainly? YES Every time? YES Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-) Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of the system, where every trollkin aims for your head because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules (that I've never liked) than SR-rules Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? Good point, but you could allways modify the table. Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22? _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/52c66fca/attachment.html From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Sat Oct 20 01:40:33 2007 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:40:33 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Craig Carter has left HSBC Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 19/10/2007 and will not return until 20/10/2017. ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 01:52:54 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry with dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a dagger stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is not permitted in your rules? Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda - the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing? Sure, a phalanx would certainly prevail over a mob with daggers, but if the dagger-wielding poloi also had slings and the mobility that comes with not having to move in formation, the result would be less "run away" and more run to encircle and the daggers would be used mainly as a coup de grace. Paul Cardwell --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other, > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but > certainly? > > YES > > Every time? > YES > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-) > > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a > penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. > > Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules > (that I've never liked) than SR-rules > Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile > weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something > with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number > couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? > > Good point, but you could allways modify the table. > Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 20 04:20:37 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:20:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Srtike Ranks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <434644.15418.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I've added a link to the http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/ in the link section of BRP Central. Are the rules on http://polyhedral.net are more current version, or are the rules the same on those two sites? SGL. Anders Swenson skrev: I point out that in RayQuest we dispense with them entirly, see the rules for Fire and Sword at my polyhedral.net site. --Anders -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/02f2507c/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Sat Oct 20 04:25:33 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:25:33 EDT Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: In a message dated 10/19/2007 12:32:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com writes: Ah well, I'm about to start running Call of Cthulhu for the winter, so am swinging back in to "life's too short" mode anyway! :D . . . Fortunately, in CoC, none of the PCs want to close with or engage anything anyways! :-) Devin ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/01c1e18f/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 04:44:41 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:44:41 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You critisize the illogic of the SR because the longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's how things are in real life. You could of course make a system that is not based on realism. You can of course parry/dodge and then attack with the dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you from doing that. In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped space, where spearmen are unable to use the advantage of better reach. So you may say that the SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking about. > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From: carpgachair at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the mobility that comes with not having> to move in formation, the result would be less "run> away" and more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used mainly as a coup de grace.> > Paul Cardwell> > > > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > > > NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other,> > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger,> > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but> > certainly?> > > > YES> > > > Every time? > > YES > > > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill> > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been> > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up> > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight> > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A> > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND> > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-)> > > > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of> > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head> > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the> > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a> > penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. > > > > Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules> > (that I've never liked) than SR-rules> > Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile> > weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was> > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales> > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of> > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC)> > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something> > with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number> > couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? > > > > Good point, but you could allways modify the table.> > Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22?> > > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/f9f52d85/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Oct 20 05:28:23 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It all depends on skill level. My martial arts instructor used to do demonstrations where he gave people long weapons (spears, staffs, swords, and even tested police offers who thought they had quick draws on their handguns) and all he had was a rubber training knife. >From across the room, he could close and stab them multiple times, without them being able to hit him. Larger weapons are slower to adjust, and a skilled, quick, fast moving opponent who has room to maneuver can outmaneuver, close and strike against a larger slower opponent/weapon. So a maybe we need a system of initiative that handles multiple range bands, where initiative is checked at each range and weapons should have a specific modifier for each range: grapple trapping punching&dagger kicking&shortsword long sword polearm that gives them an initiative bonus or penalty at a particular range. And entering or leaving each range zone would require a contested maneuver skill roll to see who wins the initiative at that range. If the smaller more skilled opponent wins the initiative when entering the longer weapons prime range zone, he can close to the next closest range instead of attacking, then another skill roll for initiative happens at the new range zone, using the weapons modifiers for that range. If he wins initiative at each range as he enters than he can keep closing until he can strike with his shorter weapon, if he ever looses initiative while closing the wielder of the long weapon strikes him and prevents closing. Greg --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's > how things are in real life. You could of course > make a system that is not based on realism. You can > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you > from doing that. > > In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to > strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE > SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields > and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped > space, where spearmen are unable to use the > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking > about. > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From: > carpgachair at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] > Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > How > interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with > dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with > dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger > stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not > permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining. > Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no > option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or > Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would > certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if > the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the > mobility that comes with not having> to move in > formation, the result would be less "run> away" and > more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used > mainly as a coup de grace.> > Paul Cardwell> > > > > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > > > NO > If Joe and John are coming up against each other,> > > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger,> > > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but> > > certainly?> > > > YES> > > > Every time? > > YES > > > > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill> > > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been> > > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up> > > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight> > > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A> > > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND> > > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-)> > > > > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of> > > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head> > > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) > the> > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't > that big a> > penalty when his to hit was only 20% > to start. > > > > Good point, but have more to do > with aiming-rules> > (that I've never liked) than > SR-rules> > Also never liked:- how it dealt with > missile> > weapons, I thought the effect of a high > dex was> > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- > the scales> > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR > to a floor of> > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something > with (again, IIRC)> > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at > like DEX22. So something> > with a Dex of 64 or > other ungodly high number> > couldn't react quicker > than a Dex 22 creature? > > > > Good point, but you > could allways modify the table.> > Allso: How many > creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22?> > > > __________________________________________________> > Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the > best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________> > RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _________________________________________________________________ > News, entertainment and everything you care about at > Live.com. Get it now! > http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 09:04:22 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:04:22 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Of course, but that have nothing to do with the strike rank system. That have to do with the dex of your instructor and the student's ability to hit with their weapon. If i give you a spear, doesn't mean that you'll automatically grasp the consept of a spear and use it to your advantage (and score a sucessful kill on a person having a dagger before he gets to try to kill you) You still have to know how to hit first with a longer reaching weapon, and have the skill to see it through. My little dispute here is on the claim that the SR-system giving an advantage to the weapon with the longest reach is unrealistic. I claim that it is not. It is still possible for your MA instructor or some other daggerdude to get to score a hit on me first, even if I have a weapon with longer range than him, but IMHO all those eventualities are in fact covered in the RQ3 system: A: he does before you: OK, a dagger have an sr of 3 and a sword have an sr of 2. Say your MA instructor is 2 better/bigger than me, that tops the sr advantage I have of my weapon, and he gets to kill me before I get the time to react. B: he parries and then kills you. =allready covered in the rules C: Its a lance vs a dagger in a narrow room, well, the tables are turned, and the spear-dude is in troubble = allready covered in the rules :) > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:28:23 -0700> From: grogthing at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > It all depends on skill level.> > My martial arts instructor used to do demonstrations> where he gave people long weapons (spears, staffs,> swords, and even tested police offers who thought they> had quick draws on their handguns) and all he had was> a rubber training knife.> > >From across the room, he could close and stab them> multiple times, without them being able to hit him.> > Larger weapons are slower to adjust, and a skilled,> quick, fast moving opponent who has room to maneuver> can outmaneuver, close and strike against a larger> slower opponent/weapon.> > So a maybe we need a system of initiative that handles> multiple range bands, where initiative is checked at> each range and weapons should have a specific modifier> for each range:> > grapple> trapping> punching&dagger> kicking&shortsword> long sword> polearm> > that gives them an initiative bonus or penalty at a> particular range. > > And entering or leaving each range zone would require> a contested maneuver skill roll to see who wins the> initiative at that range.> > If the smaller more skilled opponent wins the> initiative when entering the longer weapons prime> range zone, he can close to the next closest range> instead of attacking, then another skill roll for> initiative happens at the new range zone, using the> weapons modifiers for that range. If he wins> initiative at each range as he enters than he can keep> closing until he can strike with his shorter weapon,> if he ever looses initiative while closing the wielder> of the long weapon strikes him and prevents closing.> > Greg> > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the> > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's> > how things are in real life. You could of course> > make a system that is not based on realism. You can> > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the> > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you> > from doing that.> > > > In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to> > strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE> > SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields> > and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped> > space, where spearmen are unable to use the> > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the> > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot> > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA> > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking> > about.> > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From:> > carpgachair at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules]> > Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > How> > interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with> > dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with> > dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger> > stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not> > permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining.> > Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no> > option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or> > Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would> > certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if> > the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the> > mobility that comes with not having> to move in> > formation, the result would be less "run> away" and> > more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used> > mainly as a coup de grace.> > Paul Cardwell> > > >> > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> >> > > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > > > NO> > If Joe and John are coming up against each other,> >> > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger,> >> > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but> >> > certainly?> > > > YES> > > > Every time? > > YES > >> > > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill>> > > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been> >> > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up> >> > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight> >> > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A> >> > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND> >> > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-)> > > >> > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of> >> > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head>> > > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC)> > the> > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't> > that big a> > penalty when his to hit was only 20%> > to start. > > > > Good point, but have more to do> > with aiming-rules> > (that I've never liked) than> > SR-rules> > Also never liked:- how it dealt with> > missile> > weapons, I thought the effect of a high> > dex was> > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.-> > the scales> > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR> > to a floor of> > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something> > with (again, IIRC)> > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at> > like DEX22. So something> > with a Dex of 64 or> > other ungodly high number> > couldn't react quicker> > than a Dex 22 creature? > > > > Good point, but you> > could allways modify the table.> > Allso: How many> > creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22?> > >> > __________________________________________________>> > Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the> > best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com> > > _______________________________________________>> > RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com>> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> >> _________________________________________________________________> > News, entertainment and everything you care about at> > Live.com. Get it now!> > http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx>> _______________________________________________> > RQ-Rules mailing list> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> > > > > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every> form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson> > "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson> > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry> > "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/148e1a82/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 20 09:03:27 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:03:27 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Of course, but that have nothing to do with the strike rank system. That have to do with the dex of your instructor and the student's ability to hit with their weapon. If i give you a spear, doesn't mean that you'll automatically grasp the consept of a spear and use it to your advantage (and score a sucessful kill on a person having a dagger before he gets to try to kill you) You still have to know how to hit first with a longer reaching weapon, and have the skill to see it through. My little dispute here is on the claim that the SR-system giving an advantage to the weapon with the longest reach is unrealistic. I claim that it is not. It is still possible for your MA instructor or some other daggerdude to get to score a hit on me first, even if I have a weapon with longer range than him, but IMHO all those eventualities are in fact covered in the RQ3 system: A: he does before you: OK, a dagger have an sr of 3 and a sword have an sr of 2. Say your MA instructor is 2 better/bigger than me, that tops the sr advantage I have of my weapon, and he gets to kill me before I get the time to react. B: he parries and then kills you. =allready covered in the rules C: Its a lance vs a dagger in a narrow room, well, the tables are turned, and the spear-dude is in troubble = allready covered in the rules :) > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:28:23 -0700> From: grogthing at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > It all depends on skill level.> > My martial arts instructor used to do demonstrations> where he gave people long weapons (spears, staffs,> swords, and even tested police offers who thought they> had quick draws on their handguns) and all he had was> a rubber training knife.> > >From across the room, he could close and stab them> multiple times, without them being able to hit him.> > Larger weapons are slower to adjust, and a skilled,> quick, fast moving opponent who has room to maneuver> can outmaneuver, close and strike against a larger> slower opponent/weapon.> > So a maybe we need a system of initiative that handles> multiple range bands, where initiative is checked at> each range and weapons should have a specific modifier> for each range:> > grapple> trapping> punching&dagger> kicking&shortsword> long sword> polearm> > that gives them an initiative bonus or penalty at a> particular range. > > And entering or leaving each range zone would require> a contested maneuver skill roll to see who wins the> initiative at that range.> > If the smaller more skilled opponent wins the> initiative when entering the longer weapons prime> range zone, he can close to the next closest range> instead of attacking, then another skill roll for> initiative happens at the new range zone, using the> weapons modifiers for that range. If he wins> initiative at each range as he enters than he can keep> closing until he can strike with his shorter weapon,> if he ever looses initiative while closing the wielder> of the long weapon strikes him and prevents closing.> > Greg> > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the> > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's> > how things are in real life. You could of course> > make a system that is not based on realism. You can> > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the> > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you> > from doing that.> > > > In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to> > strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE> > SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields> > and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped> > space, where spearmen are unable to use the> > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the> > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot> > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA> > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking> > about.> > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From:> > carpgachair at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules]> > Thanks!> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > How> > interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with> > dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with> > dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger> > stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not> > permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining.> > Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no> > option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or> > Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would> > certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if> > the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the> > mobility that comes with not having> to move in> > formation, the result would be less "run> away" and> > more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used> > mainly as a coup de grace.> > Paul Cardwell> > > >> > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> >> > > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > > > NO> > If Joe and John are coming up against each other,> >> > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger,> >> > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but> >> > certainly?> > > > YES> > > > Every time? > > YES > >> > > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill>> > > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been> >> > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up> >> > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight> >> > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A> >> > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND> >> > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-)> > > >> > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of> >> > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head>> > > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC)> > the> > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't> > that big a> > penalty when his to hit was only 20%> > to start. > > > > Good point, but have more to do> > with aiming-rules> > (that I've never liked) than> > SR-rules> > Also never liked:- how it dealt with> > missile> > weapons, I thought the effect of a high> > dex was> > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.-> > the scales> > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR> > to a floor of> > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something> > with (again, IIRC)> > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at> > like DEX22. So something> > with a Dex of 64 or> > other ungodly high number> > couldn't react quicker> > than a Dex 22 creature? > > > > Good point, but you> > could allways modify the table.> > Allso: How many> > creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22?> > >> > __________________________________________________>> > Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the> > best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com> > > _______________________________________________>> > RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com>> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> >> _________________________________________________________________> > News, entertainment and everything you care about at> > Live.com. Get it now!> > http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx>> _______________________________________________> > RQ-Rules mailing list> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> > > > > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every> form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson> > "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson> > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry> > "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/b11ea248/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sat Oct 20 10:59:27 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:59:27 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org > References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019175900.0344cae0@caprica.com> At 03:09 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > Its not the movement; its remembering what individual movement _each > > character did_. Remember, moving delayed strike rank, so if you had > > a bunch of bandits who were hitting normally on strike rank 5, but > > they moved different distances, it meant I had to remember one hit at > > SR 7, 3 at SR 8, 5 at SR 9 and 1 at SR 10. This was a nuisance, to > > say the least (honestly, I suspect I simply lost track more often than > > not). > > > > >Ah, I missed that. Oh well, in my game the players can be trusted to be >honest (mostly anyway, ha ha) and sometimes actually correct me when I gm, >so its not really a problem I have had to opout serious thought to. It wasn't like mine were going to be clearer on it than I was, since they were focused on their own character's mechanics. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Oct 20 11:02:53 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:02:53 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com > References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019180052.0345dda0@caprica.com> At 08:18 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote: >My problem with the SR system from the get-go was that there was >entirely too much predictability. > >Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. If Joe and John are coming >up against each other, and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a >dagger, yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but >certainly? Every time? Should they both expect it as inevitable? Any solution to this has, IME, way too much time overhead on it; I've never found roll-each-round initiative systems worth any theoretical increase in realism. - how it dealt with missile weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D. I don't think the, at best, 3/2 rounds fire was all that excessive. >- the scales were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of 0), >so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) 'bottomed out' with >a 0 at like DEX22. So something with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly >high number couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? Having seen the consequence of systems that permitted unlimited increase in initiative modifiers, I'd call that distinctly the lesser of two evils. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Oct 20 11:04:35 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:04:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019180340.03474f30@caprica.com> At 08:52 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote: >How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry >with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry If anything, RQ is too generous to someone parrying a serious slashing weapon with a dagger. Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda - >the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is >this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing? Oh, please. Less drama. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Oct 21 01:07:10 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019180340.03474f30@caprica.com> Message-ID: <229967.75387.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 08:52 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote: > >How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry > >with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry > > If anything, RQ is too generous to someone parrying > a serious > slashing weapon with a dagger. That is why there is a tsuba on a tanto. > Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda - > >the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is > >this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing? > > Oh, please. Less drama. I thought RPG was about drama. Or is yours one endless boring hack'n'slash? Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shaw at caprica.com Sun Oct 21 03:04:14 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <229967.75387.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019180340.03474f30@caprica.com> <229967.75387.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071020100301.033e6338@caprica.com> At 08:07 AM 10/20/2007, you wrote: >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > At 08:52 AM 10/19/2007, you wrote: > > >How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry > > >with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry > > > > If anything, RQ is too generous to someone parrying > > a serious > > slashing weapon with a dagger. > > >That is why there is a tsuba on a tanto. Even with a swordcatcher its not that easy a trick, and most daggers don't have a swordcatcher attached. And that's not dealing with the joys of parrying a heavier one like an axe or a smashing weapon. > > Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda - > > >the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is > > >this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing? > > > > Oh, please. Less drama. > > >I thought RPG was about drama. Or is yours one >endless boring hack'n'slash? Personal drama. As this illustrates, too. From styopa1 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 03:20:00 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:20:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the longsword gets to act > first. Sorry, mac, but that's how things are in real life. You could of > course make a system that is not based on realism. You can of course > parry/dodge and then attack with the dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system > prevents you from doing that. > > In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS > ALLSO COVERED IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields and > short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped space, where spearmen are > unable to use the advantage of better reach. So you may say that the SR > rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot say that they're not > realistic.I've been doing WMA for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm > talking about. > Not sure why you seem to be quite so "worked up" over this. 1) It's covered in the SR system, albeit POORLY. The rules only state that once a shorter-weaponed character closes with a longer-weaponed character, the shorter-weaponed character gets to "strike first, regardless of SR". Well THAT'S vague in ANY situation other than the simplest one:one combat - if the daggerman has closed with the pikeman, and the other pikeman wants to help his buddy, who goes first - the distant pikeman or the daggerman? The other pikeman has a lower SR than the daggerman, but the daggerman gets to go before his target regardless of SR - when does the dagger land? 2) my main beef, which I presented admittedly poorly, is the absolute predictability of combat. That's why I prefer a semi randomized result, because I don't like my players saying things like "I have a melee SR of 4 and his is 7, I know that 100% I'll be able to move 6m and STILL swing before him". I've only been in HTH combat perhaps a dozen times in my life, and only thrice where I believed my life was seriously on the line (and only one of those with multiple combatants on both sides which would be the most frequent situation in RQ combat in my experience). It was ANYTHING but mechanistic, and if you've been doing WMA for 5 years I'd imagine you'd agree. The more I think about it, I'd also consider strongly a benefit to SR based on user skill ... which goes to my point regarding the wrong-scaledness of the SR system...the fact that after a certain point, one can be certain that there is NOBODY in the world faster with weapon X. Again, I dislike such system-enforced certainty in the minds of my players. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071020/b0124053/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 12:37:04 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:37:04 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <229967.75387.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071019180340.03474f30@caprica.com> <229967.75387.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda -> > >the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is> > >this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing?> > > > Oh, please. Less drama.> > > I thought RPG was about drama. Or is yours one> endless boring hack'n'slash?> > Paul Cardwell Feel free to skip the sr-system bevause you feel it crashes with drama! Just don't claim it's unrealistic -because it isn't. I have no problems playing roleplay-systems that empahtises drama and hong-kong-cinematic-combat-manga-duel-master-dragon-ball-systems. I just don't buy the claim that the sr-system is UNREALISTIC. _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071021/103acc11/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sun Oct 21 12:56:23 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:56:23 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If I seem worked up, it's perhaps because this is a topic I actually have an oppinion on. Sue me if that displeases you. Let's take your situation 1, can you name any roleplaygame that solves this situation realitically? -or mentions it in particular? I've never played one as far as I know. I still think that the original system would cover it. I''ve been fighting in lines, and somthing that often occurs, is that someone with a short weapon gets stabbed by a speardude that is situated next to the one that the stabbed one tries to spearhunt. If the neighbouring speardude is too far away, or is entangled in a fight of his own, the story might be different, but IMHO, the stanard RQ3 rules covers it reasonably as far as realism is conserned. Your example 2 seems to show a different understanding of the consept of sr and reach of weapons. You don't like the predictability of a long weapon acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, the system only grants the weapon with the longest reach the option of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee that it actually will do so. That is up to the skill of the wielder of the weapon (and his dex and siz sr) Take an ectreeme example: Say you stand in a street with an M16 rifle. 100 yards away, some arabic fanatic starts charging you with his dagger. You get to shoot several times at him before he's at striking-distance, because an M16 have longer reach (and lower SR) than a dagger (sr3) but that doesn't mean that you'll automatically kill him. You still have to actually hit him. It's the same in melee, only with smaller margins of error. If you and I were to fight, had similar body stats, and you were unarmed and I had a spear, i still had to plug you with the spear in order to end the fight. But if we leave skill%'s aside and only regards SR (reach) -don't tell me that your fist would be on my nose earlier than my spearhead would be in your guts. Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:20:00 -0500From: styopa1 at gmail.comTo: rq-rules at crashbox.comSubject: Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!On 10/19/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: You critisize the illogic of the SR because the longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's how things are in real life. You could of course make a system that is not based on realism. You can of course parry/dodge and then attack with the dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you from doing that. In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped space, where spearmen are unable to use the advantage of better reach. So you may say that the SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I'm not sure if I understand your last point, but I think it's importaint that both GM and player(s) understands what is meant with a low sr-weapon. A halebard have a low sr, but that doesn't mean that it is a lightening weapon capable of allways hitting first on default; it depends on the wielder's ability to actually use it the way it's meant. If it's used wrongly, you'll loose the first hit-ability (perhaps that's why the base skill of a halebard is only 5%; an attempt to balance out it's high damage pool and low sr? -still realistic IMHO (and I've been fighting with halebards too; not in the USA'an SCA-system, but in the european Haerkamp-system.)Not sure why you seem to be quite so "worked up" over this.1) It's covered in the SR system, albeit POORLY. The rules only state that once a shorter-weaponed character closes with a longer-weaponed character, the shorter-weaponed character gets to "strike first, regardless of SR". Well THAT'S vague in ANY situation other than the simplest one:one combat - if the daggerman has closed with the pikeman, and the other pikeman wants to help his buddy, who goes first - the distant pikeman or the daggerman? The other pikeman has a lower SR than the daggerman, but the daggerman gets to go before his target regardless of SR - when does the dagger land? 2) my main beef, which I presented admittedly poorly, is the absolute predictability of combat. That's why I prefer a semi randomized result, because I don't like my players saying things like "I have a melee SR of 4 and his is 7, I know that 100% I'll be able to move 6m and STILL swing before him". I've only been in HTH combat perhaps a dozen times in my life, and only thrice where I believed my life was seriously on the line (and only one of those with multiple combatants on both sides which would be the most frequent situation in RQ combat in my experience). It was ANYTHING but mechanistic, and if you've been doing WMA for 5 years I'd imagine you'd agree. The more I think about it, I'd also consider strongly a benefit to SR based on user skill ... which goes to my point regarding the wrong-scaledness of the SR system...the fact that after a certain point, one can be certain that there is NOBODY in the world faster with weapon X. Again, I dislike such system-enforced certainty in the minds of my players. _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071021/e9d1c926/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Mon Oct 22 01:28:15 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <497130.84356.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I still say that skil rates higher in the equasion than weapon size. The weapon does modify the percentages at certian distances. Why not a sr system where higher is better....sr equals skill with weapon....skill is already midified by dex so dex is accounted for....then a % bonus or penalty for the weapon based on what range you are at?....then add a d6? randomizer for situation and whala....a realistic system where the most skilled opponant with the logest weapon generally does stike first....but a highly skilled opponent with a shorted weapon..can get past a less skilled opponent with a longer weapon. Greg --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > If I seem worked up, it's perhaps because this is a > topic I actually have an oppinion on. Sue me if that > displeases you. > Let's take your situation 1, can you name any > roleplaygame that solves this situation > realitically? -or mentions it in particular? I've > never played one as far as I know. I still think > that the original system would cover it. I''ve been > fighting in lines, and somthing that often occurs, > is that someone with a short weapon gets stabbed by > a speardude that is situated next to the one that > the stabbed one tries to spearhunt. If the > neighbouring speardude is too far away, or is > entangled in a fight of his own, the story might be > different, but IMHO, the stanard RQ3 rules covers it > reasonably as far as realism is conserned. > Your example 2 seems to show a different > understanding of the consept of sr and reach of > weapons. You don't like the predictability of a long > weapon acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, the system > only grants the weapon with the longest reach the > option of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee > that it actually will do so. That is up to the skill > of the wielder of the weapon (and his dex and siz > sr) Take an ectreeme example: Say you stand in a > street with an M16 rifle. 100 yards away, some > arabic fanatic starts charging you with his dagger. > You get to shoot several times at him before he's at > striking-distance, because an M16 have longer reach > (and lower SR) than a dagger (sr3) but that doesn't > mean that you'll automatically kill him. You still > have to actually hit him. It's the same in melee, > only with smaller margins of error. If you and I > were to fight, had similar body stats, and you were > unarmed and I had a spear, i still had to plug you > with the spear in order to end the fight. But if we > leave skill%'s aside and only regards SR (reach) > -don't tell me that your fist would be on my nose > earlier than my spearhead would be in your guts. > > > Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:20:00 -0500From: > styopa1 at gmail.comTo: rq-rules at crashbox.comSubject: > Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!On 10/19/07, Bjorn Stolen > wrote: > > > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's > how things are in real life. You could of course > make a system that is not based on realism. You can > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you > from doing that. In some circomstanses the shorter > weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED > IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge > shields and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very > cramped space, where spearmen are unable to use the > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking > about. > > I'm not sure if I understand your last point, but I > think it's importaint that both GM and player(s) > understands what is meant with a low sr-weapon. A > halebard have a low sr, but that doesn't mean that > it is a lightening weapon capable of allways hitting > first on default; it depends on the wielder's > ability to actually use it the way it's meant. If > it's used wrongly, you'll loose the first > hit-ability (perhaps that's why the base skill of a > halebard is only 5%; an attempt to balance out it's > high damage pool and low sr? -still realistic IMHO > (and I've been fighting with halebards too; not in > the USA'an SCA-system, but in the european > Haerkamp-system.)Not sure why you seem to be quite > so "worked up" over this.1) It's covered in the SR > system, albeit POORLY. The rules only state that > once a shorter-weaponed character closes with a > longer-weaponed character, the shorter-weaponed > character gets to "strike first, regardless of SR". > Well THAT'S vague in ANY situation other than the > simplest one:one combat - if the daggerman has > closed with the pikeman, and the other pikeman wants > to help his buddy, who goes first - the distant > pikeman or the daggerman? The other pikeman has a > lower SR than the daggerman, but the daggerman gets > to go before his target regardless of SR - when does > the dagger land? 2) my main beef, which I presented > admittedly poorly, is the absolute predictability of > combat. That's why I prefer a semi randomized > result, because I don't like my players saying > things like "I have a melee SR of 4 and his is 7, I > know that 100% I'll be able to move 6m and STILL > swing before him". I've only been in HTH combat > perhaps a dozen times in my life, and only thrice > where I believed my life was seriously on the line > (and only one of those with multiple combatants on > both sides which would be the most frequent > situation in RQ combat in my experience). It was > ANYTHING but mechanistic, and if you've been doing > WMA for 5 years I'd imagine you'd agree. The more I > think about it, I'd also consider strongly a benefit > to SR based on user skill ... which goes to my point > regarding the wrong-scaledness of the SR > system...the fact that after a certain point, one > can be certain that there is NOBODY in the world > faster with weapon X. Again, I dislike such > system-enforced certainty in the minds of my > players. > _________________________________________________________________ > Discover the new Windows Vista > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 22 03:07:11 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:07:11 +0000 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <497130.84356.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <497130.84356.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > I still say that skil rates higher in the equasion> than weapon size.> Yep, I've allso said that. The SR system is only one factor in the RQ3 combat system, and if you have only 5% in halebard, you're probably going to find yourself attached to the pointy end of a dagger (provided that the daggerdude have more than 5% in dagger) This is the nice thing with roleplaygames and the rules. One can modify and alter them to make them fit oneself. It's a little ironic perhaps that allthough I've been argumenting why the rq3 sr system is realistic on my last posts, while I actually don't use that system myself... -But that is for other reasons, and have nothing to do with the SR-system itself. > The weapon does modify the percentages at certian> distances.> > Why not a sr system where higher is better....sr> equals skill with weapon....skill is already midified> by dex so dex is accounted for....then a % bonus or> penalty for the weapon based on what range you are> at?....then add a d6? randomizer for situation and> whala....a realistic system where the most skilled> opponant with the logest weapon generally does stike> first....but a highly skilled opponent with a shorted> weapon..can get past a less skilled opponent with a> longer weapon.> > Greg> > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > If I seem worked up, it's perhaps because this is a> > topic I actually have an oppinion on. Sue me if that> > displeases you.> > Let's take your situation 1, can you name any> > roleplaygame that solves this situation> > realitically? -or mentions it in particular? I've> > never played one as far as I know. I still think> > that the original system would cover it. I''ve been> > fighting in lines, and somthing that often occurs,> > is that someone with a short weapon gets stabbed by> > a speardude that is situated next to the one that> > the stabbed one tries to spearhunt. If the> > neighbouring speardude is too far away, or is> > entangled in a fight of his own, the story might be> > different, but IMHO, the stanard RQ3 rules covers it> > reasonably as far as realism is conserned.> > Your example 2 seems to show a different> > understanding of the consept of sr and reach of> > weapons. You don't like the predictability of a long> > weapon acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, the system> > only grants the weapon with the longest reach the> > option of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee> > that it actually will do so. That is up to the skill> > of the wielder of the weapon (and his dex and siz> > sr) Take an ectreeme example: Say you stand in a> > street with an M16 rifle. 100 yards away, some> > arabic fanatic starts charging you with his dagger.> > You get to shoot several times at him before he's at> > striking-distance, because an M16 have longer reach> > (and lower SR) than a dagger (sr3) but that doesn't> > mean that you'll automatically kill him. You still> > have to actually hit him. It's the same in melee,> > only with smaller margins of error. If you and I> > were to fight, had similar body stats, and you were> > unarmed and I had a spear, i still had to plug you> > with the spear in order to end the fight. But if we> > leave skill%'s aside and only regards SR (reach)> > -don't tell me that your fist would be on my nose> > earlier than my spearhead would be in your guts.> > > > > > Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:20:00 -0500From:> > styopa1 at gmail.comTo: rq-rules at crashbox.comSubject:> > Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!On 10/19/07, Bjorn Stolen> > wrote:> > > > > > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the> > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's> > how things are in real life. You could of course> > make a system that is not based on realism. You can> > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the> > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you> > from doing that. In some circomstanses the shorter> > weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED> > IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge> > shields and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very> > cramped space, where spearmen are unable to use the> > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the> > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot> > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA> > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking> > about.> > > > I'm not sure if I understand your last point, but I> > think it's importaint that both GM and player(s)> > understands what is meant with a low sr-weapon. A> > halebard have a low sr, but that doesn't mean that> > it is a lightening weapon capable of allways hitting> > first on default; it depends on the wielder's> > ability to actually use it the way it's meant. If> > it's used wrongly, you'll loose the first> > hit-ability (perhaps that's why the base skill of a> > halebard is only 5%; an attempt to balance out it's> > high damage pool and low sr? -still realistic IMHO> > (and I've been fighting with halebards too; not in> > the USA'an SCA-system, but in the european> > Haerkamp-system.)Not sure why you seem to be quite> > so "worked up" over this.1) It's covered in the SR> > system, albeit POORLY. The rules only state that> > once a shorter-weaponed character closes with a> > longer-weaponed character, the shorter-weaponed> > character gets to "strike first, regardless of SR". > > Well THAT'S vague in ANY situation other than the> > simplest one:one combat - if the daggerman has> > closed with the pikeman, and the other pikeman wants> > to help his buddy, who goes first - the distant> > pikeman or the daggerman? The other pikeman has a> > lower SR than the daggerman, but the daggerman gets> > to go before his target regardless of SR - when does> > the dagger land? 2) my main beef, which I presented> > admittedly poorly, is the absolute predictability of> > combat. That's why I prefer a semi randomized> > result, because I don't like my players saying> > things like "I have a melee SR of 4 and his is 7, I> > know that 100% I'll be able to move 6m and STILL> > swing before him". I've only been in HTH combat> > perhaps a dozen times in my life, and only thrice> > where I believed my life was seriously on the line> > (and only one of those with multiple combatants on> > both sides which would be the most frequent> > situation in RQ combat in my experience). It was> > ANYTHING but mechanistic, and if you've been doing> > WMA for 5 years I'd imagine you'd agree. The more I> > think about it, I'd also consider strongly a benefit> > to SR based on user skill ... which goes to my point> > regarding the wrong-scaledness of the SR> > system...the fact that after a certain point, one> > can be certain that there is NOBODY in the world> > faster with weapon X. Again, I dislike such> > system-enforced certainty in the minds of my> > players. > >> _________________________________________________________________> > Discover the new Windows Vista> >> http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>> _______________________________________________> > RQ-Rules mailing list> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> > > > > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every> form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson> > "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson> > "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry> > "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071021/5438ecf8/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 12:35:22 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:35:22 +0800 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <497130.84356.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400710211935m1470c023g836e32c875f7086@mail.gmail.com> On 22/10/2007, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > I still say that skil rates higher in the equasion > > than weapon size. > > > Yep, I've allso said that. The SR system is only one factor in the RQ3 > combat system, and if you have only 5% in halebard, you're probably > going to find yourself attached to the pointy end of a dagger (provided > that the dagger dude have more than 5% in dagger) Or you could just handwave the fact that the halberd guy misses 95% of the time is due to the skill of the dagger dude getting inside his reach... I find it more than slightly amusing that a thread that began because SRs were too complex is evolving into a replacement that is MORE complex... -- GAZZA From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:57:00 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:57:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/20/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > Your example 2 seems to show a different understanding of the consept of > sr and reach of weapons. You don't like the predictability of a long weapon > acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, the system only grants the weapon with > the longest reach the option of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee > that it actually will do so. > You keep quibbling at examples, but keep circling my main point: the predictability of SR. As I said, my personal life-experience with fights that aren't carefully staged athletic contests informs me that fighting is if ANYTHING unpredictable. Hell, that's one of the reasons RQ combat attracted me in the first place; RQ offered a combat system where yes, when someone pointed a cocked crossbow from 10', even a skilled, veteran warrior might pause a moment. But to KNOW that in a melee between combatants X vs. Y that in every round, X isn't going until SR7 and Y isn't going until 9 thus every player knows with absolute certainty that X is absolutely safe from harm then until SR 9 of every single round? Joe Healer behind X doesn't have to rush his healing spell because he KNOWS will have an ample 8 SR to get it off before Y even has a chance to swing? I find that level of linear predictability ridiculous and yes, patently UNrealistic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071022/79441615/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Oct 23 02:27:55 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:27:55 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.co m> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071022092637.033e3ec0@caprica.com> At 07:57 AM 10/22/2007, you wrote: >On 10/20/07, Bjorn Stolen ><stolenbjorn at hotmail.com> wrote: >Your example 2 seems to show a different understanding of the >consept of sr and reach of weapons. You don't like the >predictability of a long weapon acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, >the system only grants the weapon with the longest reach the option >of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee that it actually will do so. > > >You keep quibbling at examples, but keep circling my main point: the >predictability of SR. What you haven't explained is why it matters that much whether its predictable or not. Its not like knowing whether you're going to hit first or second allows you some grand tactical advantage; _doing_ so can, but that's true whether its predictable or not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071022/7edabfc8/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 05:03:29 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:03:29 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not circling your main point, I'm trying to explain why I think the predictability of SR is realistic. I'm sorry if my attempts at showing my arguments is interpreted as cirling of main points. You say that fights are unpredictable; yes they are. You say that it's realistic that a cocked crossbow will act before a daggerdude on 10 yards range, and that we agree on. So far we agree, and everything is fine. Your last example of mr.X doing on sr7 and mr.Y doing on 9 is flawed IMO. If both have a melee sr of-say 6, and mr.X have a spear and mr.Y have a dagger, well, then it is both predictable and realistic that mr.X INITIALLY have an advantage. That beeing said, it doesn't at all mean that he automatically will go first. Let me try to explain why I think it is logical without you claiming that I'm "quibbling" (whatever that means). Say both mrX and mrY have basic knowledge of their weapons. Where would the fight start? If it's a barfight, the spear is probably stored in the hallway, and the daggerdude have all advantages and will act first. If it's an ambush, I would as a GM consider letting the daggerdude act first, if it was a well staged ambush. But if both parties are prepared and knows what they're doing, the opponents would start of at -say 4 meters range, weapons ready. On round one, the speardude have two options; acting passively and waiting to strike until the daggerdude gets in range (say the killzone for the spear starts out at 2 meters), or he acts actively, closes to 2 meters range and starts to feint and overwhelm the daggerdude. In either case, the speardude WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF ATTEMPTING TO ACT FIRST. If you don't agree on this, pleace try to explain to me. If mrY have a melee-SR of 4 and the highest DEX, he could actually be able to do before the spear, as he's so agile that he'll be able to outfeint mr X! Anyways, you call for unpredictability, that's where the skill-rolls comes into play. Let's return to our fight. I've allready explained mr.X's options, what about mr.Y? He have really one option, and that is to parry/dodge (get past the speartip), then end the fight at his weapons killlingrange, which starts out at roughly 1 meter. This is exactly what the RQ3 rules describes, and here's where unpredictability comes into play. You might want things even more unpredictable, and I'm OK with that, but you're miles away from convinsing me that the original RQ3-SR-rules are unrealistic, sorry. Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:57:00 -0500From: styopa1 at gmail.comTo: rq-rules at crashbox.comSubject: Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!On 10/20/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: Your example 2 seems to show a different understanding of the consept of sr and reach of weapons. You don't like the predictability of a long weapon acting before a slow weapon. IMHO, the system only grants the weapon with the longest reach the option of acting first; it's by no means a guarantee that it actually will do so. You keep quibbling at examples, but keep circling my main point: the predictability of SR.As I said, my personal life-experience with fights that aren't carefully staged athletic contests informs me that fighting is if ANYTHING unpredictable. Hell, that's one of the reasons RQ combat attracted me in the first place; RQ offered a combat system where yes, when someone pointed a cocked crossbow from 10', even a skilled, veteran warrior might pause a moment. But to KNOW that in a melee between combatants X vs. Y that in every round, X isn't going until SR7 and Y isn't going until 9 thus every player knows with absolute certainty that X is absolutely safe from harm then until SR 9 of every single round? Joe Healer behind X doesn't have to rush his healing spell because he KNOWS will have an ample 8 SR to get it off before Y even has a chance to swing? I find that level of linear predictability ridiculous and yes, patently UNrealistic. _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071022/9b9286f4/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Oct 23 17:06:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:06:14 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > You keep quibbling at examples, but keep circling my main point: the > predictability of SR. > > As I said, my personal life-experience with fights that aren't carefully > staged athletic contests informs me that fighting is if ANYTHING > unpredictable. Hell, that's one of the reasons RQ combat attracted me in > the first place; RQ offered a combat system where yes, when someone > pointed > a cocked crossbow from 10', even a skilled, veteran warrior might pause a > moment. > Hmm, thats something I often forget to keep in my ead when I GM combat. Unpredictabbility that is. Sure the rules allow for some funnies, but just to remember to make a lad make the odd DEX check when he steps in a rabbit hole, or trips over a rock. (Of course if combat is in the palace throne room thats not a factor, but there are still dias steps, tapestries which could be torn down etc). Hmm, one could go movie style and have the obligatory fire (Ah ha, dropped oil lamp table has a use!! hoody hoo:) Maybe I will whip up a wee optional table for my group - I like tables, act as nice reminders for me anyway. Something like: Underground, Rough Terrain, Field, City, Indoors. Then a list of possibilities for each, using the above: Bats fly by, Trip over rocks, Step in rabbit hole, Slip in effluent, Oil lamp knocked onto rushes. Anyway, thanks for this reminder, will be sure to use it this saturday when I GM. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Oct 23 17:20:09 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:20:09 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian Message-ID: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and what RQII did etc but here goes: In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda like the Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing to. Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one area, you are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. Anyway, just wonderwed what other people would consider here? It also comes down to my game world, which many people play barbarians from that area and, je well no fine, Nomad and Primitive cultures are a bit more restrictive in terms of occupations available. Tony From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 17:15:28 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:15:28 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: You could of course do that, but isn't theese things allready covered by the "fumbles" table? But if one feels that the combats are too predictable, one could of course add the actual handeling of the weapon as well as the skill in fighting with it. I've been using the HK G3-rifle for 3 years in the army, and became pretty well at it, if I dare say so, but I still managed to do the silliest thing with it on occations, like not slamming the mag proparly in, so it fell off after first shot, making the bullet jam in the chamber, etc. :) > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:06:14 +0200> From: postmaster at runequest.za.org> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR> > > > You keep quibbling at examples, but keep circling my main point: the> > predictability of SR.> >> > As I said, my personal life-experience with fights that aren't carefully> > staged athletic contests informs me that fighting is if ANYTHING> > unpredictable. Hell, that's one of the reasons RQ combat attracted me in> > the first place; RQ offered a combat system where yes, when someone> > pointed> > a cocked crossbow from 10', even a skilled, veteran warrior might pause a> > moment.> > > > Hmm, thats something I often forget to keep in my ead when I GM combat.> Unpredictabbility that is. Sure the rules allow for some funnies, but just> to remember to make a lad make the odd DEX check when he steps in a> rabbit hole, or trips over a rock. (Of course if combat is in the palace> throne room thats not a factor, but there are still dias steps, tapestries> which could be torn down etc). Hmm, one could go movie style and have the> obligatory fire (Ah ha, dropped oil lamp table has a use!! hoody hoo:)> > Maybe I will whip up a wee optional table for my group - I like tables,> act as nice reminders for me anyway. Something like:> > Underground, Rough Terrain, Field, City, Indoors. Then a list of> possibilities for each, using the above:> > Bats fly by, Trip over rocks, Step in rabbit hole, Slip in effluent, Oil> lamp knocked onto rushes.> Anyway, thanks for this reminder, will be sure to use it this saturday> when I GM.> Tony> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071023/4588c14f/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Oct 23 19:14:46 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:14:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <000901c81555$282ed360$0201a8c0@laptop2> If the players would have more fun calling themselves 'nomads' than 'barbarians', then that would be the selling point for me. -- 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: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:20 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and what RQII did etc but here goes: In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda like the Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing to. Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one area, you are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. Anyway, just wonderwed what other people would consider here? It also comes down to my game world, which many people play barbarians from that area and, je well no fine, Nomad and Primitive cultures are a bit more restrictive in terms of occupations available. Tony _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Tue Oct 23 21:54:16 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:54:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <1C98DE8E-DFDE-418A-8881-07537AA2BA2A@comcast.net> On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:20 AM, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or > not and > what RQII did etc but here goes: > > In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, > they do > tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does > that > make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda > like the > Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing > to. > Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one > area, you > are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. I agree with them, especially in terms of RQ3. I don't know that RQII is different with those terms. Romans frequently called the nomads "barbarian" but the Romans didn't write RQ. > Anyway, just wonderwed > what other people would consider here? It also comes down to my game > world, which many people play barbarians from that area and, je > well no > fine, Nomad and Primitive cultures are a bit more restrictive in > terms of > occupations available. > Tony From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 22:39:41 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:39:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> On 10/22/07, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > I'm not circling your main point, I'm trying to explain why I think the > predictability of SR is realistic. I'm sorry if my attempts at showing my > arguments is interpreted as cirling of main points. > > You say that fights are unpredictable; yes they are. > You say that it's realistic that a cocked crossbow will act before a > daggerdude on 10 yards range, and that we agree on. > So far we agree, and everything is fine. > Your last example of mr.X doing on sr7 and mr.Y doing on 9 is flawed IMO. > If both have a melee sr of-say 6, and mr.X have a spear and mr.Y have a > dagger, well, then it is both predictable and realistic that mr.XINITIALLY have an advantage. That beeing said, it doesn't at all mean that > he automatically will go first. Let me try to explain why I think it is > logical without you claiming that I'm "quibbling" (whatever that means). > > Say both mrX and mrY have basic knowledge of their weapons. Where would > the fight start? If it's a barfight, the spear is probably stored in the > hallway, and the daggerdude have all advantages and will act first. If it's > an ambush, I would as a GM consider letting the daggerdude act first, if it > was a well staged ambush. But if both parties are prepared and knows what > they're doing, the opponents would start of at -say 4 meters range, weapons > ready. On round one, the speardude have two options; acting passively and > waiting to strike until the daggerdude gets in range (say the killzone for > the spear starts out at 2 meters), or he acts actively, closes to 2 meters > range and starts to feint and overwhelm the daggerdude. In either case, the > speardude WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF ATTEMPTING TO ACT FIRST. If you don't > agree on this, pleace try to explain to me. If mrY have a melee-SR of 4 and > the highest DEX, he could actually be able to do before the spear, as he's > so agile that he'll be able to outfeint mr X! > > Anyways, you call for unpredictability, that's where the skill-rolls comes > into play. Let's return to our fight. I've allready explained mr.X's > options, what about mr.Y? > > He have really one option, and that is to parry/dodge (get past the > speartip), then end the fight at his weapons killlingrange, which starts out > at roughly 1 meter. This is exactly what the RQ3 rules describes, and here's > where unpredictability comes into play. You might want things even more > unpredictable, and I'm OK with that, but you're miles away from convinsing > me that the original RQ3-SR-rules are unrealistic, sorry. > Please, let me help you. http://www.yourdictionary.com/quibble quib?ble (kwib*?*?l) noun 1. Obsolete a play on words; pun 2. an evasion of the main point as by emphasizing some petty detail; cavil 3. a petty objection or criticism I'm referring to meaning 2 or 3, take your pick. Your example is pointlessly chaotic. Very simple: two guys with melee weapons, within melee striking range. Assuming NOTHING but that they stand there and whack at each other. We know for a fact that person A (who happens to have a lower SR for *whatever* reason) is going to swing first every single round. Every round. Is that even faintly realistic? I'd say no. In fact, that predictability hands all the tactical opportunities to the *disadvantaged* guy. Does that make any sense at all? If A has an SR of 5, and B has one of 6, B might as well step over to the bar, have a sip of lager, maybe chat up a bird or two for 2, 3, even 4 SR because it doesn't matter whether he goes on 6 or 10...he's always going to swing second. And in fact, if B's got a shorter weapon, he DOES have the option of closing (using the RQ3 rules) if the longer-reach guy can't or won't retreat. Ironically, a guy with a crappy DEX *should* use a toothpick, because then he always has the shortest weapon and at least has the option of closing in which case (if he can corner his opponent) he can make his abysmal melee SR irrelevant. So we have a system that encourages slow, clumsy people to use the shortest weapon they can find? Brilliant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071023/82a5528b/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 22:50:15 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:50:15 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400710230550k6c54fdb9vb5ee378d549d0dd6@mail.gmail.com> > And in fact, if B's got a shorter weapon, he DOES have the option of closing > (using the RQ3 rules) if the longer-reach guy can't or won't retreat. > Ironically, a guy with a crappy DEX *should* use a toothpick, because then > he always has the shortest weapon and at least has the option of closing in > which case (if he can corner his opponent) he can make his abysmal melee SR > irrelevant. > > So we have a system that encourages slow, clumsy people to use the shortest > weapon they can find? Brilliant. In all fairness, that's a bit of an extreme case, and somewhat tangential to your main point. I could similarly argue that if you have no weapon skill you might as well go for the biggest weapon you can find, regardless of not meeting any STR or DEX modifiers, and blindfold yourself as well. Once you're at 5%, no further reductions are meaningful. But it would be a stretch to then conclude that RQ promoted the strategy of using inappropriate weapons whilst blindfolded - it's a corner case, nothing more. Likewise, if your MELEESR is so abysmal that it's more than 3 higher than your opponent, then yes - you're right - you might as well use a small weapon, since even an SR 0 weapon won't let you go first. However, that's a corner case too. I do have a lot of sympathy for the overall idea that some sort of random factor in who goes first might enhance the realism - but I don't think you chose a particularly good example to make your case. -- GAZZA From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 23 23:31:44 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:31:44 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: First off, I'm from Norway, english is my second language, so I'm sorry if my english displeaces you. Secondly, I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand my points simply because you haven't been in many melee fights. NOBODY simply starts off waching eachoter! There's allways a prelude. Even boxers in a boxing arena starts the fight outside striking distance. If you don't see that point, I see no point in keeping this discussion going. "And in fact, if B's got a shorter weapon, he DOES have the option of closing (using the RQ3 rules) if the longer-reach guy can't or won't retreat. Ironically, a guy with a crappy DEX *should* use a toothpick, because then he always has the shortest weapon and at least has the option of closing in which case (if he can corner his opponent) he can make his abysmal melee SR irrelevant. So we have a system that encourages slow, clumsy people to use the shortest weapon they can find? Brilliant."Well, I'm a guy with slow dex, and guess what? When I'm sparring with longsword against people 10 years younger than me, faster, longer limbs etc, THEY USUALLY STRIKE BEFORE ME, AND I USUALLY WIN THE TIMES I GET INTO THEM AND GRAPPLES THEM WITH OR WITHOUT THE LONGSWORD. I might not be a "master" in longsword and dagger, but I've been doing it for 5 years, and for all that's worth, I think the system is fairly realistic. No roleplay-rules will ever reflect reality 100%, though. But as I've said 4 times now, you might very well make rules that emphatises other things than reality; in fact that is often better than trying to make a 100% realistic rules-system. In roleplaygames realism is often not the most importaint thing; playability, drama, supernatural aspects and mood is often ranked as more importaint, but the SR-system is still pretty realistic IMHO -if you understand the thinking behind the system. As I've understood people that made the RQ3 rules actually were fencers, doing SCA, and that is no surprise to me. If I were to point out any single aspect of the combatsystem in RQ3 that IMO is unrealistic, it's the consept of attacks and parries beeing separate actions. In most medieval fighting manuals you attack and defend with the same move. _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071023/2ec79aaf/attachment.html From wmolendyk at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 00:28:39 2007 From: wmolendyk at yahoo.com (William Molendyk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <485935.29313.qm@web84110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Not to start an argument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and > what RQII did etc but here goes: > > In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do > tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that > make them nomads or barbarians? I always felt that, in terms of the game, the biggest difference between barbarian and nomad cultures was that nomads were mounted and barbarians were not. I know that in anthropological terms this is not the case, but that was my take on it. This tended to restrict the barbarians area of influence while increasing their technological base (agriculture, pottery, metalworking, etc.). Nomads were a bit more 'primitive' in their goods and crafts. This is only my opinion and others may see differently. The words nomad and barbarian are quick and dirty labels to describe a basic culture, not restrict them to a rigid model. Bill Molendyk From wmolendyk at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 00:43:25 2007 From: wmolendyk at yahoo.com (William Molendyk) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <878743.55024.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > And in fact, if B's got a shorter weapon, he DOES have the option of closing > (using the RQ3 rules) if the longer-reach guy can't or won't retreat. > Ironically, a guy with a crappy DEX *should* use a toothpick, because then > he always has the shortest weapon and at least has the option of closing in > which case (if he can corner his opponent) he can make his abysmal melee SR > irrelevant. > > So we have a system that encourages slow, clumsy people to use the shortest > weapon they can find? Brilliant. Only if they are obsessed with swinging first. I had a slow character who went the other route. He used a poleaxe. 3d6+1d6 damage bonus, devastating, especially on specials and criticals. He may not have hit first but he always hit last, which is much more important. William Molendyk From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Oct 24 01:09:04 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian Message-ID: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tony: > Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and > what RQII did etc but here goes: In most respects, RQ3 character generation was better than RQ2. It's by no means perfect, but is better. RQ2 had a character being a mercenary, a guildsman, a horseman and that's about it. RQ3 at least made an attempt at having backgrounds for different cultures. > In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do > tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that > make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda like the > Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing to. The term "Barbarian" is possibly the worst thing that RQ3 did for RQ cultures. It covers such a broad array of peoples that it is basically meaningless. Classically, nomads were also barbarians, at least according to the Greeks and Romans. They sound as though they are Nomadic Barbarians. > Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one area, you > are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. Anyway, just wonderwed > what other people would consider here? It also comes down to my game > world, which many people play barbarians from that area and, je well no > fine, Nomad and Primitive cultures are a bit more restrictive in terms of > occupations available. Yes, I'd say that anyone who moves around according to the seasons or available pasture is nomadic and hence is a nomad. That's basically the definition of being a nomad. However, in RQ3 terms, Nomad is a specific culture and Barbarian is another culture, which is unfortunate. What I would do in this situation is rewrite the Cultural Background in the same way that Homelands are written in HeroQuest. Have a Background for each Homeland rather than saying Vikings are Barbarians and Lapps are Nomads, so say that there is a Viking Homeland and a Lapp Homeland, using a Fantasy Europe example. Decide what kind of lives they would lead, what kind of skills they should routinely have, which professions they are likely to have and what their magic is like. Build a Homeland out of the Barbarian and Nomad backgrounds, taking a bit from the Nomads and a bit from the Barbarians and perhaps some from Primitives as well. Then you'll have a very flexible Homeland that you can use regardless of the terminology of Barbarian and Nomad. Anyway, that's what I would do. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071023/98b6293a/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Oct 24 04:00:23 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:00:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org > References: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071023105928.03457828@caprica.com> At 12:20 AM 10/23/2007, you wrote: >Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and >what RQII did etc but here goes: > >In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do >tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that >make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda like the >Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing to. >Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one area, you >are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. Anyway, just wonderwed I'd say it depends more on whether they have more or less permanent dwellings. If they're essentially just moving from one village to another in a more permanent location, they aren't really nomades. From shaw at caprica.com Wed Oct 24 04:03:50 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:03:50 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071023110209.01131068@caprica.com> >The term "Barbarian" is possibly the worst thing that RQ3 did for RQ >cultures. It covers such a broad array of peoples that it is >basically meaningless. Classically, nomads were also barbarians, at >least according to the Greeks and Romans. Well, the truth is, RQ3 "barbarians" weren't; most Middle Age cultures were "barbarians" by the standard of that book. They were simply the mostly-static cultures that weren't as advanced as the "civilized" cultures found in places like Rome, Byzantine, most of China and the like. They weren't what most people think of as "barbarians" at all, other than perhaps at the lower end. From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Wed Oct 24 05:27:21 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:27:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710230539h55e16c65xed802d1f10e628b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > ... Please, let me help you. > http://www.yourdictionary.com/quibble > quib?ble (kwib??l) > noun > 1. Obsolete a play on words; pun > 2. an evasion of the main point as by emphasizing some petty > detail; cavil > 3. a petty objection or criticism > > I'm referring to meaning 2 or 3, take your pick. > > Your example is pointlessly chaotic. Very simple: two guys with > melee weapons, within melee striking range. Assuming NOTHING but > that they stand there and whack at each other. We know for a fact > that person A (who happens to have a lower SR for *whatever* > reason) is going to swing first every single round. Every round. > Is that even faintly realistic? I'd say no. One reason it is not realistic is simply that the game system (any game system?) abstracts reality. Person A does NOT necessarily "swing first" in every single round. What happens every round for the characters, both characters, is continuous movement and activity. There are multiple "swings" or thrusts or hacks or dodges or parries or feints, etc. What happens for the _players_ is that they take alternating turns doing arithmetic of some scoring algorithm. It is OK, even realistic, for the _players_ to always do their arithmetic in the same sequence every round. The scoring each round by the players is simply a _summary_ of the activity of the characters. If the players choose to choreograph their characters in a minimax fashion, they can find innumerable ways to accomplish that at any time during the adventure, even if you have a "realistic" combat abstract. %-) And by the way, after person A has a chance to score in the first round, person B _always_ goes _before_ person A in each alternating sequence thereafter. That is, round 1 person B is always before round 2 person A, and round 2 person B is always before round 3 person A, ad infinitum. Who goes first only matters once and then only at the beginning. Who scores last at the end is what matters most. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071023/5e352d57/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Wed Oct 24 07:15:29 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:15:29 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians Message-ID: Tony wrote: > Not to start an arument about whether cultures are restrictive or not and > what RQII did etc but here goes: > In my session I have some people who are IMO Barbarian. However, they do > tend to migrate from summer to winter homes and then some. So does that > make them nomads or barbarians? IMO they remain barbarians, kinda like the > Helvetai whoe were doing a migration when Caesar gave them a seeing to. > Some of my group however say that if you don't stay put in one area, you > are nomadic. I see their point in the purest form. Anyway, just wonderwed > what other people would consider here? It also comes down to my game I always used the following rule of thumb: Primitive = hunter/gatherers Nomad = herders Barbarian = agricultural, non-city builders Civilized = agricultural, city builders I think historical herding cultures need to supplement their economy via either trading, raiding, limited farming, or hunting/gathering, but the focus of their wealth generation will be herding. Michael ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From the.iqari at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 08:21:55 2007 From: the.iqari at gmail.com (Pete Nash) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:21:55 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d5c4aa40710231521y99408e7x981600a6254c766@mail.gmail.com> > > I always used the following rule of thumb: > > Primitive = hunter/gatherers > Nomad = herders > Barbarian = agricultural, non-city builders > Civilized = agricultural, city builders That pretty much sums up the way I interpret it also. More based on source of food, than movement... ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/9396332d/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Oct 24 17:08:24 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:08:24 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > You could of course do that, but isn't theese things allready covered by > the "fumbles" table? > > But if one feels that the combats are too predictable, one could of course > add the actual handeling of the weapon as well as the skill in fighting > with it. I've been using the HK G3-rifle for 3 years in the army, and > became pretty well at it, if I dare say so, but I still managed to do the > silliest thing with it on occations, like not slamming the mag proparly > in, so it fell off after first shot, making the bullet jam in the chamber, > etc. :) > >Actually I have no issue with SR, always liked it, although the very first time I played RQ (Only ever played IIIrd ed) there was a bit of a misenterpretation of what happened to "surplus" SR. Basically if a lad hit with his gladius on 7, we wriongly assumed that the remaining 3 SR carried over and thus, ceteris paribus, next round same lad would have a swing on 4 (being 3 from prev round + 4 this round = 7). Anyway, lucky we sorted that misunderstanding quickly, it coould have become an admin nightmare! Fumble tables are there, yes, bit I was more thinking as a handy reminder to myself as GM to bowl the odd yorker. H&K G3 eh. My Top Secret SI character had one of them, 7.62, prob better on paper than the other 7.62 equivalents of the day (AK, M16, R4 etc). Cheers Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Oct 24 17:37:23 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:37:23 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <485935.29313.qm@web84110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9544.196.8.104.37.1193124009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <485935.29313.qm@web84110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6253.196.8.104.27.1193211443.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > I always felt that, in terms of the game, the biggest difference between > barbarian and nomad cultures was that nomads were mounted and barbarians > were > not. I know that in anthropological terms this is not the case, but that > was > my take on it. > > This tended to restrict the barbarians area of influence while increasing > their > technological base (agriculture, pottery, metalworking, etc.). Nomads > were a > bit more 'primitive' in their goods and crafts. > > This is only my opinion and others may see differently. The words nomad > and > barbarian are quick and dirty labels to describe a basic culture, not > restrict > them to a rigid model. > > Bill Molendyk > Good points. The people i am introducing the charactes to are prob a bit more primitive/lean a bit more toward trade due to their movable status, they also likely hunt/gather/herd more than doing actual grain farming. I think at the end of the day, if I ever get round to deining them properly, I may say they have a special mix of cultural occupationsskills (if one were want to play someone from this tribe) - to do this rules wise I would prob put Nomad and Barbarian occupations together then strike out what I feel disnae fit. I suppose on the same vein I am introducing the Guano Digger occupation to sea shore primitives. They have no clue what ist for, but realise they can trade a boat of dung with the strange inland civilised fole (who would want bird poo)to supplement their fish diet. From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 17:45:16 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:45:16 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> On 24/10/2007, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Fumble tables are there, yes, bit I was more thinking as a handy reminder > to myself as GM to bowl the odd yorker. Clearly an Englishman. An Aussie would instead say "bowl the odd flipper..." ;) -- GAZZA From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Oct 24 18:18:04 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:18:04 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: A little besides the point of this discussionboard, but... > H&K G3 eh. My Top Secret SI character had one of them, 7.62, prob better> on paper than the other 7.62 equivalents of the day (AK, M16, R4 etc).> Cheers> TonyWell, the 7.62 is heavy, but packs more punch than the AK-(47)round. The exit muzzle velocity is 780m/sek, and the same round is used in the brilliant MG3 (basically the german 1942 machingewehr from ww2, only with NATO-7.62-calibre) and is then 820m/sek. You shoot through brick-walls and trees with it, so allthough you're hampered with a lot of ammo-weight-pr. round, compared to the 5.56, the enemy have problems finding cover for you. I once did the "Predator"-ting with the MG3; stuffed a backpack with 800 rounds of ammo, and had the belt fed directly into the machingun. That was fun (could only shoot standing or sitting, though, it was hard getting up with all that weight on the back, and with the 11 kg MG to drag along! _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/c0a8e76f/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Oct 24 19:55:54 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:55:54 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <33680.196.8.104.27.1193219754.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Simon: > > In most respects, RQ3 character generation was better than RQ2. It's by no > means perfect, but is better. RQ2 had a character being a mercenary, a > guildsman, a horseman and that's about it. RQ3 at least made an attempt at > having backgrounds for different cultures. I always liked backgrounds, prob why I was drawn to RQIII. HarnMaster, Cyberpuke2020 etc also nice. I recall Legionairre (Renegade Legion RPG) was more fun to roll up a character using their background system than to actually play the game:) > > The term "Barbarian" is possibly the worst thing that RQ3 did for RQ > cultures. It covers such a broad array of peoples that it is basically > meaningless. Classically, nomads were also barbarians, at least according > to the Greeks and Romans. > Agreed - Its like the Gauls pre Caesar, they were on the verge of a civilisation, barbarians in Roman terms, but prob civilised in Pict terms. Maybe some sort of cultural trait set that works alongside the RQIII definitions would assist. Something like: Civilised - Uses paved roads for wheeled vehicles, builds stone temples, has concept of army/training/dicipline (either as national service or standing army) etc. Extrapolate from that. > What I would do in this situation is rewrite the Cultural Background in > the same way that Homelands are written in HeroQuest. Have a Background > for each Homeland rather than saying Vikings are Barbarians and Lapps are > Nomads, so say that there is a Viking Homeland and a Lapp Homeland, using > a Fantasy Europe example. Also good, kind of in line with the above more or less. > Thanks for the input. Hmm, many of the ideas I could use with my worlds orcs, who are pretty complex and cannot be bulked into the rough 8 or so occupations plus single culture defined by the rules. Cheers Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Oct 24 20:00:22 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:00:22 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071023110209.01131068@caprica.com> References: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071023110209.01131068@caprica.com> Message-ID: <46428.196.8.104.27.1193220022.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Well, the truth is, RQ3 "barbarians" weren't; most Middle Age > cultures were "barbarians" by the standard of that book. They were > simply the mostly-static cultures that weren't as advanced as the > "civilized" cultures found in places like Rome, Byzantine, most of > China and the like. They weren't what most people think of as > "barbarians" at all, other than perhaps at the lower end. > Maybe the prime differentia should come down to whether the culture uses a sewer system. If they chuck their effluent into the street/squat behind a bush etc they are barbarian - if they have a sewer system, or at least a concerted attempt at cesspit management, then they civilised:) From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Oct 24 20:57:45 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:57:45 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <471F2529.1000904@inetnebr.com> In combat the combatants do have a sense of the timing and rythm but they flow with that timing and fight against it both.... so that it looses some of its predictability. In real conflict who feels most aggressive has as much or more to do with who "attacks" first. Enabling people to increase an attacks accuracy by taking more time and conversely get in more attacks by decreasing the time (as well as other shiftings of attention and effort to increase damage) Modifying SR costs based on choices can give plenty of unpredictability and doesnt throw out the baby with the bath water which a pure random solution does. A round is a bit of arbitray slicing of time "first" is only first well when the combat first starts. A fighter who is at his weapons proper distance when his opponent is not has a "real" advantage (not just some who goes first in arbitrary slice of time The longer weapons which are not at there proper distance actually deal less damage and are more awkward ) and when two combatants have differing weapon lengths that keeping your distance is part of the combat maneuvering. (use dodge skill ) From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Oct 24 21:20:33 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:20:33 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Clearly an Englishman. An Aussie would instead say "bowl the odd > flipper..." ;) > -- > GAZZA Ha ha, actualy a South african (pity about your world cup rugby team mate:). Just my attempt to try stop using basebaw jargon (step up to plate, curve ball etc): Tony From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 00:54:09 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <8d5c4aa40710231521y99408e7x981600a6254c766@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d5c4aa40710231521y99408e7x981600a6254c766@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> On 10/23/07, Pete Nash wrote: > > I always used the following rule of thumb: > > > > Primitive = hunter/gatherers > > Nomad = herders > > Barbarian = agricultural, non-city builders > > Civilized = agricultural, city builders > > > That pretty much sums up the way I interpret it also. More based on source > of food, than movement... ;) > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into that. I'd always felt that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely based on Native American Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache who (in general terms) herded nothing in the agricultural sense of 'domestication' except perhaps horses. I think the confusion for me was that for a long time I looked at this list as a progression or spectrum, when in fact nomad/barbarian are quite commonly at a shared socio-cultural level but with different circumstances: barbarians, with permanent residences, are able to do things that require a fairly static or longer-term settings - metalworking and agriculture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/ccfe65e0/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 00:57:08 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:57:08 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <46428.196.8.104.27.1193220022.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071023110209.01131068@caprica.com> <46428.196.8.104.27.1193220022.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710240757o1eb92c14na3b82c5e0bf3d67d@mail.gmail.com> > > Maybe the prime differentia should come down to whether the culture uses a > sewer system. If they chuck their effluent into the street/squat behind a > bush etc they are barbarian - if they have a sewer system, or at least a > concerted attempt at cesspit management, then they civilised:) Again, this standard would put MOST Roman and medieval European cities into the "chuck it in the street" barbarian camp. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/5b8f9459/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 01:15:50 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <868278.75243.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into > that. I'd always felt > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely > based on Native American > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache > who (in general terms) > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of > 'domestication' except perhaps horses. Horses were unknown before the Spanish brought them back to the Americas (where they had long ago become extinct). All plains cultures had domesticated the dog and used them as draft animals as well as food, long before the horse arrived - but adapted to the horse far faster than any other culture. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 01:17:07 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:17:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com> We actually tried the 'rolling' round system where someone who acted on SR 7 the first round, went on 4 of the next and 1 & 8 of the following; movement added SR as normal. It *was* a bookkeeping nightmare, indeed. You probably could do it if you had a computer manager for all the participants (kind of like the Star Fleet Battles 'impulse' movement system or Car Wars movement, come to think of it). The other difficulty was the rationalization of what 'happened' in that gap of time...but that's an question I've always had with the SR system in general: how it integrates with movement. John goes on SR 7, so if he moves for 2 SR to come adjacent to his target, what's he "doing" for the following 7 SR until 9? If his target moves away on SR 8 (or on SR 3, for that matter), he loses his chance to hit? Not to start another argument about deterministic systems, but my 'discomfort' with predictability of combat systems led me to find the Harn damage system attractive - where (going by memory here) instead of deducting damage from a finite set of 'hit points', damaging blows instead caused a check against a character's 'health', with accumulating injuries causing cumulative negative modifiers against this check until even the strongest character was likely to go down. My appreciation for it was only in theory, however, I never actually played with it in a campaign setting. It SEEMS fairly realistic and (suiting my own personal taste) uncertain, no more "ah, I hit him, he only has 2 hp in his head and my min damage is 3, he's going to be dead"... Anyone play it over a longer timeframe? Was it playable? Generally I find systems that seem cool in theory tend to stumble in some unanticipated way in application. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/53cd3a38/attachment.html From wmolendyk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 01:18:11 2007 From: wmolendyk at yahoo.com (William Molendyk) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <598505.7216.qm@web84111.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into that. I'd always felt > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely based on Native American > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache who (in general terms) > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of 'domestication' except perhaps > horses. In RQ terms most amerinds were Barbarians for the vast majority of their existance. Those horse didn't exist in the Americas until it was brought over by Europeans and some escaped into the wild. the natives were quick to exploit to this wonderful new resource. Even thier legends changed so that theh horse was 'always' there. Bill Molendyk From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 01:21:23 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:21:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarian In-Reply-To: <868278.75243.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> <868278.75243.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710240821p5ac3a47s6f3e8b5aa011882a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/24/07, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > --- Styopa wrote: > > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into > > that. I'd always felt > > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely > > based on Native American > > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache > > who (in general terms) > > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of > > 'domestication' except perhaps horses. > > Horses were unknown before the Spanish brought them > back to the Americas (where they had long ago become > extinct). All plains cultures had domesticated the > dog and used them as draft animals as well as food, > long before the horse arrived - but adapted to the > horse far faster than any other culture. > > Paul Cardwell > > Well yeah. But that doesn't change my POINT about them not being "herders" in the sense of 'herds of sheep' or 'herds of cattle' - unless you're asserting they herded dogs? I didn't say they didn't domesticate anything, I said they didn't HERD anything, in the sense of 'domestication' (ie the process of taming, controlling the movements and breeding of animals to the benefit of the controlling human). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/2cf92f9b/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 02:15:30 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarian In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240821p5ac3a47s6f3e8b5aa011882a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <134405.49241.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > Well yeah. But that doesn't change my POINT about > them not being "herders" > in the sense of 'herds of sheep' or 'herds of > cattle' - unless you're > asserting they herded dogs? > I didn't say they didn't domesticate anything, I > said they didn't HERD > anything, in the sense of 'domestication' (ie the > process of taming, > controlling the movements and breeding of animals to > the benefit of the > controlling human). You said they didn't have any domesticated animals except horses. They did (dogs), and that is what I pointed out. They had a limited herding of bison - herd them together and stampede them over a high cliff. They knew genetics better than your European Meisterrasse did at that time, as witness the appaloosa. That is breeding, and obviously one can't ride a horse that isn't tamed and has its movements controlled - especially without stirrups - but they did regularly, including by children too small to mount unassisted. And apropo others' comments, a tipi, like a gir, is a portable house much as a house trailer is today. The lines are quite blurred and all-encompassing categories just don't work. Where would you put Scythians? They wandered three seasons a year, but lived the winter in log houses; smithed metal (exquite gold work); had wheeled wagons much like 19th century Roma [Gypsy] caravans; had no written language; had total sexual equality in rights and occupations; were a military culture who for payment in food would guarantee than treaty agricultural cultures wouldn't be bothered by anyone; and formed the police force for Periclean Athens. They were also the original "barbarians", so called by the Greeks who thought their language sounded like sheep bleating, "baaar, baaar". Get out of your Eurocentric mind-set and learn from others. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 25 02:56:45 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:56:45 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [RQIII] Cultures - Nomad vs Barbarian In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240757o1eb92c14na3b82c5e0bf3d67d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <147783.48263.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071023110209.01131068@caprica.com> <46428.196.8.104.27.1193220022.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710240757o1eb92c14na3b82c5e0bf3d67d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071024095441.03447f60@caprica.com> At 07:57 AM 10/24/2007, you wrote: >Maybe the prime differentia should come down to whether the culture uses a >sewer system. If they chuck their effluent into the street/squat behind a >bush etc they are barbarian - if they have a sewer system, or at least a >concerted attempt at cesspit management, then they civilised:) > > > >Again, this standard would put MOST Roman and medieval European >cities into the "chuck it in the street" barbarian camp. :) As I said, if you actually look at both the summary and the professions available, RQ3 barbarians _do_ seem to include most medieval European cultures until quite late. The only thing that confuses the issue is the spirit magic option, but if you assume that shaman include "witches", even that isn't particularly off. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/aeb527e1/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 25 03:01:09 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:01:09 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com > References: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071024095713.03443b60@caprica.com> At 08:17 AM 10/24/2007, you wrote: >We actually tried the 'rolling' round system where someone who acted >on SR 7 the first round, went on 4 of the next and 1 & 8 of the >following; movement added SR as normal. It *was* a bookkeeping >nightmare, indeed. You probably could do it if you had a computer >manager for all the participants (kind of like the Star Fleet >Battles 'impulse' movement system or Car Wars movement, come to think of it). This was kind of the issue I had with the Ringworld initiative system which was pretty much an endless round of strike ranks. with movement. >John goes on SR 7, so if he moves for 2 SR to come adjacent to his >target, what's he "doing" for the following 7 SR until 9? If his >target moves away on SR 8 (or on SR 3, for that matter), he loses >his chance to hit? Starting his attack process presumeably. And yes, he does. Its not actually that hard to have occur. The thing that RQ doesn't handle well is _moving_ fights, that is to say, strikes that take place while both targets are actually doing significant amounts of ground covering at the same time. It hasn't classically handled the fact that actually turning and running is, barring special cases, a really bad idea. One reason RQ: AIG introduced the Manuever skill. >Not to start another argument about deterministic systems, but my >'discomfort' with predictability of combat systems led me to find >the Harn damage system attractive - where (going by memory here) >instead of deducting damage from a finite set of 'hit points', >damaging blows instead caused a check against a character's >'health', with accumulating injuries causing cumulative negative >modifiers against this check until even the strongest character was >likely to go down. That's similar to the Toughness save found in the True20 familiy of games. It has its virtues, but can make a game even more sudden-death than BRP games are already prone to being, and that's probably not a virtue for most people. From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 03:00:39 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:00:39 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0710241000r2985b96cg1c22b38dbd0bdf90@mail.gmail.com> In my current RQ campaign, we use both the melee SR scheme where the round ends at SR10 and the rolling SR scheme for magic only. It's not bad at all since only the sorcerer of the group uses spells that take longer than 1 round to cast. The other players use spirit/battle magic, having discovered that weapons with Bladesharp/Bludgeon 4+ tend to solve most problems more quickly than multi-round spells. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/03fe988d/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:18:13 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:18:13 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <64776.196.8.104.27.1193249893.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > A little besides the point of this discussionboard, but... > >> H&K G3 eh. My Top Secret SI character had one of them, 7.62, prob >> better> on paper than the other 7.62 equivalents of the day (AK, M16, R4 >> etc).> Cheers> TonyWell, the 7.62 is heavy, but packs more punch than >> the AK-(47)round. The exit muzzle velocity is 780m/sek, and the same >> round is used in the brilliant MG3 (basically the german 1942 >> machingewehr from ww2, only with NATO-7.62-calibre) and is then >> 820m/sek. > > You shoot through brick-walls and trees with it, so allthough you're > hampered with a lot of ammo-weight-pr. round, compared to the 5.56, the > enemy have problems finding cover for you. I once did the "Predator"-ting > with the MG3; stuffed a backpack with 800 rounds of ammo, and had the belt > fed directly into the machingun. That was fun (could only shoot standing > or sitting, though, it was hard getting up with all that weight on the > back, and with the 11 kg MG to drag along! I left the whole trail here as I missed/deleted the origilan reply. Anyway, impressive gun, pity I as a civilian cannot have one, yet car hijackers here seem to have access to AK's? funny that,terrorists are freedom fighters when the government changes, but criminals seem to have the weapons when swords are converted to ploughshears? Me I have but fired similar, but my older brother served in 64 mechanised infantry in Angola in 1984/5, (the works, infantry, rear gunner, driver) so all I have to speak of is his heresay and he doesn't like to talk of it. Anyway, prob the ultimate extrapolation of the old M40(?) first assault rifle caoming out of germany circe 1945. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:24:51 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:24:51 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <471F2529.1000904@inetnebr.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <471F2529.1000904@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <3348.196.8.104.27.1193250291.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Lance Said: > > In real conflict who feels most aggressive has as much or more to do > with who "attacks" first. Combat I have no exp, but i can say that when I have crashed My Moto Guzzi Le Masns III (weighs some 225 Kg empty) its been picked up pretty quick. "normal" situation, its farking hard to lift. Long and short is adrenalin is a big factor and when excited you can lift more, do more and basically co wild on gear you would not normally handle. Hmm, this now begs the question, do fantasy races/monsters etc have basic earth phisiology. (I think all? vertebrates have some sort of endocrine system, of which adrenali is a hugh part of)? From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:28:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:28:14 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d5c4aa40710231521y99408e7x981600a6254c766@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4921.196.8.104.27.1193250494.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> wondered where AmerInds fit into that. I'd always felt > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely based on Native American > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache who (in general terms) > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of 'domestication' except perhaps > horses. > > I think the confusion for me was that for a long time I looked at this > list > as a progression or spectrum, when in fact nomad/barbarian are quite > commonly at a shared socio-cultural level but with different > circumstances: > barbarians, with permanent residences, are able to do things that require > a > fairly static or longer-term settings - metalworking and agriculture. Very likley. I suppose we as adult humas can'r help but to copy and imagine little. "They" say that most imagination is lost by the tiem a chilad is 5 earth years old. I suppose my orignal question was more o eplore knowns that identify new ideas. Oh well. Thanks to all for the input. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:40:26 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:40:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <868278.75243.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0710240754l6d0d47a7jb83321856fb1b459@mail.gmail.com> <868278.75243.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <10464.196.8.104.27.1193251226.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Horses were unknown before the Spanish brought them > back to the Americas (where they had long ago become > extinct). All plains cultures had domesticated the > dog and used them as draft animals as well as food, > long before the horse arrived - but adapted to the > horse far faster than any other culture. > > Paul Cardwell Paul I defer to your greater leaning here, but I have always wondered on this point. Is this provenly true? Horses originate to our standard knowledge from asia. (Alsaka, Canadian, USA etc down to Cape Horn) plains culture primitive/nomad/barbarians (to continue my last random topic) seem to have been thought to have come to the americas from asia over the land bridge (baring straights). So here is the counter question: Did they perhaps bring, as a herd/draft/pet? animal some sort of horse with them? Remember that anthapology even now change tact faster that a yankee schooner being persuid by a english 36 gun frigate! So with this in mind and my asumption that ther are less horse anthropoloigists than human ones (even with the additioal number suddenly so desperate to say we all came from one place in africa), can you say for a fact you are right here? Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:47:42 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:47:42 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarian In-Reply-To: <134405.49241.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0710240821p5ac3a47s6f3e8b5aa011882a@mail.gmail.com> <134405.49241.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <14192.196.8.104.27.1193251662.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Paul said: > You said they didn't have any domesticated animals > except horses. They did (dogs), and that is what I > pointed out. They had a limited herding of bison - > herd them together and stampede them over a high > cliff. > So, if we take this tack then Neanderthals were also hersers? They have been thought to have herder Mammoth of a cliff. Ay caramba, I have opened a bag of worms here:) > They knew genetics better than your European > Meisterrasse did at that time, as witness the > appaloosa. That is breeding, and obviously one can't > ride a horse that isn't tamed and has its movements > controlled - especially without stirrups - but they > did regularly, including by children too small to > mount unassisted. > Same tact, seems cro magnon, for better or worse, outbred neanderthal. > And apropo others' comments, a tipi, like a gir, is a > portable house much as a house trailer is today. > > The lines are quite blurred and all-encompassing > categories just don't work. Where would you put > Scythians? They wandered three seasons a year, but > lived the winter in log houses; smithed metal (exquite > gold work); had wheeled wagons much like 19th century > Roma [Gypsy] caravans; had no written language; had > total sexual equality in rights and occupations; were > a military culture who for payment in food would > guarantee than treaty agricultural cultures wouldn't > be bothered by anyone; and formed the police force for > Periclean Athens. They were also the original > "barbarians", so called by the Greeks who thought > their language sounded like sheep bleating, "baaar, > baaar". > > Get out of your Eurocentric mind-set and learn from > others. All good points at the end of the day and thanks Paul for your education. Persoanlly, confession wise, I try to stir up these kind of topics to gain insight/learn/t be around like minded lads. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 25 04:50:19 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:50:19 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0710241000r2985b96cg1c22b38dbd0bdf90@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400710240045o4d196517gc87f1c9a6802086d@mail.gmail.com> <20541.196.8.104.27.1193224833.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710240817rbe5958ch26015d475364193b@mail.gmail.com> <1c92296e0710241000r2985b96cg1c22b38dbd0bdf90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15286.196.8.104.27.1193251819.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > In my current RQ campaign, we use both the melee SR scheme where the round > ends at SR10 and the rolling SR scheme for magic only. > > It's not bad at all since only the sorcerer of the group uses spells that > take longer than 1 round to cast. The other players use spirit/battle > magic, > having discovered that weapons with Bladesharp/Bludgeon 4+ tend to solve > most problems more quickly than multi-round spells. > > David What, MAGIC, in RuneQuest? I always thought it was there to buffer te rules and spark debate? H ha. seriousluy, back down to earth/gaia/glorantha, good point, thanks David. Tony From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Oct 25 06:00:15 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Nomads & Barbarians Message-ID: <889060.15362.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Styopa: > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into that. I'd always felt > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely based on Native American > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache who (in general terms) > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of 'domestication' except perhaps > horses. But, they were nomads because they moved around. That's what nomads do. You don't have to herd things to be nomads, although the RQ3 "nomad" background has a default herder profession. William Molendyk: > In RQ terms most amerinds were Barbarians for the vast majority of their > existance. Those horse didn't exist in the Americas until it was brought over > by Europeans and some escaped into the wild. the natives were quick to exploit > to this wonderful new resource. Even thier legends changed so that theh horse > was 'always' there. Amreinds had so many varied cultures that it's impossible to group them into one category. Some were nomads, some were primitive hunter-gatherers, some were advanced agriculturalists, some worshipped spirits, some had advanced cults as religions. All the more reason to get rid of the "barbarian", "nomad", "civilised" and "primitive" backgrounds and instead use individually-tailored backgrounds for individual cultures. Paul Cardwell: > The lines are quite blurred and all-encompassing > categories just don't work. Where would you put > Scythians? They wandered three seasons a year, but > lived the winter in log houses; smithed metal (exquite > gold work); had wheeled wagons much like 19th century > Roma [Gypsy] caravans; had no written language; had > total sexual equality in rights and occupations; were > a military culture who for payment in food would > guarantee than treaty agricultural cultures wouldn't > be bothered by anyone; and formed the police force for > Periclean Athens. They were also the original > "barbarians", so called by the Greeks who thought > their language sounded like sheep bleating, "baaar, > baaar". Have you seen the Scythian goldwork? I went to a museum in Ufa and it was breathtaking. According to RQ3, Scythians would probably be Barbarians, but that's an argument against the RQ3-style broad classification, as you point out. > Get out of your Eurocentric mind-set and learn from others. Eurocentric? I thought the RQ authors were American. Wayne Shaw: > As I said, if you actually look at both the summary and the > professions available, RQ3 barbarians _do_ seem to include most > medieval European cultures until quite late. The only thing that > confuses the issue is the spirit magic option, but if you assume that > shaman include "witches", even that isn't particularly off. Which is more fuel to the flames and makes me want to scrap the idea of general backgrounds entirely. In future, I'll be using tailored backgrounds, for sure. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071024/32be1e4a/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 25 08:13:16 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:13:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <889060.15362.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <889060.15362.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071024151228.0343adc0@caprica.com> >All the more reason to get rid of the "barbarian", "nomad", >"civilised" and "primitive" backgrounds and instead use >individually-tailored backgrounds for individual cultures. That's probably the ideal, but like a lot of ideals in this area, people don't always want to do the work themselves, and would rather have something that will do, even if its not perfect, than go to the effort. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Oct 25 10:47:03 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:47:03 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR In-Reply-To: <3348.196.8.104.27.1193250291.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0710201020q17d8bb18qf86128133d200da3@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0710220757k204674c8kb6cb0c72541ffd9a@mail.gmail.com> <35765.196.8.104.37.1193123174.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47989.196.8.104.27.1193209704.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <471F2529.1000904@inetnebr.com> <3348.196.8.104.27.1193250291.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: This is my second off topic thread in less than 24 hours, sorry; but I have to tell you that I own a Moto Guzzi Lario > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:24:51 +0200> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR> From: postmaster at runequest.za.org> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > Lance Said:> >> > In real conflict who feels most aggressive has as much or more to do> > with who "attacks" first.> > Combat I have no exp, but i can say that when I have crashed My Moto Guzzi> Le Masns III (weighs some 225 Kg empty) its been picked up pretty quick.> "normal" situation, its farking hard to lift. Long and short is adrenalin> is a big factor and when excited you can lift more, do more and basically> co wild on gear you would not normally handle.> > Hmm, this now begs the question, do fantasy races/monsters etc have basic> earth phisiology. (I think all? vertebrates have some sort of endocrine> system, of which adrenali is a hugh part of)?> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071025/0f6a146a/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Oct 25 21:08:12 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:08:12 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nomads & Barbarians Message-ID: Styopa wrote: > Me too, but then I wondered where AmerInds fit into that. I'd always felt > that the tribes of Prax had been fairly closely based on Native American > Plains tribes - ala the Lakota, Kiowa, and Apache who (in general terms) > herded nothing in the agricultural sense of 'domestication' except perhaps > horses. I'd give them the Nomad skill set from RQ, even though they are technically still hunter/gatherers. They could be described as proto-nomads. I read an article in an old Scientific American issue, about the origins of herding in the Middle East, that showed three-walled revetments that hunters chased herding animals into in order to capture them. The article speculated that true herding began when the people decided not to kill all the animals they had trapped. Bill Molendyk wrote: > Even thier legends changed so that theh horse > was 'always' there. Heroquesting! Paul Cardwell wrote: > Where would you put > Scythians? They wandered three seasons a year, but > lived the winter in log houses; smithed metal (exquite > gold work); had wheeled wagons much like 19th century > Roma [Gypsy] caravans; had no written language; had > total sexual equality in rights and occupations; were > a military culture who for payment in food would > guarantee than treaty agricultural cultures wouldn't > be bothered by anyone; and formed the police force for > Periclean Athens. They would be classed as a sophisticated nomad culture, in contact with civilized (and other) cultures, with all the resulting benefits and problems. Michael (who prefers to use "Hunter/Gatherer" as the background designation rather than "Primitive" -- how PC is that?) ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Oct 25 21:25:41 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:25:41 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Strike Rank vs. Unpredictability Message-ID: 1. Use a hex-map (or similar) -- I know, I've already lost most of you. 2. Who *moves* first is based on highest Maneuver skill or Weapon skill, whichever is higher. 3. Weapons have a length in meters (figure something out for natural weapons based on SIZ). 4. If you move into reach of your own (or somebody else's) weapon, you (or they) can attack. 5. Use a contest of Maneuver skill / Weapon skill (perhaps with a modifier for reach or speed) to get inside the range of a longer weapon. If you get inside your opponents range with a shorter weapon, you have the advantage. 6. For the situation where a shorter weapon user has closed against a longer weapon user, and someone tries to skewer the shorter weapon user, whichever party has the highest Weapon or Maneuver skill will act first. 7. Maybe look at Harnmaster, Dragonquest, Gurps, or The Fantasy Trip, instead. They've probably got rules for this sort of thing. Michael Hoxie ("It'll never work.") ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Oct 26 06:31:45 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Nomads & Barbarians In-Reply-To: <889060.15362.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <151265.94483.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Have you seen the Scythian goldwork? I went to a > museum in Ufa and it was breathtaking. Unfortunately few examples in real life, but many in photos. I have also played a Scythian goldsmith in Mythworld. > Eurocentric? I thought the RQ authors were American. Probably, but which Americans, those who flew over, steamed over, blew over, or walked and paddled over? Besides, America runs from Elsmere Island to Tierra del Fuego. Personally, regarding Mythworld, most of my gene pool blew over while most of my American ancestors walked or paddled. All were here in time to not only be on both sides in the 1860s unpleasantness, but at least twice on both sides of the same battle. Our family oral tradition has a large gap for that period. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Oct 30 21:06:33 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:06:33 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Unpradictability vs SR Message-ID: <30667.196.8.104.37.1193738793.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Styopa wrote: We actually tried the 'rolling' round system where someone who acted on SR 7 the first round, went on 4 of the next and 1 & 8 of the following; movement added SR as normal. It *was* a bookkeeping nightmare, indeed. You probably could do it if you had a computer manager for all the participants (kind of like the Star Fleet Battles 'impulse' movement system or Car Wars movement, come to think of it). Asked my rother (not on list) for comment and here is his take: Post this to the list on my behalf. Maybe just double check it first. Well after playing a little Harnmaster myself I found I much prefer the damage level system than the hit points system of most fantasy games. It seems to make more sense and is more realistic. The only problems I found with it were: a) always rolling D6's for damage no matter what the weapon type seemed a little bit too standardised and ends up averaging out a lot and making it very rare for exceptional wounds to occur. b) Although Harnmaster is perhaps a more realistic portrayal of melee combat (IE - its not that easy to just lob someones limbs / head off and melee fights generally involve people bleeding to death from many wounds instead of single glorious blows) I found that for our style of roleplaying the wounds inflicted were perhaps a little too indecisive (Requiring you to fell opponents with several moderate wounds instead of one or two big wounds) - it is very difficult in Harnmaster to kill or maim an armoured person with a single blow - even if it's a critical hit. This is because the chart used breaks the injuries into categories (M1 - K5) based on how many points you inflict, it can be frustrating to get a good hit, and roll 1 point less than is needed to up the wound to a better category. Often fights end up being a series of Minor (M1) and Moderate (M2) wounds with the occasional Serious (S3) wound which can bog things down a bit unless you adhere very strictly to the stun rules (Next problem). c) The stun rolls are also very easy to fail - you only have to roll a number of D6's and score over your stamina to be stunned / rendered incapacitated. So 2 or 3 minor wounds could put your character out of combat for a while - once again realistic but not conducive to fun heroic fights for warrior oriented players. Remember however that Harnmaster is still essentially a hit point system that simply converts the hit points of damage inflicted into wound levels. The above problems I mentioned can easily be fixed with some basic modifications like - adding a damage modifier based on strength / size or how well you hit, changing the types of dice rolled for damage based on size of weapon or how good the hit was, discounting minor wounds from stun rolls or making stun rolls on D4's. Another way would be to change the injury determination chart to suite your tastes. In fact there is an expanded chart I found somewhere a while ago which differentiates the wound categories according to what aspect of a weapon is being used - for example it makes cutting weapons more deadly than point and blunt once a wound is actually inflicted (although cutting weapons generally are more difficult to penetrate armour with). Otherwise it is a very elegant and (once you've played it a few times) quick system, even the fatigue and encumbrance are easier to use than most other systems I've seen. Its all about preference - if you like realism then Harnmaster is for you but the facts of medieval combat were a lot less glorious than a lot of roleplayers would like. I say take it and adapt it to your groups tastes, have a few fights with varying armour and weapons (We had a gladiator type session) and see how it turns out using different house rules.