From royce at efn.org  Thu Oct  2 15:32:27 2008
From: royce at efn.org (royce at efn.org)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Gone Many Moons
Message-ID: <49365.158.165.212.173.1222961547.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>

Greetings, Fellow RQers,
   I've been absent for months, busy.  But I'm going to try to check in
every two months henceforth.  This coming summer, I hope to start an RQ
campaign.  To which end, ...
   I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the following thoughts:
I. Setting
  A.  High Middle Ages
  B.  Pagan, not Christian or Muslim
      1.  In RQ settings, the gods are real, and drop in to visit
      2.  Olympian pantheon predominates in Europe
      3.  Norse cults coexist in north, older cults in Middle East
  C.  Retain the priests, bishoprics, monasteries, cathedrals, and the
rest of the enormous Medieval religious edifice -- but all devoted to
the Greek gods
      1.  In Rome is the chief temple to Zeus, and the chief priest of the
temple is called Pope
      2.  European kings & barons protect the Olympian pantheon.  A given
noble family will have a patron god(dess).

   If I remember my mythology correctly, a king got cursed by a god for
forgetting that god's (or goddess's) name in an offering to the whole
pantheon.  What does this mean for village priests?
   Is a village priest in the service of one god only?  Is he primarily
for one god, but hosts offerings & performs sacrifices to the whole
pantheon?

II.  Magic & Feudalism
   (Staff meeting is over.  Gotta go.  :-)


   Thanks ahead of time for any thoughts on the matters.
   Sincerely,
Asher






From lev at rpgreview.net  Fri Oct  3 10:32:00 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:32:00 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Gone Many Moons
In-Reply-To: <49365.158.165.212.173.1222961547.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <49365.158.165.212.173.1222961547.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <1223029920.9871.7.camel@rat>

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 08:32 -0700, royce at efn.org wrote:
> Greetings, Fellow RQers,
>    I've been absent for months, busy.  But I'm going to try to check in
> every two months henceforth.  This coming summer, I hope to start an RQ
> campaign.  To which end, ...
>    I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the following thoughts:
> I. Setting
>   A.  High Middle Ages
>   B.  Pagan, not Christian or Muslim
>       1.  In RQ settings, the gods are real, and drop in to visit
>       2.  Olympian pantheon predominates in Europe
>       3.  Norse cults coexist in north, older cults in Middle East

Olympic should dominate Greece, Italy, much of Spain and southern
France. Use the Wotanic pantheons for Germany and Scandinavia. Use
Celtic for Northern France, British Isles and Slavic cults for much of
the East.

I have run and played in several "historical fantasy" campaigns in the
past fifteen years or so.. please feel free to fire away questions
because it is an incredibly rich source of material to work with.

>    Is a village priest in the service of one god only?  Is he primarily
> for one god, but hosts offerings & performs sacrifices to the whole
> pantheon?
> 

Yes, that would work.

> II.  Magic & Feudalism
>    (Staff meeting is over.  Gotta go.  :-)

Heh. Do you play 'management bingo'?

All the best,


Lev




From postmaster at runequest.za.org  Mon Oct  6 09:27:47 2008
From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (Tony)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:27:47 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: [Runequest]  [OT]Gone Many Moons
In-Reply-To: <1223029920.9871.7.camel@rat>
References: <49365.158.165.212.173.1222961547.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<1223029920.9871.7.camel@rat>
Message-ID: <12160.196.8.104.59.1223285267.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org>

Lev Lafayette wrote:
> Heh. Do you play 'management bingo'?
>
>
Is that what you call it there, in South africa we call it Bullsh1t bingo:)



From alanjrichards at googlemail.com  Tue Oct  7 08:47:39 2008
From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:47:39 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] whiling away a dull meeting
Message-ID: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>

Buzzword bingo here (complete with little cards in one meeting, the chair
didn't find it as amusing as the rest of us)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081007/c0170ebd/attachment.htm>

From postmaster at runequest.za.org  Thu Oct  9 07:22:23 2008
From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (Tony)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:22:23 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: [Runequest] whiling away a dull meeting
In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56646.196.8.104.59.1223536943.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org>

alan richards wrote:
> Buzzword bingo here (complete with little cards in one meeting, the chair
> didn't find it as amusing as the rest of us)
>
Bwaa ha ha ha ha. They rerely do. Problem is I have found in the bank I
work at is its almost like someone goes. Hmm, I am
bored/tired/lonley/feellin insecure, lets have a meeting. There seems to
be a perception that performing admin like tasks and having numerous
meetings is adding value and considered hard graft, where on the contrary
all it does is waste a lot of time and frustrate people. I long for the
days before Outlook or scheduler when meetings had to be manually diarised
and arranged and asking someone to do something required a visit to their
desk or a phone call, or even a memo:)



From pmaranci at gmail.com  Thu Oct  9 14:34:57 2008
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:34:57 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] whiling away a dull meeting
In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa2df9f20810090734o2bad79abs55c0e57896219388@mail.gmail.com>

I often jot down RuneQuest ideas for the Chaos Project on my site during
boring meetings - really!

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:47 AM, alan richards
<alanjrichards at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Buzzword bingo here (complete with little cards in one meeting, the chair
> didn't find it as amusing as the rest of us)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>


-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081009/4c23a88a/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Thu Oct  9 21:08:52 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:08:52 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] whiling away a dull meeting
In-Reply-To: <56646.196.8.104.59.1223536943.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org>
References: <50a0ed550810070147v7969a3d9u5989054ca88f600b@mail.gmail.com>
	<56646.196.8.104.59.1223536943.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org>
Message-ID: <1223586532.19498.2.camel@rat>

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 09:22 +0200, Tony wrote:
> alan richards wrote:
> > Buzzword bingo here (complete with little cards in one meeting, the chair
> > didn't find it as amusing as the rest of us)
> >
> Bwaa ha ha ha ha. They rerely do. Problem is I have found in the bank I
> work at is its almost like someone goes. Hmm, I am
> bored/tired/lonley/feellin insecure, lets have a meeting. There seems to
> be a perception that performing admin like tasks and having numerous
> meetings is adding value and considered hard graft, where on the contrary
> all it does is waste a lot of time and frustrate people. I long for the
> days before Outlook or scheduler when meetings had to be manually diarised
> and arranged and asking someone to do something required a visit to their
> desk or a phone call, or even a memo:)

I sometimes sketch runes during meetings :)

Mind you, the meetings my work makes me attend are usually reasonably
interesting..


Lev




From alanjrichards at googlemail.com  Fri Oct 10 08:23:06 2008
From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:23:06 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 7, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1223600407.22828.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
References: <mailman.5.1223600407.22828.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <50a0ed550810100123u55017731wb329f9ecd91ccd5b@mail.gmail.com>

I'm with Churchill on meetings 'the point of any meeting is to make a
decision'

If an agenda item ends with the formation of a (not) working group, deferral
or delay then I tend to feel cheated. And more often than not my cynicism is
shown to be well-placed.



Al
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081010/55d41431/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Mon Oct 13 21:13:02 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:13:02 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
Message-ID: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>

On the train home last night I scribbled down some notes concerning
aimed and directional shots in RuneQuest.

Both first and second edition had a "wait for up to four strike ranks,
reduce chance to hit by 5% per strike rank, modify by number of strike
ranks waited" along with "wait until SR 12, strike specific location at
half value". The latter option also appeared in third edition, albeit
with the SR reduced to 10. In the Mongoose edition a precise attack,
targeting a specific location, can be carried out with a -40% penalty.

My scribbled notes suggest the following:

Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
(RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.

Are there any obvious problems with this - apart from the fact I've
reintroduced the d12 ? ;)

All the best,



Lev







From pmaranci at gmail.com  Tue Oct 14 01:38:52 2008
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:38:52 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>
References: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>
Message-ID: <aa2df9f20810131838x4396cd3aw70ae62adfce6d226@mail.gmail.com>

I LIKED the d12!

These look good to me. One drawback is that a separate table would have to
be made for different body configurations. Unless this could somehow be tied
into the proportional hit points per hit location tables of RQ3? Would that
make sense?

On a semi-related note, how about adding the ability to sacrifice skill for
time? Say, allow an attacker to be one strike rank quicker at a reduction of
10% to their chance to hit. I'd suggest that the skill cost for each
additional strike rank reduction should be double the previous cost, i.e.
-10% for the first SR, -20% for the second, -40% for the third, etc. - with
a minimum limit of 1 SR. The skill reduction would apply to all attacks made
that round, so if the combatant took a big reduction and made a fast attack
and then a second attack (or more), those later attacks - even though not
hastened - would still be made at a penalty.

Sound reasonable?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev at rpgreview.net> wrote:

> On the train home last night I scribbled down some notes concerning
> aimed and directional shots in RuneQuest.
>
> Both first and second edition had a "wait for up to four strike ranks,
> reduce chance to hit by 5% per strike rank, modify by number of strike
> ranks waited" along with "wait until SR 12, strike specific location at
> half value". The latter option also appeared in third edition, albeit
> with the SR reduced to 10. In the Mongoose edition a precise attack,
> targeting a specific location, can be carried out with a -40% penalty.
>
> My scribbled notes suggest the following:
>
> Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
> (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
> Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
> Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
> Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
> Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
> Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
>
> Are there any obvious problems with this - apart from the fact I've
> reintroduced the d12 ? ;)
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Lev
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>



-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081013/97941e45/attachment.htm>

From gianni at basicrps.com  Tue Oct 14 08:43:50 2008
From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:43:50 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
Message-ID: <mailman.27.1737152027.270143.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>


Lev

I don't understand:

> Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
> (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
> Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
> Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
> Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
> Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
> Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
> 

is the -40% cumulative with the -X% to hit? or is it replace with it?

G.


From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com  Tue Oct 14 08:56:46 2008
From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:56:46 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots in MRQ
In-Reply-To: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>
References: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>
Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60CD341E1@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com>

>In the Mongoose edition a precise attack,
>targeting a specific location, can be carried out with a -40% penalty. 

Have they fixed the "Plate is pointless" rule yet? The one where you can
take a -40% penalty to ignore the target's armour, whereas the armour itself
carries a -40% penalty to all actions anyway so it cancels out? i.e. man in
plate and man wearing no armour are on equal terms, except that the man in
no armour can make other non-attack actions with no penalty.

Phil Hibbs
-- 
Capgemini is a trading name used by the Capgemini Group of
companies which includes Capgemini UK plc, a company registered in
England and Wales (number 943935) whose registered office is at No.
1 Forge End, Woking, Surrey, GU21 6DB



From lev at rpgreview.net  Tue Oct 14 11:56:42 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:56:42 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <1223974146.6074.21.camel@rat>
References: <1223974146.6074.21.camel@rat>
Message-ID: <1223985402.6122.0.camel@rat>

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:43 +0200, Gianni wrote:
> Lev
> 
> 
> is the -40% cumulative with the -X% to hit? or is it replace with it?
> 

A replacement..

Lev




From styopa1 at gmail.com  Tue Oct 14 14:18:51 2008
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:18:51 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <48f45be8.c505be0a.6902.ffffec4fSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <48f45be8.c505be0a.6902.ffffec4fSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <56e64e7a0810140718q5d2ab7ejad62c3b3a8d3d174@mail.gmail.com>

>
> > Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
> > (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
> > Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
> > Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
> > Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
> > Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
> > Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
> >
>

I think it's worth clarifying - as I understand it you can make one of three
choices when shooting:
a) center-of-mass normal shot, no penalty, normal hit location table.
b) precise single location, 4SR penalty*, -40% to hit.
c) general location "legs", "lower body" etc, that uses a modified hit
location roll and a lesser penalty.

* I like the logic, I would only add that I think the time delay penalty for
aiming at a single location should be tougher, and randomized, like adding a
d8 SR so there's a reasonable chance a typical player might not even get a
shot when trying to be that precise.

Two other points, for what they're worth:
First:
"small" targets...say, SIZ<6 (?) perhaps the hit penalties are doubled?
"large" tagets...say, SIZ30+ hit penalties are halved

Second, instead of a randomized delay rationalizing the possibility that a
precise shot target isn't available, what someone mentioned before...the
more SR a player is willing to delay, the more 'points' on the hit-location
roll the archer can adjust their aim.  It might be needless extra rolling,
but even letting the archer roll & adjust each SR to see what he COULD hit
if he released that SR might add tension.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081014/8c6af720/attachment.htm>

From pmaranci at gmail.com  Tue Oct 14 14:48:17 2008
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:48:17 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0810140718q5d2ab7ejad62c3b3a8d3d174@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48f45be8.c505be0a.6902.ffffec4fSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
	<56e64e7a0810140718q5d2ab7ejad62c3b3a8d3d174@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa2df9f20810140748s59a5e40fq1383d69326359e02@mail.gmail.com>

Here's an idea which is probably crazy: How about instead of allowing direct
manipulation of the hit location, each SR of delay allows an additional d20
hit location roll? Then the attacker can chose which of those d20s to use.
This would leave in an interesting amount of randomness (which would reflect
the possibility that some locations would simply not be open to attack in a
given round), while improving the chance of hitting a desirable location.

It would also eliminate the need to create a specialized chart for every
different creature type.

->Peter
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>   > Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
>> > (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
>> > Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
>> > Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
>> > Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
>> > Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
>> > Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
>> >
>>
>
> I think it's worth clarifying - as I understand it you can make one of
> three choices when shooting:
> a) center-of-mass normal shot, no penalty, normal hit location table.
> b) precise single location, 4SR penalty*, -40% to hit.
> c) general location "legs", "lower body" etc, that uses a modified hit
> location roll and a lesser penalty.
>
> * I like the logic, I would only add that I think the time delay penalty
> for aiming at a single location should be tougher, and randomized, like
> adding a d8 SR so there's a reasonable chance a typical player might not
> even get a shot when trying to be that precise.
>
> Two other points, for what they're worth:
> First:
> "small" targets...say, SIZ<6 (?) perhaps the hit penalties are doubled?
> "large" tagets...say, SIZ30+ hit penalties are halved
>
> Second, instead of a randomized delay rationalizing the possibility that a
> precise shot target isn't available, what someone mentioned before...the
> more SR a player is willing to delay, the more 'points' on the hit-location
> roll the archer can adjust their aim.  It might be needless extra rolling,
> but even letting the archer roll & adjust each SR to see what he COULD hit
> if he released that SR might add tension.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>


-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081014/e3b9707f/attachment.htm>

From gianni at basicrps.com  Tue Oct 14 14:54:11 2008
From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:54:11 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
Message-ID: <mailman.28.1737152027.270143.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>


OK, I understand now. But why wouldn't you simply use the rules from the new
BRP book?

G.

----- Original Message -----
From: Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com>
To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Sent: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:18:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots

> >
> > > Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
> > > (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
> > > Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
> > > Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
> > > Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
> > > Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
> > > Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
> > >
> >
> 
> I think it's worth clarifying - as I understand it you can make one of
three
> choices when shooting:
> a) center-of-mass normal shot, no penalty, normal hit location table.
> b) precise single location, 4SR penalty*, -40% to hit.
> c) general location "legs", "lower body" etc, that uses a modified hit
> location roll and a lesser penalty.
> 
> * I like the logic, I would only add that I think the time delay penalty
for
> aiming at a single location should be tougher, and randomized, like adding
a
> d8 SR so there's a reasonable chance a typical player might not even get a
> shot when trying to be that precise.
> 
> Two other points, for what they're worth:
> First:
> "small" targets...say, SIZ<6 (?) perhaps the hit penalties are doubled?
> "large" tagets...say, SIZ30+ hit penalties are halved
> 
> Second, instead of a randomized delay rationalizing the possibility that a
> precise shot target isn't available, what someone mentioned before...the
> more SR a player is willing to delay, the more 'points' on the hit-location

> roll the archer can adjust their aim.  It might be needless extra rolling,
> but even letting the archer roll & adjust each SR to see what he COULD hit
> if he released that SR might add tension.


From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Oct 15 10:50:25 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:50:25 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Armour in Mongoose RuneQuest Considered Harmful
Message-ID: <1224067826.6107.6.camel@rat>

I thank Phil Hibbs for bringing this to my attention; the modelling and
any errors in arithmetic are my own. Originally posted at
runequest at rpgreview.net; feel free to pass on to interested parties.

Let's take two example generic fighters; Red Fox and Green Knox who have
15 in their physical characteristics (STR, DEX, CON and SIZ) and 10 in
their mental and social characteristics (POW, INT, CHA).

They're both townsmen who have have prior experience as soldiers; so
they have 50% in Sword. They're using Bastard Swords 2-handed (1d8+1,
4AP, 12 HP). They both have three actions and reactions per round.

The only difference is that Red Fox wears no armour and Green Knox is
decked out in rather expensive full plate, which gives him 6 point
comprehensive armour, but also -42% in all DEX-based skills; including
attacking and parrying, which effectively reduces his ability in both
these actions to a mere 8%.

(In the last playtest version, 1.4, of Mongoose's RQ the modifier for a
full suit of plate was -20% which would have made the value 30% to
attack and parry for Green Knox, rather than 8%; it seems yet another
11th-hour decision was made which I have hitherto overlooked).

On this basis Red Fox will hit Green Knox more than six times as often
than the Knox hits Fox. Furthermore, on those rare blows that actually
land from Green Knox, Red Fox will parry one in every two of them,
whereas Green Knox will manage to parry a mere one in twelve of the
relative multitude coming from the Fox. In other words, the Red Fox will
hit successfully five in every twelve blows (50% * 0.92) , whereas poor
Know will manage but one in twenty-five (8% * 0.5).

Things indeed look grim for Knox! "But", one may ask, "what about Knox's
vastly superior armour? Surely the longstanding rule of RuneQuest was
that armour made you somewhat easier to hit, but much harder to damage?"

Well, a bastard sword in two-handed use does an average of 5.5 points of
damage, with a range of 2-9. Knox's plate of 6 points will block average
blows; but not all blows are average - a roll of 6 (7 points), 7 (8
points) or 8 (9 points) will be sufficient to cause damage. That is,
37.5% of blows landed. Overall Fox gets a (50% * 0.92 * 0.375) much
reduced 17.25% chance of hitting in a way that causes damage, and the
average damage received is 2 points with a range of 1-3. Green Knox
obviously causes damage every time he hits (4%) causing average damage
of 5.5 points.

Or, expressed proportionally, Red Fox has a 34.5% chance per action of
causing a point of damage, whereas Green Knox has a 22%.

The conclusion cannot be avoided. Wearing plate armour in Mongoose's
version of RuneQuest is dangerous to your character's health. They will
die approximately 50% faster than a character who does not.

The moral of the story is this: When you make a game rule, model it
before implementing it.

"Red Fox, our game is done, sir."




From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Oct 15 11:16:09 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:16:09 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <1224018140.6122.2.camel@rat>
References: <1224018140.6122.2.camel@rat>
Message-ID: <1224069369.6107.9.camel@rat>


Because they offer insufficient variation (they only have rules for
targeting a specific location, not a group of locations) and they use a
divisor (difficult; divide skill by half) which has a variable effect,
rather than a flat negative modifier which remains the same value.

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:54 +0200, Gianni wrote:
> OK, I understand now. But why wouldn't you simply use the rules from the new
> BRP book?
> 
> G.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com>
> To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Sent: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:18:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
> 
> > >
> > > > Precise Attack: Use one action (waiting for an opening) or 4 SR
> > > > (RQI-III) and attack at -40% on a specific location.
> > > > Leg Attack: Location on 1d8, -20% to hit.
> > > > Lower Body Attack: Location on 1d10, -10% to hit
> > > > Body Attack: Location on 1d10+10, -10% to hit.
> > > > Upper Body Attack: Location on 1d8+12, -20% to hit.
> > > > Head Attack: Location on 1d12+8, -30% to hit.
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > I think it's worth clarifying - as I understand it you can make one of
> three
> > choices when shooting:
> > a) center-of-mass normal shot, no penalty, normal hit location table.
> > b) precise single location, 4SR penalty*, -40% to hit.
> > c) general location "legs", "lower body" etc, that uses a modified hit
> > location roll and a lesser penalty.
> > 
> > * I like the logic, I would only add that I think the time delay penalty
> for
> > aiming at a single location should be tougher, and randomized, like adding
> a
> > d8 SR so there's a reasonable chance a typical player might not even get a
> > shot when trying to be that precise.
> > 
> > Two other points, for what they're worth:
> > First:
> > "small" targets...say, SIZ<6 (?) perhaps the hit penalties are doubled?
> > "large" tagets...say, SIZ30+ hit penalties are halved
> > 
> > Second, instead of a randomized delay rationalizing the possibility that a
> > precise shot target isn't available, what someone mentioned before...the
> > more SR a player is willing to delay, the more 'points' on the hit-location
> 
> > roll the archer can adjust their aim.  It might be needless extra rolling,
> > but even letting the archer roll & adjust each SR to see what he COULD hit
> > if he released that SR might add tension.
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net




From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Oct 15 11:23:06 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:23:06 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
In-Reply-To: <aa2df9f20810131838x4396cd3aw70ae62adfce6d226@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1223932382.6074.19.camel@rat>
	<aa2df9f20810131838x4396cd3aw70ae62adfce6d226@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1224069786.6107.15.camel@rat>

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 21:38 -0400, Peter Maranci wrote:
> I LIKED the d12! 

You're not alone.. Longsword vs large creatures; whoops! Wrong game!

> 
> These look good to me. One drawback is that a separate table would
> have to be made for different body configurations. Unless this could
> somehow be tied into the proportional hit points per hit location
> tables of RQ3? Would that make sense?
> 

Heh. I may leave that for another day.. :)


> On a semi-related note, how about adding the ability to sacrifice
> skill for time? Say, allow an attacker to be one strike rank quicker
> at a reduction of 10% to their chance to hit. I'd suggest that the
> skill cost for each additional strike rank reduction should be double
> the previous cost, i.e. -10% for the first SR, -20% for the second,
> -40% for the third, etc. - with a minimum limit of 1 SR. The skill
> reduction would apply to all attacks made that round, so if the
> combatant took a big reduction and made a fast attack and then a
> second attack (or more), those later attacks - even though not
> hastened - would still be made at a penalty.

That seems reasonable to me. In Mongoose's RQ, you would reverse the
modifier of course, so that for every +1 SR you gain you'd reduce the
chance to hit by 5% (different scaling, SR is average of INT + DEX + d10
initiative roll)

All the best,


Lev




From gianni at basicrps.com  Thu Oct 16 12:28:51 2008
From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:28:51 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] Aimed and directional shots
Message-ID: <mailman.29.1737152027.270143.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>


Hey Lev

> > OK, I understand now. But why wouldn't you simply use the rules from the
> new
> > BRP book?

> Because they offer insufficient variation (they only have rules for
> targeting a specific location, not a group of locations)

Agreed.

> and they use a
> divisor (difficult; divide skill by half) which has a variable effect,
> rather than a flat negative modifier which remains the same value.

I actually prefer the divisor. I know Legolas never misses, but still...

G.


From lev at rpgreview.net  Mon Oct 20 09:49:42 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:49:42 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Ghosts and Spirits
Message-ID: <1224496182.6129.0.camel@squirrel>



I've recently been running my Sunday afternoon group through Dyksund
Caverns (Shadows on the Borderland) so I've had plenty of opportunities
to look up ghosts and spirits. Especially since one of the PCs became
possessed and another insisted on consuming large quantities of hazia in
order to engage in more direct negotiations (and threats).

One of the things that became clear however is that some of the details
for ghosts is pretty slim throughout all editions of RuneQuest; the are
tied to a place or item, they are frequently mad etc. But how does a
character become a ghost?

One method, noted in Dyksund Caverns is that ghosts are the result of
Thanatar severed heads that have gone mad and are thus of little use for
the cultist controlling them. This may be a common method, but is
certainly not the only one. In RuneQuest II (Griffin Mountain, Cults of
Terror) Cadodaemon and Vivamort cultists can create ghosts from victims
as well.

A further method, I would suggest, is those poor individuals who have
become covertly possessed by Madness Spirits turning the living body
into an obsessive-compulsive (it really doesn't matter what they're
obsessive over), and with a behaviour that continues after death. Such
people would make up approximately 50% of the ghost population and
almost the entirety of the non-chaotic ghost population. Something like
Second Sight would indicate that the convert possesion.

Another typical characteristic of ghosts is that they are attached to a
particular object. Sometimes this is given in absolute terms, for
example in the Vivamort Shrine in Dyksund Caverns the ghosts will attack
anyone who approaches within twenty metres of the Shrine. However, in my
opinion, this limits are a guide, not an absolute. A mad ghost host
possessing a body may indeed wander more than twenty metres from his
head with no ill effect; but after a while the desire to collect his
head will become too strong. Likewise an adventurer cannot stand
twenty-one metres away from the Vivamort shrine and play tease the
ghosts. They can and will give chase, but the possibility of doing so is
lessened after the twenty metre mark.

For those who know the scenario referenced you would also know that one
of the likely opponents (and I'm not giving too much away here) is a
Rune Priest that has an allied spirit bound to an object. Now the PCs
have managed to kill the Priest. My question is, what does the Ally do?
Play possum? Can the ally attempt possess whomever touches the object
(I've currently ruled that it can't)? Or is it released with the death
of the priest and makes its way back to the spirit plane?




From dtl at internode.on.net  Mon Oct 20 12:52:16 2008
From: dtl at internode.on.net (Dale Long)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:22:16 +1030
Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
In-Reply-To: <1224496182.6129.0.camel@squirrel>
References: <1224496182.6129.0.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <48FC7F00.10508@internode.on.net>

Lev Lafayette wrote:
> I've recently been running my Sunday afternoon group through Dyksund
> Caverns (Shadows on the Borderland) so I've had plenty of opportunities
> to look up ghosts and spirits. Especially since one of the PCs became
> possessed and another insisted on consuming large quantities of hazia in
> order to engage in more direct negotiations (and threats).

On a similar topic, I have been looking at revising ghosts, spirits and 
shamans under RQ2 and SPQR. I like the original feel of the RQ2 shaman, 
however, I never felt that it was fully realized. I have seen Sandy 
Petersen's revised shaman rules, however I am interested in seeing how 
other people have defined a shaman and expanded the rules, especially 
for SPQR.

Dale.



From carpgachair at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 20 15:24:04 2008
From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
In-Reply-To: <48FC7F00.10508@internode.on.net>
Message-ID: <945296.86482.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Mythworld has two types of shamans: one is the African type as shown in the original Runequest, with a fetch; the other on the North American Plains pattern with a trance anchoring the shaman to one spot, but giving immunity to damage (a bison stampede would go around, just like with a large boulder).  This is far too detailed to cover here, but the game is still in print.

Paul Cardwell


--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Dale Long <dtl at internode.on.net> wrote:

> From: Dale Long <dtl at internode.on.net>
> Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
> To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 7:52 AM
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> > I've recently been running my Sunday afternoon
> group through Dyksund
> > Caverns (Shadows on the Borderland) so I've had
> plenty of opportunities
> > to look up ghosts and spirits. Especially since one of
> the PCs became
> > possessed and another insisted on consuming large
> quantities of hazia in
> > order to engage in more direct negotiations (and
> threats).
> 
> On a similar topic, I have been looking at revising ghosts,
> spirits and 
> shamans under RQ2 and SPQR. I like the original feel of the
> RQ2 shaman, 
> however, I never felt that it was fully realized. I have
> seen Sandy 
> Petersen's revised shaman rules, however I am
> interested in seeing how 
> other people have defined a shaman and expanded the rules,
> especially 
> for SPQR.
> 
> Dale.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Oct 22 10:30:06 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:30:06 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
In-Reply-To: <945296.86482.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <945296.86482.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1224671407.27556.6.camel@squirrel>

How about Turkic-Siberian Shaman? After all that's where the word comes
from...


Lev

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 08:24 -0700, Paul Cardwell wrote:
> Mythworld has two types of shamans: one is the African type as shown in the original Runequest, with a fetch; the other on the North American Plains pattern with a trance anchoring the shaman to one spot, but giving immunity to damage (a bison stampede would go around, just like with a large boulder).  This is far too detailed to cover here, but the game is still in print.
> 
> Paul Cardwell
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Dale Long <dtl at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Dale Long <dtl at internode.on.net>
> > Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
> > To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> > Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 7:52 AM
> > Lev Lafayette wrote:
> > > I've recently been running my Sunday afternoon
> > group through Dyksund
> > > Caverns (Shadows on the Borderland) so I've had
> > plenty of opportunities
> > > to look up ghosts and spirits. Especially since one of
> > the PCs became
> > > possessed and another insisted on consuming large
> > quantities of hazia in
> > > order to engage in more direct negotiations (and
> > threats).
> > 
> > On a similar topic, I have been looking at revising ghosts,
> > spirits and 
> > shamans under RQ2 and SPQR. I like the original feel of the
> > RQ2 shaman, 
> > however, I never felt that it was fully realized. I have
> > seen Sandy 
> > Petersen's revised shaman rules, however I am
> > interested in seeing how 
> > other people have defined a shaman and expanded the rules,
> > especially 
> > for SPQR.
> > 
> > Dale.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Runequest mailing list
> > Runequest at rpgreview.net
> > http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net




From postmaster at runequest.za.org  Wed Oct 22 14:39:02 2008
From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (Tony)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:39:02 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: [Runequest] Shaman and SPQR - Re:  Ghosts and Spirits
In-Reply-To: <1224671407.27556.6.camel@squirrel>
References: <945296.86482.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<1224671407.27556.6.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <25972.196.8.104.59.1224686342.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za>

Lev Lafayette wrote:
> How about Turkic-Siberian Shaman? After all that's where the word comes
> from...
>
Mongolian shamans fall under that banner? Hmm, did the polinesian peopla
and Austalian Aboriginies have a shaman culture, in thr RQ sence tha is?



From lev at rpgreview.net  Thu Oct 30 11:30:23 2008
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:30:23 +1100
Subject: [Runequest] On The Dangers of Hazia Addiction
Message-ID: <1225366223.5758.2.camel@squirrel>

On The Dangers of Hazia Addiction

(A rebuild of the rules in 'Sun County' Chaosium/Avalon Hill, 1993, p9)

A Medical Report by Jalmara Yelmsfoot, White Woman, High Healer of
Chalana Arroy Temple, Sun Dome to the Most Bright Ruler of Sun County,
Light Son, Count Solonthos Ironpike.

Concerning The Dangers of Hazia

My dear Count,

In the name of the most kind and peaceful, Chalana Arroy.

It has come to my increased attention that the usage of the euphoric
herb, hazia, is increasing among members of the population. I wish to
alert you to the dangers of this narcotic and the serious danger it
represents to the people of your land.

Hazia, also known as "dummy" grows naturally in the Sun County region
and indeed throughout all of the Prax grasslands as a brown-leaved,
short, flowering and somewhat oily plant. It is unusually sturdy,
requiring only minimal fertility of soil and rainfall. Indeed, it is
known to be particularly useful as a preventative against soil erosion.

I have discussed the matter with Hector, your librarian. He believes
that the plant has embodied some of the spirit of the land, in a most
literal sense. When consumed, either through eating (such is the habit
of the Dark Men) or dried and smoked, which is more common, the effect
on the user is a period of euphoria, which renders the user immune to
pain, and a shorter period of Discorporation, as per the ability of the
shaman of this land. Such Power would indeed be useful if it were not
for the most damaging side effects that come with this drug.

During the period of Discorporation, the user's body is completely at
the mercy to anything in the mundane world. When smoked, this effect
varies in minutes according to the potency of the drug and the feeling
of euphoria lasts for five times that period. During the period of
euphoria the user's movements are sluggish, to say the least.

Worse still is the after-effects. The drug is seriously addictive. I
have known men to succumb to its power after only a single dose; after
all, it removes all pain during the period of euphoria and provides a
fleeting vision of the world of spirits. To many this must seem quite
appealing, however it is incredibly dangerous to one's agility and
health. I have seen grown men die within a week of having only taken a
modest quantity of the drug, their nervous system and heart reduced to
nothing.

Most disconcerting however, it has come to my attention that many
mercenary-types are taking the drug whilst engaging in missions against
chaotic and darkness entities in the hope that scouting during the
period of discorporation.

I understand that you have extremely harsh penalties for producers and
traffickers of this drug, including the death penalty. I urge leniancy;
treat this as a medical problem rather than a criminal activity. Many of
those who engage in production and distribution only do so because of
their own poverty. A dose of hazia which sells for 5 guilders can be
produced for only 1 guilder. However an addict will typically use 5
guilders worth a day. This of course, reduces most farmers to abject
poverty and causes serious damage to the wealth of even the most
well-off farmers.

Yours, in the name of Yelm and the Son of the Sun God, Yelmalio etc,



Jalamara


RuneQuest (3rd edition) rules

The Potency of Hazia is from 1-10, typically 5 for a SIZ 5-15 person -
adjust as required. The street price is equal to the potency in silver.
Cost of production - with two crops per annum being the norm - is 1
silver per 5 POT. Smoked hazia provides discorporation for a number of
minutes times the potency and euphoria for a number of full turns times
the potency. Euphoria means the character is immune to the effects of
pain, including fatigue and being reduced to minus hit points in
non-critical regions. Eaten hazia provides discorporation for a number
of full turns, but with a range of only 1m. The period of euphoria is
measured in hours. During discorporation DEX is reduced to 0. During
euphoria, DEX is reduced by 10.

Roll each time hazia is taken, POT vs CON. If the roll is failed the
character is addicted. They may be addicted multiple times; apply all
results with an addiction value equal to the POT of the consumed drug.
Each day they do not receive a dose of hazia equal to their addiction
value the character will lose a point of DEX and CON. A character who is
addicted and is offered hazia must roll POW vs their Addiction Value to
refuse the offer.





From tom at zunder.org.uk  Thu Oct 30 16:13:06 2008
From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:13:06 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] On The Dangers of Hazia Addiction
In-Reply-To: <1225366223.5758.2.camel@squirrel>
References: <1225366223.5758.2.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <4909DD12.4090401@zunder.org.uk>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20081030/6fb5e47d/attachment.htm>

