From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sun Sep 2 07:12:45 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:12:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <20070804180220.EC0AD1AB345@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070804180220.EC0AD1AB345@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550709011412n606602c8h43789cf108fcd614@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/07, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > > > > 1. *** JUNK MAIL ***Subskills (Steve Davies) The recent discussion of Herblore and Healing lore triggered a question for me: Does anyone have a good system that they'd like to share for subskills? Steve I like the way that d100/dbrp/the-chaos-system/eric-the-half-a-book or whatever its going to be called has plumped. I hope I'm not breaching NDA by saying that it has expanded the rules for weapon skill groups in RQII and Ride skills in Elric! to cover any skill which is a cluster of skills. Its an idea I have used a lot now and it runs well. Example (of not using this rule): In a recent game of MRQ (good story and fun time but lots of niggles with rules) my character was a Duck Acolyte with the Divine spell 'True Duck' which turns the participant into a Duck. Since we were facing a Giant Troll, A Chaos Duck, A Broo and a Female Ogre I thought that judicious use of True Duck could save the day. -Great says GM you need to touch the Troll, use 'Unarmed' to do so -You mean my 9% chance coz this is a pregen with no experience in Unarmed and base is equal to Str? -Yes -Despite me having 76% with my Feathersword? -Yes --How about you allow for my ability to use footwork, situational awareness and experience in fighting and let me roll under half my sword skill? -No Now the game itself was great fun and I maybe a bit prickly since it is unusual for me to have particularly clever ideas in a game session but I did find myself wishing that we were playing d100 not MRQ Example of using this rule in my Pendragon game -Hes a green man who sprang out of the stone circle and has just run through the village elder with a length of unseasoned wood on our initiation day? -Yes -What do I know about green men and tribal ceremonies? -Give me a Faerie Lore roll -Thats only a 4 but I do have Folk Lore 22 -Roll against half Folk Lore then he does feature in a lot of the tribal myths Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070901/08c3bd16/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sun Sep 2 07:20:41 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:20:41 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <20070804180220.EC0AD1AB345@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070804180220.EC0AD1AB345@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550709011420n362ab18al4f5560adeb70e56d@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/07, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > > > 5. Re: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents (Steve Perrin) > > Back from the digression, I am thinking of changing the > succeed/50%/10%/01%& for number of successes to B9Ops every-10%-is-a-success > concept. So someone with, say 67% with a weapon would have one success with > 58-67, two successes with 48-57, etc. The same limits on number of successes > would apply, and the results of the successes would be the same. > Time for me to eat some humble pie. I have been in a few brpish play test groups and whenever anyone has suggested a pendragon style, blackjack roll under but high mechanic I have argued strongly against. However I have been running a big old pendragon campaign for a while and despite houseruling bits I left in the blackjack mechanic, because I thought I was going to be running a one-off and changing that ould have needed making too many other changes. It works really well in play. To the point that several of my players have pinched it as a houserule in their other games And I have extended it to remove the damage roll in combat So if I was going to redo the success mechanics in a d100/brp game I would be tempted to say: 00 = Fumble > skill = Failure = skill = Critical which counts as 10 successes < skill = success with tens die being number of successes Very high Skills (100%+): Cannot fumble when effective skill is 100 or more add the value in excess of 100 to the die roll and treat a result of 100 or more as a Critical Opposed Skills Either highest number of successes wins Or (more complex) highest number of successes wins and subtract lower from higher to give the net number of successes Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070901/1f22b0aa/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Sep 3 01:07:11 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:07:11 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down Message-ID: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Is d100.org down? Cheers, Gianni From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 3 01:54:16 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:54:16 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down References: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <000601c7ed79$84522470$eb618456@sickboy> It was ok when I tried it about a minute ago : 16.54 GMT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down Hi Is d100.org down? Cheers, Gianni_______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 02:42:59 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:42:59 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down In-Reply-To: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0709020942j503753c7r4835cfae3f5ebc4c@mail.gmail.com> It's up for me and I just clicked the hyperlink in your email. David On 9/2/07, Gianni wrote: > > Hi > > Is d100.org down? > > Cheers, > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070902/fe315879/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 14:06:22 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 00:06:22 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down In-Reply-To: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: Actually, we're not officially rolled out yet...but there should be an announcement soon. There's a server change going on, I believe. ->Peter On 9/2/07, Gianni wrote: > > Hi > > Is d100.org down? > > Cheers, > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > 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/20070903/69343928/attachment.html From dzappone at metamythos.net Mon Sep 3 14:48:22 2007 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:48:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] d100.org web-site down In-Reply-To: References: <20070902150713.31D79402734@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <46DB9216.80406@metamythos.net> I'm moving the site to another server because of a couple of reasons, one is cost and the other is that the current server keeps crashing for reason I have not been able to track down. I expect to have everything done Tuesday plus the time it takes for DNS changes. Dan Peter Maranci wrote: > Actually, we're not officially rolled out yet...but there should be an > announcement soon. > > There's a server change going on, I believe. > > ->Peter > > On 9/2/07, * Gianni* > wrote: > > Hi > > Is d100.org down? > > Cheers, > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 17:55:24 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 00:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc, Subskills (Steve Davies) Message-ID: <555713.1645.qm@web51006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > I think my concern was more that if I add GORE to the article, I assumed I'd > add a link as well - and that would effectively endorse GORE. Not that it > would necessarily be a huge boost for Goblinoid Games, but realistically I > know that my site is well-ranked in Google. A link from it would boost the > standing of the linked-to site, from what I've heard about the Google > algorithm. And????? Adding a link wouldn't endorse GORE, especially if you added a comment that although you are linking to GORE you aren't endorsing it. The Google thing is pretty irrelevent, as GORE probably wouldn't show up highly on a RQ or D100 search anyway. In any case, if GORE is based on RQM's SRD then it counts as a RQ-compatible game and should be supported. Alan Richards: > Example (of not using this rule): > > In a recent game of MRQ (good story and fun time but lots of niggles with > rules) my character was a Duck Acolyte with the Divine spell 'True Duck' > which turns the participant into a Duck. Since we were facing a Giant Troll, > A Chaos Duck, A Broo and a Female Ogre I thought that judicious use of True > Duck could save the day. > > -Great says GM you need to touch the Troll, use 'Unarmed' to do so > -You mean my 9% chance coz this is a pregen with no experience in Unarmed > and base is equal to Str? > -Yes > -Despite me having 76% with my Feathersword? > -Yes > --How about you allow for my ability to use footwork, situational awareness > and experience in fighting and let me roll under half my sword skill? > -No Alternative gameplay: -Great says GM you need to touch the Troll, use 'Unarmed' to do so -You mean my 9% chance coz this is a pregen with no experience in Unarmed and base is equal to Str? Couln't I use my Feathersword instead? -Well, maybe, but it would have to be at a Penalty because you are not using a sword and are trying to touch the troll, it would be Difficult, so use Feathersword at -40%. -OK The rules are there to be interpreted. RQM has a Difficult rating of -40% and the GM could have chosen to use it rather than insist on a base skill. I think this is a case of GM-re-education rather than a problem with systems/rules. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070903/6057f22d/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Tue Sep 4 05:55:34 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:55:34 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: d100.org and MRQ Message-ID: <50a0ed550709031255j93a130td17710a820913d17@mail.gmail.com> > > > From: "Gianni" > > Hi > > Is d100.org down? > > Cheers, > > Gianni Intentionally or no that was a blinding bit of advertising! > From: Simon Phipp > > > Alternative gameplay: > -Great says GM you need to touch the Troll, use 'Unarmed' to do so > -You mean my 9% chance coz this is a pregen with no experience in Unarmed > and base is equal to Str? Couln't I use my Feathersword instead? > -Well, maybe, but it would have to be at a Penalty because you are not > using a sword and are trying to touch the troll, it would be Difficult, so > use Feathersword at -40%. > -OK > > The rules are there to be interpreted. RQM has a Difficult rating of -40% Seems like an eminently sensible rule. Where is it? and the GM could have chosen to use it rather than insist on a base skill. I > think this is a case of GM-re-education rather than a problem with > systems/rules. That's a bit harsh I have here a dtf Elric of Melnibone and pdf MRQ and I can't find the rule in either. Its not how I'd have reffed the situation but I have a different style of game and possibly different idea of what a fun game is. Take care Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070903/4d64f0e8/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Thu Sep 6 06:53:48 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[rq-rules]The Basic News issue #2 is out! Message-ID: <517103.4823.qm@web28006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The september issue of the Basic News (issue #2) is out: http://basicroleplaying.com/news.htm A possible release date and cover illustration for the Basic Roleplaying core rulebook is the lead story for this issue. SGL. 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/20070905/73d902c1/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 7 02:42:22 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:42:22 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[rq-rules]The Basic News issue #2 is out! In-Reply-To: <517103.4823.qm@web28006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <517103.4823.qm@web28006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070906094157.034747d8@caprica.com> At 01:53 PM 9/5/2007, you wrote: >The september issue of the Basic News (issue #2) is out: > >http://basicroleplaying.com/news.htm > >A possible release date and cover illustration for the Basic >Roleplaying core rulebook is the lead story for this issue. I'm finding myself getting suprisingly pumped up about this for a system I haven't used in several years now... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070906/637d04e6/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 02:50:49 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:50:49 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[rq-rules]The Basic News issue #2 is out! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070906094157.034747d8@caprica.com> References: <517103.4823.qm@web28006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070906094157.034747d8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0709060950p2e3a1a45n83a4459a5fe0ef8c@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 01:53 PM 9/5/2007, you wrote: > > The september issue of the Basic News (issue #2) is out: > > http://basicroleplaying.com/news.htm > > A possible release date and cover illustration for the Basic Roleplaying > core rulebook is the lead story for this issue. > > > I'm finding myself getting suprisingly pumped up about this for a system I > haven't used in several years now... > D100 - it's FIVE TIMES better than d20! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070906/f0cd9a20/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Fri Sep 7 03:21:04 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:21:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***[rq-rules]The Basic News issue #2 is out! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0709060950p2e3a1a45n83a4459a5fe0ef8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <270902.81037.qm@web28007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hahaha, you got that right! ;-D Sverre. Styopa skrev: On 9/6/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: At 01:53 PM 9/5/2007, you wrote: The september issue of the Basic News (issue #2) is out: http://basicroleplaying.com/news.htm A possible release date and cover illustration for the Basic Roleplaying core rulebook is the lead story for this issue. I'm finding myself getting suprisingly pumped up about this for a system I haven't used in several years now... D100 - it's FIVE TIMES better than d20! _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules 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/20070906/c9699bb8/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 07:57:36 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Gore OGL Message-ID: <422666.59448.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> G.O.R.E has announced that they are going completely OGL. http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=437207#437207 I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is based on the Mongoose OGL, is a flavour of RQ and is closere to RQ2 than anything else being published at the moment. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070915/a8c7858e/attachment.html From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 19 04:57:48 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:57:48 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Copyright question on various RQ editions Message-ID: Hello to the list! Long time lurker, first time poster. I was wondering if anybody had a handle on a couple of specific copyright questions concerning RQ. 1) Did copyright for RQII go to Avalon Hill? If not who retains it? 2) How long was the copyright for RQII and RQIII? 3) Is the term of copyright renewed when an intellectual property is sold? I am looking at how long Hasbro has left on the copyright to RQIII that they picked up with Avalon Hill. I am presuming that the Advanced Squad Leader game was picked up by Hasbro as well. How did it get to be published by Multiman Publishing? Has anyone asked Hasbro for a sale price on RQ? Thank you, Joseph Paul From rjmeints at aol.com Wed Sep 19 05:14:00 2007 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:14:00 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <20070918185758.B91C5561168@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070918185758.B91C5561168@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <8C9C83F3451BC6F-810-648E@webmail-db15.sysops.aol.com> Joseph Paul asks: 1) Did copyright for RQII go to Avalon Hill? If not who retains it? 2) How long was the copyright for RQII and RQIII? 3) Is the term of copyright renewed when an intellectual property is sold? I am looking at how long Hasbro has left on the copyright to RQIII that they picked up with Avalon Hill. Chaosium owns the copyright on Runequest 1,?2 and?3. Avalon Hill sold/relinquished?their rights?back to Chaosium?years?ago. The term?for copyright is quite long, and does not need to be actively renewed for a long time (like several decades).? The only things Chaosium doesn't own related to the rules set are the two trademarks "Glorantha" and "Runequest". Those are under the control of Issaries Inc. Regards, Rick Meints ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070918/9e3222b5/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 05:57:32 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: d100.org and MRQ Message-ID: <561826.18361.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Alan Richards: >> From: Simon Phipp >> >> >> Alternative gameplay: >> -Great says GM you need to touch the Troll, use 'Unarmed' to do so >> -You mean my 9% chance coz this is a pregen with no experience in Unarmed >> and base is equal to Str? Couln't I use my Feathersword instead? >> -Well, maybe, but it would have to be at a Penalty because you are not >> using a sword and are trying to touch the troll, it would be Difficult, so >> use Feathersword at -40%. >> -OK >> >> The rules are there to be interpreted. RQM has a Difficult rating of -40% > > Seems like an eminently sensible rule. Where is it? I'm sure I saw it. Anyway, Page 17, the first page on Skills, says that you can substitute a Basic Skill for an Advanced Skill with a penalty of -20% , often morem and page 18 has a table of Difficulty Modifiers. So the principle is there. >>and the GM could have chosen to use it rather than insist on a base skill. I >> think this is a case of GM-re-education rather than a problem with >> systems/rules. > > That's a bit harsh I have here a dtf Elric of Melnibone and pdf MRQ and I > can't find the rule in either. > > Its not how I'd have reffed the situation but I have a different style of > game and possibly different idea of what a fun game is. In any case, a GM who wants a free-flowing open game can easily do so. A GM who wants a slow, closed game hidebound by the rules can also do so. I know which I prefer. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070918/9656b39d/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Sep 19 06:12:26 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:12:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: d100.org and MRQ In-Reply-To: <561826.18361.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <561826.18361.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070918131201.03410bc8@caprica.com> > > Its not how I'd have reffed the situation but I have a different style of > > game and possibly different idea of what a fun game is. > >In any case, a GM who wants a free-flowing open game can easily do >so. A GM who wants a slow, closed game hidebound by the rules can also do so. That seems rather excessive. From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 19 06:18:14 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:18:14 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <8C9C83F3451BC6F-810-648E@webmail-db15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Thank you for setting that straight Mr. Meints! Joseph Paul -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of rjmeints at aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:14 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3 Joseph Paul asks: 1) Did copyright for RQII go to Avalon Hill? If not who retains it? 2) How long was the copyright for RQII and RQIII? 3) Is the term of copyright renewed when an intellectual property is sold? I am looking at how long Hasbro has left on the copyright to RQIII that they picked up with Avalon Hill.Chaosium owns the copyright on Runequest 1, 2 and 3. Avalon Hill sold/relinquished their rights back to Chaosium years ago. The term for copyright is quite long, and does not need to be actively renewed for a long time (like several decades). The only things Chaosium doesn't own related to the rules set are the two trademarks "Glorantha" and "Runequest". Those are under the control of Issaries Inc. Regards, Rick Meints ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070918/2396b836/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 08:56:35 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:56:35 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Copyright question on various RQ editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi! I'm afraid that a lot of your questions are out of date.You might want to check out "The History of RuneQuest" ( http://www.runequest.org/rqpast.htm)and "RuneQuest News" ( http://www.runequest.org/rqnews.htm ) on my site for up-to-date info. 1. As it stands, my understanding is that the copyright for the text of the RQ2 (and RQ3) rules is retained by Chaosium; Hasbro released it to them a while ago. At roughly the same time Greg Stafford managed to acquire the trademark to the name "RuneQuest". 2. What do you mean by "how long"? 3. I'm not an intellectual property lawyer (nor a lawyer of any kind), but my understanding is that the period of copyright extends for the lifetime of the creator, plus 75 years. Transfers of ownership should not alter that. People did ask Hasbro for the sale price of RQ, back when Hasbro owned it. But they gave it up a while ago, apparently for free. I don't know anything about the current state of ASL. As it stands, Mongoose Publishing is publishing a version of "RuneQuest" under that name, although the rules aren't exactly true to the previous versions of the system. Chaosium is about to come out with D100, which is a multi-genre version of the BRP system that is quite close to RQ - closer than Mongoose's "RuneQuest" is, in my opinion (I was a playtester). Chaosium is also selling "monograph editions" of what they're calling "Basic Roleplaying" from their website. However, these are the core RQ3 books word-for-word with the name "RuneQuest" replaced with "Basic Roleplaying", for legal reasons. There's also an open-source system called G.O.R.E. which seems to be a very close copy of Call of Cthulhu and RQ3, although it's purportedly based on Mongoose RQ. ->Peter On 9/18/07, Joseph Paul wrote: > > Hello to the list! Long time lurker, first time poster. > I was wondering if anybody had a handle on a couple of specific copyright > questions concerning RQ. > > 1) Did copyright for RQII go to Avalon Hill? If not who retains it? > 2) How long was the copyright for RQII and RQIII? > 3) Is the term of copyright renewed when an intellectual property is sold? > > I am looking at how long Hasbro has left on the copyright to RQIII that > they > picked up with Avalon Hill. > > I am presuming that the Advanced Squad Leader game was picked up by Hasbro > as well. How did it get to be published by Multiman Publishing? Has anyone > asked Hasbro for a sale price on RQ? > > Thank you, > Joseph Paul > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070918/2aa03a05/attachment.html From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 20 04:49:07 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:49:07 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Copyright question on various RQ editions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi! I'm afraid that a lot of your questions are out of date.You might want to check out "The History of RuneQuest" ( http://www.runequest.org/rqpast.htm )and "RuneQuest News" ( http://www.runequest.org/rqnews.htm ) on my site for up-to-date info. So they are! Went and read the links, thanks for maintaining the history! 1. As it stands, my understanding is that the copyright for the text of the RQ2 (and RQ3) rules is retained by Chaosium; Hasbro released it to them a while ago. At roughly the same time Greg Stafford managed to acquire the trademark to the name "RuneQuest". So it would be possible for those systems to be reprinted in their original incarnations. That could be neat. Retro but neat. 2. What do you mean by "how long"? I meant "Does anyone know what the term of copyright was in use at the time of each games creation and has that changed by act of Congress since?" I suspect that you are correct in stating authors life plus 75 years. So as long as Mr.s Perrin, Tierney, and Henderson are alive copyright stays in place. We were a long way from it being able to pass into the public domain. 3. I'm not an intellectual property lawyer (nor a lawyer of any kind), but my understanding is that the period of copyright extends for the lifetime of the creator, plus 75 years. Transfers of ownership should not alter that. People did ask Hasbro for the sale price of RQ, back when Hasbro owned it. But they gave it up a while ago, apparently for free. I wonder why? I don't know anything about the current state of ASL. I mentioned it because it appears to be another game that has escaped Hasbro. As it stands, Mongoose Publishing is publishing a version of "RuneQuest" under that name, although the rules aren't exactly true to the previous versions of the system. Chaosium is about to come out with D100, which is a multi-genre version of the BRP system that is quite close to RQ - closer than Mongoose's "RuneQuest" is, in my opinion (I was a playtester). Chaosium is also selling "monograph editions" of what they're calling "Basic Roleplaying" from their website. However, these are the core RQ3 books word-for-word with the name "RuneQuest" replaced with "Basic Roleplaying", for legal reasons. If it is just RQIII then I already have that. There's also an open-source system called G.O.R.E. which seems to be a very close copy of Call of Cthulhu and RQ3, although it's purportedly based on Mongoose RQ. Downloaded it. ->Peter Thank you for your kind replies Peter. I am looking forward to BRP (full size) in November. I am hoping that there is sufficient support for it and that it becomes a commercial success. Joseph Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070919/0b05a8cb/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Sep 20 07:38:46 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:38:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Ghost Dancers In-Reply-To: <422666.59448.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <422666.59448.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c7fb05$76016680$0201a8c0@laptop2> I'm wondering if anybody converted the Ghost Dancers unit in Nomad Gods into the Runequest format? -- Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070919/b62e66db/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Sun Sep 23 01:52:13 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:52:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Styles of GMing and rules for specialisationss Message-ID: <50a0ed550709220852m79b390f5yf06a671f9d287a5@mail.gmail.com> > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:57:32 -0700 (PDT) > From: Simon Phipp > > In any case, a GM who wants a free-flowing open game can easily do so. A GM > who wants a slow, closed game hidebound by the rules can also do so. > How bizarre. I agree in the general completely. I want a fun, fast flowing game where GM (whether that be me or no) bends, ignores and improvises rules as required for maximum fun. And want the rules to be used to give PCs a good chance of pulling off clever shit. But in the specific I have to say again you are being a bit harsh on that GM as the game itself was fun. (Although he did stick to RAW in all of their minutae more than I would have done in his shoes). Anyway back to my original point I think that the d100/BRP/Deluxe BRP/Chaos System take on skill specialisations is a clever one and could lead to a more widespread use of 'default you can' rather than 'default you can't' gaming. Al From anders at california.com Tue Sep 25 05:21:03 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:21:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fire and Sword In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have placed the current version of Ray Turney's RQ called Fire and Sword on my website: polyhedral,net It is massive, and contains generic spells and critters to avoid those pesky copyright issues. Let me know if there are site problems. --Anders From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 27 15:59:31 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class Message-ID: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I was thinking crazy thoughts following some not-so-recent posts on differentiating armour as "hard shell" and "soft shell". How about using both in RQ combat? Here's the initial thoughts: Soft shell armour acts like the standard RQ method. You roll damage and subtract the number of points it protects. Hard shell armour has a damage threshold. If you get above the threshold your weapon does rolled damage. If you get below it, it does none. Comments, criticisms, elaborations requested... Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 16:55:47 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:55:47 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> Even ablative armour will absorb impact when it fails, Hardshell would too. I would think that the difference between softshell & hardshell would be one of weight & number of times it could protect before failure. Treat it perhaps like a weapon thus: 1) softshell: same as current armour rules. Excess damage is transferred into the body & the rating is never reduced. 2) ablative: Higher rating of protection but when it's rating is exceeded, any excess amount of damage is transfered into the body & the armour quality is reduced to 0 or perhaps 1 (the equivalent of cloth) 3) hardshell: higher rating than softshell armour & greater encumbrance. When it's rating is exceeded, any excess amount of damage is transferred into the body & the armour quality is reduced by one. Successive hits would eventually reduce it to zero. Skal, Sven Lev Lafayette wrote: > I was thinking crazy thoughts following some > not-so-recent posts on differentiating armour as "hard > shell" and "soft shell". > > How about using both in RQ combat? Here's the initial > thoughts: > > Soft shell armour acts like the standard RQ method. > You roll damage and subtract the number of points it > protects. > > Hard shell armour has a damage threshold. If you get > above the threshold your weapon does rolled damage. If > you get below it, it does none. > > Comments, criticisms, elaborations requested... > > > > Lev > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From Ludowick at aol.com Thu Sep 27 22:10:41 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:10:41 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Fire & Sword Message-ID: Anders Swenson wrote: > I have placed the current version of Ray Turney's RQ called Fire and Sword on > my website: Thanks, it's great to see these. > Let me know if there are site problems. The Runequest and Call of Cthulhu links appear broken. Michael ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 28 02:13:42 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:13:42 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> >Hard shell armour has a damage threshold. If you get >above the threshold your weapon does rolled damage. If >you get below it, it does none. I'm still not convinced this would make any sense; even with rigid armor, the force of breaching it should still reduce the energy delivered. From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 28 02:16:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:16:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> At 11:55 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote: >Even ablative armour will absorb impact when it fails, Hardshell >would too. I would think that the difference between softshell & >hardshell would be one of weight & number of times it could protect >before failure. Treat it perhaps like a weapon thus: There's also an issue that BRP style systems aren't set up to deal with very well, but I've seen handled in some other games (noteably JAGS); blunt impact damage versus piercing/cutting damage. Soft armor converts part of what hits it into impact damage, which is, on the whole, less severe than being cut or pierced. Hard armor doesn't do that nearly as much; it stops more damage outright, but less is spread out and minimized. I suspect its getting into more fiddliness than the basic approach to armor in RQ and its kin is set up to deal with, though. From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 28 02:47:54 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:47:54 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> Message-ID: I am not following you here. My experience is that soft armors absorb blunt force trauma, slowing force over time. Hard armors spread blunt forces out over larger areas decreasing the force applied to the target. There is also ample evidence that thick quilted armors (jacks for instance) were hard to cut through and that rigid armors did not need much in the way of protective padding. Can you elaborate? Joseph Paul -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Wayne Shaw Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:17 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class At 11:55 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote: >Even ablative armour will absorb impact when it fails, Hardshell >would too. I would think that the difference between softshell & >hardshell would be one of weight & number of times it could protect >before failure. Treat it perhaps like a weapon thus: There's also an issue that BRP style systems aren't set up to deal with very well, but I've seen handled in some other games (noteably JAGS); blunt impact damage versus piercing/cutting damage. Soft armor converts part of what hits it into impact damage, which is, on the whole, less severe than being cut or pierced. Hard armor doesn't do that nearly as much; it stops more damage outright, but less is spread out and minimized. I suspect its getting into more fiddliness than the basic approach to armor in RQ and its kin is set up to deal with, though. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 28 03:34:15 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:34:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> At 09:47 AM 9/27/2007, you wrote: >I am not following you here. My experience is that soft armors absorb blunt >force trauma, slowing force over time. Hard armors spread blunt forces out >over larger areas decreasing the force applied to the target. That's certainly not the way either chainmail or ballistic cloth work; since there's nothing much to stop them from transfering most blunt force to the target, that tends to go right through (chain often was worn with padding to mitigate this, but the chain itself didn't do much against a mace impact). And Kevlar explicitly takes focused bullet impacts and spreads them out; barring ballistic plates someone shot while wearing Kevlar almost always has a bruise, in fact a larger bruise than you'd expect from the bullet impact. >There is also ample evidence that thick quilted armors (jacks for instance) >were hard to cut through and that rigid armors did not need much in the way >of protective padding. The rigids could sometimes pull this off because they were hard enough to prevent much transfer, and I suspect if the quilted armors were hard to cut through, its simply because they were thick enough to be functionally, semi-rigid (tie together a bunch of ropes and try to cut through them, sometime). From anders at california.com Fri Sep 28 03:35:11 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:35:11 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Fire & Sword In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:10:41 EDT Ludowick at aol.com wrote: > Anders Swenson wrote: > > > I have placed the current version of Ray Turney's RQ called Fire and > Sword > on > > my website: > > Thanks, it's great to see these. > > > Let me know if there are site problems. > > The Runequest and Call of Cthulhu links appear broken. > > Michael > > I'll get on it. Thanks. I need to put a feedback link on the site. How do you like RQ without locations and hit points? --Anders From aelarsen at mac.com Fri Sep 28 04:15:13 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:15:13 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> Message-ID: Looking at this question from a totally different standpoint, does this game mechanic really add enough to the game to justify the increased complexity it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds and damage type seems to me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for fairly minimal benefit. What I've always liked about RQ (and I think I've said this on the list before) is that it does such a great job of balancing simulation of the real world with playability. Once you learn the fairly simple combat mechanics, things proceed quite easily. A friend of mine recently persuaded me to play in a D&D game, my first in about 25 years, and I was amazing at how difficult parts of the combat system were to learn, and how many odd rules would come up. We never had a combat where someone didn't wind up looking something up in the rule book. That almost never happens in my RQ games. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 9/27/07 12:34 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 09:47 AM 9/27/2007, you wrote: >> I am not following you here. My experience is that soft armors absorb blunt >> force trauma, slowing force over time. Hard armors spread blunt forces out >> over larger areas decreasing the force applied to the target. > > That's certainly not the way either chainmail or ballistic cloth > work; since there's nothing much to stop them from transfering most > blunt force to the target, that tends to go right through (chain > often was worn with padding to mitigate this, but the chain itself > didn't do much against a mace impact). And Kevlar explicitly takes > focused bullet impacts and spreads them out; barring ballistic plates > someone shot while wearing Kevlar almost always has a bruise, in fact > a larger bruise than you'd expect from the bullet impact. > > >> There is also ample evidence that thick quilted armors (jacks for instance) >> were hard to cut through and that rigid armors did not need much in the way >> of protective padding. > > The rigids could sometimes pull this off because they were hard > enough to prevent much transfer, and I suspect if the quilted armors > were hard to cut through, its simply because they were thick enough > to be functionally, semi-rigid (tie together a bunch of ropes and try > to cut through them, sometime). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 28 05:07:16 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:07:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927120613.03443c10@caprica.com> At 11:15 AM 9/27/2007, you wrote: >Looking at this question from a totally different standpoint, does this game >mechanic really add enough to the game to justify the increased complexity >it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds and damage type seems to >me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for fairly minimal benefit. One can, of course, argue just that; but then, people argue that about hit locations, strike ranks and other aspects of the game, too. Its just an issue of what one wants. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 06:35:41 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> Message-ID: 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 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. > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:15:13 -0500> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class> From: aelarsen at mac.com> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > Looking at this question from a totally different standpoint, does this game> mechanic really add enough to the game to justify the increased complexity> it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds and damage type seems to> me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for fairly minimal benefit.> What I've always liked about RQ (and I think I've said this on the list> before) is that it does such a great job of balancing simulation of the real> world with playability. Once you learn the fairly simple combat mechanics,> things proceed quite easily. A friend of mine recently persuaded me to play> in a D&D game, my first in about 25 years, and I was amazing at how> difficult parts of the combat system were to learn, and how many odd rules> would come up. We never had a combat where someone didn't wind up looking> something up in the rule book. That almost never happens in my RQ games.> > Andrew E. Larsen> "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody."> Alan Moore--V for Vendetta> > > On 9/27/07 12:34 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote:> > > At 09:47 AM 9/27/2007, you wrote:> >> I am not following you here. My experience is that soft armors absorb blunt> >> force trauma, slowing force over time. Hard armors spread blunt forces out> >> over larger areas decreasing the force applied to the target.> > > > That's certainly not the way either chainmail or ballistic cloth> > work; since there's nothing much to stop them from transfering most> > blunt force to the target, that tends to go right through (chain> > often was worn with padding to mitigate this, but the chain itself> > didn't do much against a mace impact). And Kevlar explicitly takes> > focused bullet impacts and spreads them out; barring ballistic plates> > someone shot while wearing Kevlar almost always has a bruise, in fact> > a larger bruise than you'd expect from the bullet impact.> > > > > >> There is also ample evidence that thick quilted armors (jacks for instance)> >> were hard to cut through and that rigid armors did not need much in the way> >> of protective padding.> > > > The rigids could sometimes pull this off because they were hard> > enough to prevent much transfer, and I suspect if the quilted armors> > were hard to cut through, its simply because they were thick enough> > to be functionally, semi-rigid (tie together a bunch of ropes and try> > to cut through them, sometime).> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________> > RQ-Rules mailing list> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules> > > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ 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/20070927/409dff64/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Fri Sep 28 06:48:06 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927120613.03443c10@caprica.com> Message-ID: You're right, of course, that hit locations and other things are more about simulation than playability, and one can certainly push the rules toward more playability and simplicity. But what I've always liked about the core RQ rules was how well they balanced playability with simulation. The rules are very playable, but have enough simulation to make them feel logical and 'real'. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 9/27/07 2:07 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 11:15 AM 9/27/2007, you wrote: >> Looking at this question from a totally different standpoint, does this game >> mechanic really add enough to the game to justify the increased complexity >> it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds and damage type seems to >> me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for fairly minimal benefit. > > One can, of course, argue just that; but then, people argue that > about hit locations, strike ranks and other aspects of the game, > too. Its just an issue of what one wants. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Fri Sep 28 07:17:11 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:17:11 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927120613.03443c10@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927141629.03463e20@caprica.com> At 01:48 PM 9/27/2007, you wrote: >You're right, of course, that hit locations and other things are more about >simulation than playability, and one can certainly push the rules toward >more playability and simplicity. But what I've always liked about the core >RQ rules was how well they balanced playability with simulation. The rules >are very playable, but have enough simulation to make them feel logical and >'real'. I feel much the same way, but was just noting that different people set the benchmarks for that in different places, even within fans of BRP games; many people consider some of the complexities of RQ excessive. From StevenDLeary at comcast.net Fri Sep 28 12:09:03 2007 From: StevenDLeary at comcast.net (Steven Leary) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:09:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> Message-ID: I've always thought that another BRP based game had this right. Wait for it.... SUPERWORLD! In the companion, they modify the Resistance power to function thus: If the attacks damage is less than half the resistance value, then no damage is done. If the damage is between half resistance and twice, then the damage is halved. At twice and more, simply subtracts. This is apparently a compromise between a suggestion by Steves' Mauer and Perrin. This does introduce some problems though, so I suggest the above be applied to blunt trauma weapons. Mace, quaterstaff, etc, when attacking a target wearing flexible armor (mail, scale, leather, padded, etc). Steven Leary ------------ On 27 Sep , 07, at 9:16 AM, Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 11:55 PM 9/26/2007, you wrote: >> Even ablative armour will absorb impact when it fails, Hardshell >> would too. I would think that the difference between softshell & >> hardshell would be one of weight & number of times it could >> protect before failure. Treat it perhaps like a weapon thus: > > There's also an issue that BRP style systems aren't set up to deal > with very well, but I've seen handled in some other games (noteably > JAGS); blunt impact damage versus piercing/cutting damage. Soft > armor converts part of what hits it into impact damage, which is, > on the whole, less severe than being cut or pierced. Hard armor > doesn't do that nearly as much; it stops more damage outright, but > less is spread out and minimized. > > I suspect its getting into more fiddliness than the basic approach > to armor in RQ and its kin is set up to deal with, though. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 28 20:29:05 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:29:05 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > I'm still not convinced this would make any sense; even with rigid > armor, the force of breaching it should still reduce the energy delivered. > I suppose it all comes down to realism vs playibility. Padded type armours should be good vs bashing weapons and bad vs blades, hard armour the converse in theory. But straight away that starts a rules lawyers argument, because if you give bonus and penalties based on that, people start debating weapon types and armounr types. Whats lamelar per example, hard or soft, or best of both worlds? Is a spiked maul considered a bladed or smashing weapon etc. At the extreme end of teh scale one could corss ref every type of armour to every type of wepon and attach (Sword slash/Sword thurst etc) and apply a penalty or bonus.) On an other point, I have always felt that armour should be more easily damaged. I know one can reduce AP like reducing a parrying weaposn AP, but thats more an exception than a rule. In a serious battle where heavy blows are being landed, armour should get damaged in some way. Something like for every time damage gets through armour, the armour loses one AP in that area. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Sep 28 20:36:35 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:36:35 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46FB53F3.6040003@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091356.03415270@caprica.com> Message-ID: <34430.196.8.104.27.1190975795.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > There's also an issue that BRP style systems aren't set up to deal > with very well, but I've seen handled in some other games (noteably > JAGS); blunt impact damage versus piercing/cutting damage. Soft > armor converts part of what hits it into impact damage, which is, on > the whole, less severe than being cut or pierced. Hard armor doesn't > do that nearly as much; it stops more damage outright, but less is > spread out and minimized. > > I suspect its getting into more fiddliness than the basic approach to > armor in RQ and its kin is set up to deal with, though. > Reminiscent of Top Secret SI. You marked half a damage track block for bruise damage and a full block for damage where blood was drawn. If all blocks were full your limb was useless/off etc. If all the blocks were half and further bruise damage occurred, you marked the other half of the block and thus would have taken full damage in that area. If that makes sence? From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 00:23:38 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:23:38 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <34430.196.8.104.27.1190975795.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> 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> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0709280723j7b3fb3e8ma53d44a7f8acab39@mail.gmail.com> I'm of a simulationist bent myself, and have had to restrain my desire to 'microdetail' combat to reach a level of resolution that approaches Phoenix Command's level of simulation (if you want to see an example of nano-detailing), because of the sheer cost to game flow and ultimately MGF for players who don't share my penchant. Weapons vs Armor is entirely a physics issue of (force delivered)/(area). We arbitrarily divide them into blunt, slashing, and piercing because of their resulting EFFECTS on a target but the mechanics of all are identical. Of course this runs into so many exceptions, rules tend to bog down around them. Typically it's kinetic energy - mass x velocity^2, but CAPPED by the intrinsic material strength of the weapon, commonly representable by the mass again.* Blunt weapons generally make little or no design-effort to focus this force on a smaller area, while cutting weapons (including the relatively blunt axes and most swords) tended to try to focus the force on a linear edge, and of course piercing weapons focus it on a point. * for example, firing an arrow from a heavier & heaver bow (ie faster) will result in increasing amounts of damage, but only to a point - if the arrow is balsa wood, it will rather quickly reach a point where it will shatter rather than deliver more energy....thus the value of metal or stone arrowheads, which allow an arrow to deliver energy far in excess of the material strength of the light wood of the shaft. Each of these is compromise between usability (how easy it is to get the damage-focusing bits applied to the target) and efficiency. Similarly, there is also a compromise in how the damage affects the target, and the likelihood of immediate incapacitation - piercing weapons can actually be TOO energetic, punching through the target instead of delivering all energy to it, disregarding also the relatively smaller damaged area caused by a puncture, which can miss vital bits entirely. Throwing armor into the equation complicates it, but not a heck of a lot. Armor is simply doing the opposite - trying to spread out the energy to as much area as possible, and in the same sense that the blunt/edge/point mechanic is about the practicalities of application and efficiency, the FLEXIBILITY and weight of armor each address the practicalities of actually wearing and acting inside such protection. My point, I guess, is that NONE of these is discrete. Just about every weapon's damage can be calculated by kinetic energy (again, capped by materials), divided by the area over which the energy is applied (which itself would be multiplied by the distributive ability of the armor at the point(s) of impact). Flexible vs. Rigid armor is simply a practical evolution of logic and materials technology. Armor failure is an extension of the energy calculation, but for the armor itself. With the application of a certain amount of energy, steel (using that for this example, but we could be talking about bronze, or whatever) will fail. Now, the rings of a chain shirt will intrinsically fail at a much lower energy than a 5mm steel plate...however: the same thing that makes chainmail less effective generally (its flexibility) also allows these individual rings to PASS ON most of the impact energy instead of rigidly resisting, so they are therefore going to absorb less energy from a given blow. Finally, there are thousands of rings so the failure of a single ring or even scores is relatively inconsequential to the integrity of the armor (except at that precise point). 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. So yeah, I've paid a lot of attention to this. If you want realistic weapon damage, armor, and armor-failure rules, it would be something like: melee weapon damage = some sort of number based on strength & siz, plus a factor based on weapon weight (as long as it's wieldable), divided by the energy-focussing area of the weapon) [so a blunt/edge weapon might be 0.6, a sharp-edged weapon might be 0.4, an arrow might be 0.1]; capped by a multiple of weapon weight. Armor has an AP and a distributive value - totally rigid at the point if impact would be a distributive value of 10 (let's say), chainmail, flexibles = 5. AP is based on material strength, for example AP of Steel is 12, heavy thick leather might be 4. Applied damage is the weapon damage total divided by the distributive value. If this EXCEEDS the AP, the armor would be degraded by the energy-focussing factor of the weapon times the distributive value of the armor, capped by the weight of the weapon times the energy-focussing factor - more rigid armor, if penetrated, will fail more completely but only in the area penetrated, so a longbow arrow overwhelming a plate really doesn't significantly degrade the long term armor value of the plate, while a mace overwhelming chainmail really doesn't degrade it much, either. A mace overwhelming plate (crushing it) makes it very nearly worthless against subsequent blunt trauma. Obviously, lots and lots of factors to tweak to end up with realistic, supportable, repeatable results. Personally, I don't think it adds enough to the game to be worth it. I ended up just adding unique "specials" to each category of weapon more to give the players the 'flavor' of their weapon choices than anything, and since they're happy and it's fun, I'm happy: blunt: 2x damage INCLUDING STR MOD, knockback = damage/SIZ in meters. Roll Dex(- knockback meters)*4 or fall prone (Dex(-knockback)*8 if 4+ legs) pierce: special = 3x rolled weapon damage not incl STR mod. Chance of weapon sticking. hacking (axes, 2handers, etc. ie blunt/edged): 2x weapon incl STR, cut off limb at 2x hp in one blow (rather than my house rule of 3x) slashing (weapons whose main damage is due to their sharpness...knives, claws, scimitars, samurai swords, etc.) = 2x damage not incl STR; bleed effect for -1 hp/rd (crit = -2 hp/rd) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070928/64fbbd63/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 02:07:10 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35308.47260.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > Looking at this question from a totally different > standpoint, does this game > mechanic really add enough to the game to justify > the increased complexity > it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds > and damage type seems to > me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for > fairly minimal benefit. > Andrew E. Larsen Not really. Mythworld has distinctions for impale, slash, and crush damage depending on the weapon type, and different Absorption Points against each for the armor worn. The APs are listed with the local hit points on the character sheet. Attack rolls damage, subtracts the armor AP and what gets through is the damage done to that location. There is no complexity and a lot more realism. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 02:11:39 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:11:39 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> 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: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928090900.033f01e0@caprica.com> At 03:29 AM 9/28/2007, you wrote: > > I'm still not convinced this would make any sense; even with rigid > > armor, the force of breaching it should still reduce the energy delivered. > > >I suppose it all comes down to realism vs playibility. Padded type armours >should be good vs bashing weapons and bad vs blades, hard armour the >converse in theory. But straight away that starts a rules lawyers >argument, because if you give bonus and penalties based on that, people >start debating weapon types and armounr types. Whats lamelar per example, >hard or soft, or best of both worlds? Is a spiked maul considered a bladed >or smashing weapon etc. At the extreme end of teh scale one could corss >ref every type of armour to every type of wepon and attach (Sword >slash/Sword thurst etc) and apply a penalty or bonus.) Yeah, there really are elements of "when do you want to stop?" At the very least you can argue there being at least five to six basic types of damage delivery among melee weapons, and that different armors have _individual_ characterstics for dealing with them (a mace is different than a sword which is different than a pick which isn't quite the same as a spear). Its the reason I'm really not convinced opening that can of worms is worth it. >On an other point, I have always felt that armour should be more easily >damaged. I know one can reduce AP like reducing a parrying weaposn AP, but >thats more an exception than a rule. In a serious battle where heavy blows >are being landed, armour should get damaged in some way. Something like >for every time damage gets through armour, the armour loses one AP in that >area. That's probably too fast, though, given, as we've noted, some of that in some cases isn't a sign of penetrating damage but kinetic transfer, and the bookkeeping gets fiddly. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 02:12:51 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:12:51 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <34430.196.8.104.27.1190975795.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928091211.0343bae0@caprica.com> At 03:36 AM 9/28/2007, you wrote: > > There's also an issue that BRP style systems aren't set up to deal > > with very well, but I've seen handled in some other games (noteably > > JAGS); blunt impact damage versus piercing/cutting damage. Soft > > armor converts part of what hits it into impact damage, which is, on > > the whole, less severe than being cut or pierced. Hard armor doesn't > > do that nearly as much; it stops more damage outright, but less is > > spread out and minimized. > > > > I suspect its getting into more fiddliness than the basic approach to > > armor in RQ and its kin is set up to deal with, though. > > > >Reminiscent of Top Secret SI. You marked half a damage track block for >bruise damage and a full block for damage where blood was drawn. If all >blocks were full your limb was useless/off etc. If all the blocks were >half and further bruise damage occurred, you marked the other half of the >block and thus would have taken full damage in that area. If that makes >sence? That's something like how the modern White Wolf system handles bashing and lethal damage. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 02:19:53 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:19:53 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0709280723j7b3fb3e8ma53d44a7f8acab39@mail.gmail.co m> 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928091330.033d6ac8@caprica.com> At 07:23 AM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >I'm of a simulationist bent myself, and have had to restrain my >desire to 'microdetail' combat to reach a level of resolution that >approaches Phoenix Command's level of simulation (if you want to see >an example of nano-detailing), because of the sheer cost to game >flow and ultimately MGF for players who don't share my penchant. > >Weapons vs Armor is entirely a physics issue of (force delivered)/(area). Well, physics and structural mechanics. The weapon effect is pretty much physics, but the structural mechanics of the armor matters in terms of what sort of weapons are handled how well. >Throwing armor into the equation complicates it, but not a heck of a lot. >Armor is simply doing the opposite - trying to spread out the energy >to as much area as possible, and in the same sense that the >blunt/edge/point mechanic is about the practicalities of application >and efficiency, the FLEXIBILITY and weight of armor each address the >practicalities of actually wearing and acting inside such protection. Well, armor is also trying to absorb force itself; you obviously get kinetic transfer no matter what, but since part of the issue isn't just energy transfer once you get in, but the depth and location of the transfer, if you minimize that depth letting the energy itself through is less of an issue. >My point, I guess, is that NONE of these is discrete. Just about >every weapon's damage can be calculated by kinetic energy (again, >capped by materials), divided by the area over which the energy is >applied (which itself would be multiplied by the distributive >ability of the armor at the point(s) of impact). Uhm, not quite; its _penetration_ can be calculated that way, but damage also has to factor in what form the energy is being transfered in, as all are not equally good at disabling a target. >Flexible vs. Rigid armor is simply a practical evolution of logic >and materials technology. Armor failure is an extension of the >energy calculation, but for the armor itself. With the application >of a certain amount of energy, steel (using that for this example, >but we could be talking about bronze, or whatever) will fail. Now, >the rings of a chain shirt will intrinsically fail at a much lower >energy than a 5mm steel plate...however: the same thing that makes >chainmail less effective generally (its flexibility) also allows >these individual rings to PASS ON most of the impact energy instead >of rigidly resisting, so they are therefore going to absorb less >energy from a given blow. Finally, there are thousands of rings so >the failure of a single ring or even scores is relatively >inconsequential to the integrity of the armor (except at that >precise point). 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. >Personally, I don't think it adds enough to the game to be worth >it. I ended up just adding unique "specials" to each category of >weapon more to give the players the This I pretty much agree with. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 02:22:35 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:22:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <35308.47260.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <35308.47260.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928092028.03406360@caprica.com> At 09:07 AM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >--- Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > Looking at this question from a totally different > > standpoint, does this game > > mechanic really add enough to the game to justify > > the increased complexity > > it imposes on the rules? Tracking armor thresholds > > and damage type seems to > > me to add a whole level of complexity to combat for > > fairly minimal benefit. > > > Andrew E. Larsen > >Not really. Mythworld has distinctions for impale, >slash, and crush damage depending on the weapon type, >and different Absorption Points against each for the >armor worn. The APs are listed with the local hit >points on the character sheet. Attack rolls damage, >subtracts the armor AP and what gets through is the >damage done to that location. There is no complexity >and a lot more realism. I hate to tell you, but adding extra columns of armor points _is_ more complexity. Especially if you're actually going to start paying attention to things like many weapons doing more than one damage type. Whether its enough complexity to bother you is an issue for the end user, but it _is_ there. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 02:43:28 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928092028.03406360@caprica.com> Message-ID: <662844.67408.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > I hate to tell you, but adding extra columns of > armor points _is_ > more complexity. Especially if you're actually > going to start paying > attention to things like many weapons doing more > than one damage > type. Whether its enough complexity to bother you > is an issue for > the end user, but it _is_ there. Do you have various armor types absorbing different amounts of damage? And is that listed on the character sheet? If so, do you check encumbrance and SIZ or do you go directly to the AP to find how much damage is absorbed, ignoring those irrelevancies? If so, then the Mythworld system is no more complicated than the RQ one - you go to the appropriate AP and subtract from the damage. There is no difference at all. The difference between the impaling of an arrow, a spear, or a spiked mace is reflected in the different damage inflicted by those weapons, and the Action Rank (SR for RQ) used up moving the different masses. Again, no practical difference between the systems in complexity. Just in realism. And how much of that you want is a personal decision. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 03:36:14 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:36:14 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <662844.67408.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928092028.03406360@caprica.com> <662844.67408.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928103513.033dbd48@caprica.com> At 09:43 AM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > I hate to tell you, but adding extra columns of > > armor points _is_ > > more complexity. Especially if you're actually > > going to start paying > > attention to things like many weapons doing more > > than one damage > > type. Whether its enough complexity to bother you > > is an issue for > > the end user, but it _is_ there. > >Do you have various armor types absorbing different >amounts of damage? And is that listed on the >character sheet? If so, do you check encumbrance and >SIZ or do you go directly to the AP to find how much >damage is absorbed, ignoring those irrelevancies? If >so, then the Mythworld system is no more complicated >than the RQ one - you go to the appropriate AP and >subtract from the damage. There is no difference at >all. Unless you misstated it (that armor has _different types of value versus the three weapon damage types_) three columns is more complicated than one column. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 05:39:32 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928103513.033dbd48@caprica.com> Message-ID: <390665.72276.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> -- Wayne Shaw wrote: > Unless you misstated it (that armor has _different > types of value > versus the three weapon damage types_) three columns > is more > complicated than one column. But you only reference the one column, thus my illustration of other stats you don't reference when hit. Therefore, one column is no more complex than one column, but is equal. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Sep 29 05:57:14 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:57:14 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.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> Message-ID: > On an other point, I have always felt that armour should be more easily> damaged. I know one can reduce AP like reducing a parrying weaposn AP, but> thats more an exception than a rule. In a serious battle where heavy blows> are being landed, armour should get damaged in some way. Something like> for every time damage gets through armour, the armour loses one AP in that> area.> Tony 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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/20070928/3d75025d/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sat Sep 29 08:02:50 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:02:50 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <390665.72276.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928103513.033dbd48@caprica.com> <390665.72276.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928150201.033dae30@caprica.com> At 12:39 PM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >-- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > Unless you misstated it (that armor has _different > > types of value > > versus the three weapon damage types_) three columns > > is more > > complicated than one column. > >But you only reference the one column, thus my >illustration of other stats you don't reference when >hit. Therefore, one column is no more complex than >one column, but is equal. You still have to note which one to check. I'm really not seeing how that can be read as no more complicated; it still puts an extra step in process. It may not be a bothersome step depending on your view, but it _does_ add complexity. From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 13:56:51 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928091330.033d6ac8@caprica.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> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0709282056l326c19f6l320ee50293cd069@mail.gmail.com> On 9/28/07, Wayne Shaw 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070928/70c4b61d/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 00:22:12 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070928150201.033dae30@caprica.com> Message-ID: <995307.98949.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 12:39 PM 9/28/2007, you wrote: > >-- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > > > Unless you misstated it (that armor has > _different > > > types of value > > > versus the three weapon damage types_) three > columns > > > is more > > > complicated than one column. > > > >But you only reference the one column, thus my > >illustration of other stats you don't reference > when > >hit. Therefore, one column is no more complex than > >one column, but is equal. > > You still have to note which one to check. I'm > really not seeing how > that can be read as no more complicated; it still > puts an extra step > in process. It may not be a bothersome step > depending on your view, > but it _does_ add complexity. > 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 the ridiculous, and I am logging off the subject. 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