From rpgstarwizard at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 13 18:21:14 2010
From: rpgstarwizard at yahoo.com (Sam McConnich)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Ideas for a setting fantasy
Message-ID: <15666.19437.qm@web59702.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

here are my notes for a game we ran , it is bare bones, but could be useful, we ran it and it was fun, my world is a PH/PA


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100413/5d14d032/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Saving Lemars.odt
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 28941 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100413/5d14d032/attachment.obj>

From harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Apr 13 20:46:55 2010
From: harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk (harry woolley)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:46:55 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
Message-ID: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

hi guys? i thought i would do one of the best stories in rpg but use our faverit rules we are still on book one ,just on there way to colvin trying to catch luthor who they think knows were? dragon moutain is for those that dont know about this story its a bit like KRUL.but a good story has the mountain only stays in one place for a few days in one day they been hit buy a band of scorpon men and at night by a band of ork wolf riders ,they just fired a fire ball and took out about 6 of them poor wolves what sise would you use for a fire ball from a wizard as i carnt find one all these years you would think i,d know,well thats all for now as we had to break up for the night.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100413/1bd470e0/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Apr 14 00:51:40 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:51:40 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1271206300.4706.5.camel@squirrel>

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 20:46 +0000, harry woolley wrote:
> hi guys  i thought i would do one of the best stories in rpg but use
> our faverit rules we are still on book one ,just on there way to
> colvin trying to catch luthor who they think knows were  dragon
> moutain is for those that dont know about this story its a bit like
> KRUL.but a good story has the mountain only stays in one place for a
> few days in one day they been hit buy a band of scorpon men and at
> night by a band of ork wolf riders ,they just fired a fire ball and
> took out about 6 of them poor wolves what sise would you use for a
> fire ball from a wizard as i carnt find one all these years you would
> think i,d know,well thats all for now as we had to break up for the
> night.

Personally I think Dragon Mountain was one of the most worst adventures
ever published, but maybe that's just me.

As for a D&D-style fireball in RuneQuest terms, I would suggest
something that does damage over a radius (say, 20 feet), and does damage
to all locations depending on the magic points expended (say, 1 pt
damage per 3 magic points).



-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From tomas.g.bjorklund at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 00:57:30 2010
From: tomas.g.bjorklund at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tomas_Bj=F6rklund?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:57:30 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <1271206300.4706.5.camel@squirrel>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<1271206300.4706.5.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <p2q5354585f1004131757kc8414e46r3578078b85ba2a56@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev at rpgreview.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 20:46 +0000, harry woolley wrote:
>> hi guys ?i thought i would do one of the best stories in rpg but use
>> our faverit rules we are still on book one ,just on there way to
>> colvin trying to catch luthor who they think knows were ?dragon
>> moutain is for those that dont know about this story its a bit like
>> KRUL.but a good story has the mountain only stays in one place for a
>> few days in one day they been hit buy a band of scorpon men and at
>> night by a band of ork wolf riders ,they just fired a fire ball and
>> took out about 6 of them poor wolves what sise would you use for a
>> fire ball from a wizard as i carnt find one all these years you would
>> think i,d know,well thats all for now as we had to break up for the
>> night.
>
> Personally I think Dragon Mountain was one of the most worst adventures
> ever published, but maybe that's just me.
>

No it's not just you. I could not agree more.



From easysamurai at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 11:50:02 2010
From: easysamurai at gmail.com (Hola Hallo)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:50:02 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1271210403.598.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
References: <mailman.1.1271210403.598.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <o2z26329d131004140450lccb69311va8a86c4fbb6327be@mail.gmail.com>

> > Personally I think Dragon Mountain was one of the most worst adventures
> > ever published, but maybe that's just me.
> >
>

I haven't read "Dragon Mountain", but I'm interested to know why it is bad.
Is there any D&D scenario that you do woud like to run (adapted) for RQ?

I once adapted a D&D scenario that was published in a Dragon magazine. It
was called something like "The temple of health" and it included a stone
golem shaped as a minotaur, and some giant insects. In my adaptation, the
area had been cursed by a powerful enemy of Chalana Arroy, and Healing
spells did not work there. The characters had to look for the ruins of a
Chalana Arroy temple (built previous to the curse), that included a fountain
of healing waters, the only source of magical healing in the area.

BTW, what is your favourite RQ-scenario?  :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100414/656b53d0/attachment.htm>

From peter.brink at brinkdata.se  Wed Apr 14 12:12:36 2010
From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:12:36 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4BC5B134.3030205@brinkdata.se>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

harry woolley skrev:
> hi guys  i thought i would do one of the best stories in rpg but use our faverit rules we are still on book one ,just on there way to colvin trying to catch luthor who they think knows were  dragon moutain is for those that dont know about this story its a bit like KRUL.but a good story has the mountain only stays in one place for a few days in one day they been hit buy a band of scorpon men and at night by a band of ork wolf riders ,they just fired a fire ball and took out about 6 of them poor wolves what sise would you use for a fire ball from a wizard as i carnt find one all these years you would think i,d know,well thats all for now as we had to break up for the night.
> 

If you are doing conversions from D&D to RQ you might want to take a
look at Chaosiums "Classic Fantasy" monograph
(http://catalog.chaosium.com/product_info.php?cPath=70&products_id=5045).
It uses the "Magic" magic system from the BRP book and adds a lot of
spells similar to classic D&D spells (including Fireball).

And if you haven't done so yet, check out the BRP book
(http://catalog.chaosium.com/product_info.php?cPath=70&products_id=1257).
Even if you plan to continue using the RQ II or III rules there's a lot
of goodies in the BRP book (which of course is also available in print).

/Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkvFsTQACgkQImtuGyHYNtBclQCgyZNN739kxqbb9X0JLDwUlGE9
u0gAoNfEeuhCkqvin6flCBf2eZyfw4fQ
=4VZI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From snarks at gmail.com  Wed Apr 14 16:04:45 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:04:45 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>

Why would anyone do an RQ game based on a roller coaster ride?

Phil.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100414/771545ee/attachment.htm>

From ahnen at hotmail.com  Wed Apr 14 20:35:54 2010
From: ahnen at hotmail.com (Mark Ahnen)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:35:54 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>,
	<q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT144-w445B5A3B49CCF02AFC8D7FA3100@phx.gbl>


Phil,

 

Was that snark?  As in why would somebody produce (and see) three movies based on a Disneyland rollercoaster ride?

 

My best,

Mark
 


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:04:45 +0100
From: snarks at gmail.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ

Why would anyone do an RQ game based on a roller coaster ride?

Phil.
-- Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100414/79458ba2/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Wed Apr 14 22:52:49 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:52:49 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Favourite RuneQuest Scenario..
In-Reply-To: <o2z26329d131004140450lccb69311va8a86c4fbb6327be@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1271210403.598.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
	<o2z26329d131004140450lccb69311va8a86c4fbb6327be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1271285569.3576.3.camel@squirrel>

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 13:50 +0200, Hola Hallo wrote:

> 
> I haven't read "Dragon Mountain", but I'm interested to know why it is
> bad.


There is the antagonist who takes off across country when he hears the
PCs asking about Dragon Mountain, inspiring a pointless series of
cross-country chases. When you catch up with him you discover it's all a
big misunderstanding, but decides to try to kill you anyway. I also remember
several other pointless fights and thugs with Italian accents - written as 
such in the text!

Anyway, that's what I recall of it.

>  Is there any D&D scenario that you do woud like to run (adapted) for
> RQ?

Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
(seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going on!

> BTW, what is your favourite RQ-scenario?  :-)

Nice tangent! (Subject header changed to reflect this clever idea)

Gautama's Vision from Shadows On The Borderland. That is seriously one
of the creepiest scenarios I have seen in any game system. There is
also so many, many ways that the PCs can make a complete mess of it..



-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?





From snarks at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 09:02:12 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:02:12 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
In-Reply-To: <SNT144-w445B5A3B49CCF02AFC8D7FA3100@phx.gbl>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w445B5A3B49CCF02AFC8D7FA3100@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <g2s8f63b7251004150202kf79eb546k659478c03b2ecb15@mail.gmail.com>

> Was that snark?

Not a snark, just a joke. I looked up "Dragon Mountain" on the
internet and that's all I could find. And I'd forgotten that PotC was
based on a ride.

Phil.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



From easysamurai at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 09:58:32 2010
From: easysamurai at gmail.com (Hola Hallo)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:58:32 +0200
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
References: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <j2h26329d131004150258x7204f5e3x3f69127cc6f831b3@mail.gmail.com>

>There is the antagonist who takes off across country when he hears the
>PCs asking about Dragon Mountain, inspiring a pointless series of
>cross-country chases. When you catch up with him you discover it's all a
>big misunderstanding, but decides to try to kill you anyway. I also
remember
>several other pointless fights and thugs with Italian accents - written as
>such in the text!
>
>Anyway, that's what I recall of it.

OK, I understand now. So is there anything salvageable at all in it?

>Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
>old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
>editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
>(seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

What was good about it?
I agree that the Drow would be too difficult to adapt... Maybe Uz close to
the Underworld and with Aranea cultists...? :P

>I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
>includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going on!

I have only read about it. It looks a bit like the "Borderlands" campaign
with Raus Fort, doesn't it? Do you know if any of the scenarios could be
adapted to Raus Fort? And BTW what's that 'missing half page' you mentioned?

I ran "Gaumata's Vision" some years ago. I agree it's a fine scenario. But
very difficult to run as you imagine it in your head! I put a great deal of
effort in making sure the players weren't 100% sure if that village was the
one they were looking for. They had 5 suspect villages. The 'problematic'
one was the last one they visited... and they just left without finding
anything!!! :-O
So then I had to give them an obvious clue: that that was the last village a
group of missing templars had recently visited before disappearing.
Then they went back there, but decided not to approach it by the main road.
I asked them: OK, so do you approach it by the right side or the left side?
They went for the right side... and they found a barn... you can guess what
happened next... [?]
Approaching it by the right side would have yielded completely different
results, of course. Look at the map.

Anyway, nowadays these same PCs are amnesiac and most of the children
escaped, so now I'm planning for them to find a group of innocent, poor,
abandoned children looking for refuge at Fort Raus... (maniacal laughter)
[?]

What was your experience with this scenario???

BTW, Lev, I've been following your Prax-chronicles to get ideas for my own
Pavis/Prax campaign! [?]


> There is the antagonist who takes off across country when he hears the
> PCs asking about Dragon Mountain, inspiring a pointless series of
> cross-country chases. When you catch up with him you discover it's all a
> big misunderstanding, but decides to try to kill you anyway. I also
> remember
> several other pointless fights and thugs with Italian accents - written as
> such in the text!
>
> Anyway, that's what I recall of it.
>
> >  Is there any D&D scenario that you do woud like to run (adapted) for
> > RQ?
>
> Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
> old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
> editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
> (seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
>
> I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
> includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going on!
>
> > BTW, what is your favourite RQ-scenario?  :-)
>
> Nice tangent! (Subject header changed to reflect this clever idea)
>
> Gautama's Vision from Shadows On The Borderland. That is seriously one
> of the creepiest scenarios I have seen in any game system. There is
> also so many, many ways that the PCs can make a complete mess of it..
>
>
>
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>
> End of Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/61b411c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 330.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 96 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/61b411c6/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 33C.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/61b411c6/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1B2.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 120 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/61b411c6/attachment-0002.gif>

From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 15 10:20:18 2010
From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Qmr4cm4gQXJlIFN0+Gxlbg==?=)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:20:18 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <j2h26329d131004150258x7204f5e3x3f69127cc6f831b3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>,
	<j2h26329d131004150258x7204f5e3x3f69127cc6f831b3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY120-W48C5834518DCAD5779BC59BB0F0@phx.gbl>


The best scenarioes for RQ I've read and played are the River of Cradles, and when interwoven with shadows on the borderland and Sun Dome country, we had material for over a year worth of play once a week.
 


Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:58:32 +0200
From: easysamurai at gmail.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3

>There is the antagonist who takes off across country when he hears the
>PCs asking about Dragon Mountain, inspiring a pointless series of
>cross-country chases. When you catch up with him you discover it's all a
>big misunderstanding, but decides to try to kill you anyway. I also remember
>several other pointless fights and thugs with Italian accents - written as
>such in the text!
>
>Anyway, that's what I recall of it.

OK, I understand now. So is there anything salvageable at all in it?

>Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
>old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
>editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
>(seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

What was good about it?
I agree that the Drow would be too difficult to adapt... Maybe Uz close to the Underworld and with Aranea cultists...? :P

>I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
>includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going on!

I have only read about it. It looks a bit like the "Borderlands" campaign with Raus Fort, doesn't it? Do you know if any of the scenarios could be adapted to Raus Fort? And BTW what's that 'missing half page' you mentioned?

I ran "Gaumata's Vision" some years ago. I agree it's a fine scenario. But very difficult to run as you imagine it in your head! I put a great deal of effort in making sure the players weren't 100% sure if that village was the one they were looking for. They had 5 suspect villages. The 'problematic' one was the last one they visited... and they just left without finding anything!!! :-O
So then I had to give them an obvious clue: that that was the last village a group of missing templars had recently visited before disappearing.
Then they went back there, but decided not to approach it by the main road. I asked them: OK, so do you approach it by the right side or the left side? They went for the right side... and they found a barn... you can guess what happened next... 
Approaching it by the right side would have yielded completely different results, of course. Look at the map.

Anyway, nowadays these same PCs are amnesiac and most of the children escaped, so now I'm planning for them to find a group of innocent, poor, abandoned children looking for refuge at Fort Raus... (maniacal laughter)  

What was your experience with this scenario???

BTW, Lev, I've been following your Prax-chronicles to get ideas for my own Pavis/Prax campaign! 




There is the antagonist who takes off across country when he hears the
PCs asking about Dragon Mountain, inspiring a pointless series of
cross-country chases. When you catch up with him you discover it's all a
big misunderstanding, but decides to try to kill you anyway. I also remember
several other pointless fights and thugs with Italian accents - written as
such in the text!

Anyway, that's what I recall of it.

>  Is there any D&D scenario that you do woud like to run (adapted) for
> RQ?

Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
(seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.

I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going on!

> BTW, what is your favourite RQ-scenario?  :-)

Nice tangent! (Subject header changed to reflect this clever idea)

Gautama's Vision from Shadows On The Borderland. That is seriously one
of the creepiest scenarios I have seen in any game system. There is
also so many, many ways that the PCs can make a complete mess of it..



--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?





------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Runequest mailing list
Runequest at rpgreview.net
http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net


End of Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
****************************************

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/eaac1e71/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 330.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 96 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/eaac1e71/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 33C.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/eaac1e71/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1B2.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 120 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100415/eaac1e71/attachment-0002.gif>

From ebaninth at iinet.net.au  Thu Apr 15 11:07:44 2010
From: ebaninth at iinet.net.au (Sean Foster)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:07:44 +0800
Subject: [Runequest] Non-RQ RQ Campaigns & Adventures
In-Reply-To: <g2s8f63b7251004150202kf79eb546k659478c03b2ecb15@mail.gmail.com>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>	<q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>	<SNT144-w445B5A3B49CCF02AFC8D7FA3100@phx.gbl>
	<g2s8f63b7251004150202kf79eb546k659478c03b2ecb15@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001cadc8b$dfdeb5c0$9f9c2140$@net.au>

Has anyone ever thought of (or used) the Death on the Reik WHFRPG set of
adventures in RQ.  They read quite well for a 2nd or 3rd age Fronela or
Safelster for that matter.

Another though is an "Indy Jones/National Treasure/Cthulu" inspired 2nd Age
GL's in Safelster on the Trail of Arkat...  This makes GL's the good guys
but it could just as easily that the GL's are the baddies...Cancer
Man(X-Files), Agent Smith etc etc.

Also I would imagine the whole heroquesting plane to have continual piped
back ground music in a similar vein to Indy Jones et al.

Sean

# -----Original Message-----
# From: runequest-bounces at rpgreview.net [mailto:runequest-
# bounces at rpgreview.net] On Behalf Of Phil Hibbs
# Sent: Thursday, 15 April 2010 5:02 PM
# To: RuneQuest Rules
# Subject: Re: [Runequest] d&d dragon mountain with runquest MRQ
# 
# > Was that snark?
# 
# Not a snark, just a joke. I looked up "Dragon Mountain" on the
# internet and that's all I could find. And I'd forgotten that PotC was
# based on a ride.
# 
# Phil.
# --
# Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
# 
# _______________________________________________
# Runequest mailing list
# Runequest at rpgreview.net
# http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net




From lev at rpgreview.net  Thu Apr 15 23:38:11 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:38:11 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <j2h26329d131004150258x7204f5e3x3f69127cc6f831b3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
	<j2h26329d131004150258x7204f5e3x3f69127cc6f831b3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1271374691.4663.16.camel@squirrel>

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:58 +0200, Hola Hallo wrote:

> >Anyway, that's what I recall of it.
> 
> OK, I understand now. So is there anything salvageable at all in it?
> 

Probably some of the maps of the mountain and countryside itself.

> >Well, a few years back I played in a classic D&D campaign and all the
> >old modules there would have worked quite well (albeit with some
> >editing). The Saltmarsh trilogy, the Slavers, the Giants, Drow and
> >(seriously needing editing) the Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
> 
> What was good about it?

Well, we used it for a historical fantasy campaign. Being AD&D it leaned
towards the fantasy, but it still worked. We were able to connect the
various scenarios into a consistent narrative whereby the smugglers from
the Saltmarsh trilogy were a front for the Slavers, who were selling
slaves to the giants, who were trading with the drow and all the way up
to Arachne, who wanted to unravel time itself.

> I agree that the Drow would be too difficult to adapt... Maybe Uz
> close to the Underworld and with Aranea cultists...? :P

Yes, that would work.

> >I also think Keep on the Borderlands could work well, as long as one
> >includes the 'missing half page' that actually explains what is going
> on!
> 
> I have only read about it. It looks a bit like the "Borderlands"
> campaign with Raus Fort, doesn't it? Do you know if any of the
> scenarios could be adapted to Raus Fort? And BTW what's that 'missing
> half page' you mentioned?

It's more like a very low-level version of Snakepipe Hollow. By the
missing half page, the scenario is famous for not naming a number of
major NPCs, and not providing a reason for the collection of rather
antithetical creatures in the one location. An answer is hidden in the
text; there's a old chaos temple and priests running the show. 

> Approaching it by the right side would have yielded completely
> different results, of course. Look at the map.
> 

Very different indeed. It gives a fair bit away; one would have to make
the children very sneaky indeed after that discovery.

> Anyway, nowadays these same PCs are amnesiac and most of the children
> escaped, so now I'm planning for them to find a group of innocent,
> poor, abandoned children looking for refuge at Fort Raus... (maniacal
> laughter)  

*nods* I had a large number of children escape and make home in Dyksund
Caverns. It was a moment of illumination when they realised "Grandpa"
was.


> What was your experience with this scenario???


Pretty much as intended. I decide to include Visla's spirit in the game
and the discovery of her bones, a very "Sadako" (from Ring) moment.

http://mimesisrpg.com/pipermail/runequestprax_mimesisrpg.com/2008-September/000022.html

The Dyksund Caverns chapter here:

http://mimesisrpg.com/pipermail/runequestprax_mimesisrpg.com/2008-November/000029.html

(The rest of the ogre children escaped to Muriah...)


> BTW, Lev, I've been following your Prax-chronicles to get ideas for my
> own Pavis/Prax campaign! 

I hope it's been worthwhile!

All the best,



-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From lev at rpgreview.net  Fri Apr 16 04:57:18 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:57:18 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Non-RQ RQ Campaigns & Adventures
In-Reply-To: <000001cadc8b$dfdeb5c0$9f9c2140$@net.au>
References: <81086.44822.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<q2q8f63b7251004140904r76718b9by8be47f87eda0d40c@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w445B5A3B49CCF02AFC8D7FA3100@phx.gbl>
	<g2s8f63b7251004150202kf79eb546k659478c03b2ecb15@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001cadc8b$dfdeb5c0$9f9c2140$@net.au>
Message-ID: <1271393838.4663.60.camel@squirrel>

On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 19:07 +0800, Sean Foster wrote:
> Has anyone ever thought of (or used) the Death on the Reik WHFRPG set of
> adventures in RQ.  They read quite well for a 2nd or 3rd age Fronela or
> Safelster for that matter.

Sean, that's a brilliant idea. I've been wanting to run that story for a
while, and that's a superb recommended location as well..

> Also I would imagine the whole heroquesting plane to have continual piped
> back ground music in a similar vein to Indy Jones et al.
> 

Heheh.. You could break the mimesis by actually having a band following
the PCs around. :)

On-topic, I think that RuneQuest in Harn would be pretty tough.


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From soltakss at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 16 20:38:26 2010
From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] RQified D&D Scenarios
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
References: <mailman.1.1271296806.1573.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <47334.12613.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hola Hallo:

> Is there any D&D scenario that you do woud like to run (adapted) for RQ?

I played a couple of scenarios based on the White Palm Oasis, I can't remember the module name as I borrowed in from a friend, but I set it in the Wastes and it worked really well as a setting. I had to change the focus slightly and make a Gloranthan cult the focus, but we enjoyed it.

See Ya

Simon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100416/23df4ce3/attachment.htm>

From harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Apr 17 16:47:54 2010
From: harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk (harry woolley)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:47:54 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Runequest] runequest search for dragon mountain
Message-ID: <16331.86796.qm@web27504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

hi guys? ive uploaded some of my runequest game on our site with some pictures you can get to it on ,www.senwg.blogspot.com.
this is our club site so there are some more types on there take a look i will be doing the storey of dragon mountain every week with pictures i will not keep to the storey all the time as im allowed a bit of artistic licence as with my spelling.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? harry.who thinks dms are real


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100417/b00ccc10/attachment.htm>

From royce at efn.org  Thu Apr 22 00:12:38 2010
From: royce at efn.org (royce at efn.org)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
Message-ID: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>

Hi, Guys,
   If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.

1.  A question on parries.
   In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
practical.  Is this realistic?

2.  A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP.  The RQ III rule of flexible
armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace). 
BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons. 
Which rule do you prefer, and why?

3.  The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
got mentioned.  I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason.  It is a very
satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths.  Back in the day, many
kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.

   Sincerely,
Asher





From vikingjarl at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 00:33:40 2010
From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:33:40 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <4BCF9964.5090008@gmail.com>

1) Yes they are equal depending on the situations. It depends on the 
type of sword, the length & type of spear & the tactical situation as to 
which is better in a particular situation.

2) No preference.

3) It would also depend on the game master.

Skal,
Sven

On 4/21/2010 5:12 PM, royce at efn.org wrote:
> Hi, Guys,
>     If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.
>
> 1.  A question on parries.
>     In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical.  Is this realistic?
>
> 2.  A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP.  The RQ III rule of flexible
> armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace).
> BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons.
> Which rule do you prefer, and why?
>
> 3.  The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
> got mentioned.  I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
> adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason.  It is a very
> satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths.  Back in the day, many
> kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.
>
>     Sincerely,
> Asher
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>    




From tcantine at incentre.net  Thu Apr 22 04:20:27 2010
From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:20:27 -0600
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <c8dda5dc6caec3df7d6e0c0ab83d97be@incentre.net>


On 21-Apr-10, at 6:12 PM, royce at efn.org wrote:

> Hi, Guys,
>    If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one 
> email.
>
> 1.  A question on parries.
>    In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical.  Is this realistic?

Oh yes. Spears are very usable as parrying weapons. Funny you should 
mention this, as I was just reviewing a video today taken a couple of 
summers ago, when I was fighting a friend of mine with padded spears. 
(PVC pipe with foam swimming noodle tips.)  In my view (I also fence 
epee at the local fencing club), spears are every bit as good as swords 
for parrying, though of course it depends what you're fighting against.


> 2.  A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP.  The RQ III rule of 
> flexible
> armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a 
> mace).
> BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons.
> Which rule do you prefer, and why?

Not sure I prefer either. I've been tinkering around with various house 
rule alternatives. One variant I've tried incorporates something like 
fatigue points as damage as well, though it's a bit unwieldy.




From snarks at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 08:26:40 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:26:40 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <r2w8f63b7251004220126uc3297851yb98d40ead977a8af@mail.gmail.com>

> 1.  A question on parries.
>   In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical.  Is this realistic?

As Tom says, yes, but I'd expand on his caveat to say that some
weapons are much better suited to parring other weapons. I would not
be happy parrying a poleaxe with a dagger, nor vice versa. Some of
this is taken into account by the weapon's AP, and I'm rusty on my RQ
rules but isn't there some rule about not attacking and parrying with
the same weapon in the same round?

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



On 22 April 2010 01:12,  <royce at efn.org> wrote:
> Hi, Guys,
> ? If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.
>
> 1. ?A question on parries.
> ? In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical. ?Is this realistic?
>
> 2. ?A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP. ?The RQ III rule of flexible
> armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace).
> BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons.
> Which rule do you prefer, and why?
>
> 3. ?The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
> got mentioned. ?I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
> adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason. ?It is a very
> satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths. ?Back in the day, many
> kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.
>
> ? Sincerely,
> Asher
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>



From strobus at sympatico.ca  Thu Apr 22 13:34:58 2010
From: strobus at sympatico.ca (strobus at sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:34:58 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>


I'm no weapons expert, but it seems to me the only advantage a sword has over a spear is that the sword might have a guard to protect the hand (if it's a late enough model), whereas I've never seen a spear that did.

 

Regarding the second question: I find that the RQ3 option of halving soft armour results in too much work for me to keep track of, as the GM. I've resorted to allowing crushing weapons to do +2 against really flexible armour (soft leather, cloth, or chainmail) and +1 against semi-flexible armour (scale, lamellar). That way the players can just tell me how much damage they do, and I don't have to remember in the heat of combat which of my players is using a mace and who is ising a sword.

 

The BRP method doesn't entirely make sense for me. The BRP rules try to accomodate both those who are using hit locations and those who arent. It's fine for the blow to be stunning if you aren't using hit locations, but if someone go crushed in the foot with a mace, I'm not sure why they would be 'stunned'. So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.

 

Best,

 

Chris
 
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:12:38 -0700
> From: royce at efn.org
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Hi, Guys,
> If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.
> 
> 1. A question on parries.
> In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> practical. Is this realistic?
> 
> 2. A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP. The RQ III rule of flexible
> armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace). 
> BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons. 
> Which rule do you prefer, and why?
> 
> 3. The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
> got mentioned. I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
> adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason. It is a very
> satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths. Back in the day, many
> kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Asher
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/9536edb7/attachment.htm>

From snarks at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 15:00:47 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>

Chris:
> ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.

I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
light kick to the stomach.

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



From tcantine at incentre.net  Thu Apr 22 15:14:13 2010
From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:14:13 -0600
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <cce2bf7f936d4e12eeaa214f6b0c688c@incentre.net>


On 22-Apr-10, at 7:34 AM, <strobus at sympatico.ca> wrote:

>  I'm no weapons expert, but it seems to me the only advantage a sword 
> has over a spear is that the sword?might have?a guard to protect the 
> hand (if it's a late enough model), whereas I've never seen a spear 
> that did.
>

Yes and no. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. With a 
sword, the hand guard is a plus, to be sure, and there are also 
advantages to the balance, grip and stance one uses with a sword which 
can facilitate effective parries. With a spear, the length (including 
the fact that pretty much the whole shaft is available as a grip) can 
be used to advantage.

One-handed, it's true, spears are a little harder to parry with, but 
the only reason I can imagine using a spear one-handed is if your other 
hand is occupied with a shield, in which case you shouldn't really need 
to be parrying with the spear. Or if your other hand is incapacitated, 
but I think we should realistically expect disadvantages to follow 
that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/6c85fe4b/attachment.bin>

From strobus at sympatico.ca  Thu Apr 22 16:12:29 2010
From: strobus at sympatico.ca (strobus at sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:12:29 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>,
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>,
	<z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>


Thanks, Phil.

 

Hmm - good case for extending that 'stun' rule to the chest and abdomen then. How about arms and legs?
 
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
> From: snarks at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Chris:
> > ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> > the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.
> 
> I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
> light kick to the stomach.
> 
> Phil Hibbs.
> -- 
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/23e056ca/attachment.htm>

From grogthing at yahoo.com  Thu Apr 22 16:24:24 2010
From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>,
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>,
	<z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <933630.15068.qm@web38404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Ever hit your elbow's "funny bone"? 

Hit the back of a leg along the sciatic nerve and that leg goes limp.

I think any substantial impact on any part of the body has the potential to be stunning.

Gregory


________________________________
From: "strobus at sympatico.ca" <strobus at sympatico.ca>
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 11:12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.

 Thanks, Phil.
 
Hmm - good case for extending that 'stun' rule to the chest and abdomen then. How about arms and legs?
 
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
> From: snarks at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Chris:
> > ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> > the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.
> 
> I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
> light kick to the stomach.
> 
> Phil Hibbs.
> -- 
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/c865c5fa/attachment.htm>

From strobus at sympatico.ca  Thu Apr 22 16:59:32 2010
From: strobus at sympatico.ca (strobus at sympatico.ca)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:59:32 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <933630.15068.qm@web38404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>, ,
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>, ,
	<z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>,
	<SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>,
	<933630.15068.qm@web38404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SNT124-W5196853AA7C746A1C6F888CF080@phx.gbl>


I can see how a blow might disable a limb for a time (funny bone, for ex.) but that doesn't strike me as beeing like a 'stun' in effect, where you'd lose control of your entire body for a period. Having limbs disabled by damage is already covered by the rules, without needing a separate 'stun' effect, I should think.

 

Now, I'm just a willowy wimp in real life, so I'm just posing the question for you real fighters out there to answer. If you guys say that a blow to the leg would cause me to be 'stunned' (ie. unable to react - not just in that limb but the entire body), then I'll take your word for it. But I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.

 

Cheers!

 

Chris
 


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:24:24 -0700
From: grogthing at yahoo.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.





Ever hit your elbow's "funny bone"? 

Hit the back of a leg along the sciatic nerve and that leg goes limp.

I think any substantial impact on any part of the body has the potential to be stunning.

Gregory




From: "strobus at sympatico.ca" <strobus at sympatico.ca>
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 11:12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.



Thanks, Phil.
 
Hmm - good case for extending that 'stun' rule to the chest and abdomen then. How about arms and legs?
 
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
> From: snarks at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Chris:
> > ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> > the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.
> 
> I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
> light kick to the stomach.
> 
> Phil Hibbs.
> -- 
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/c98bbf7d/attachment.htm>

From vikingjarl at gmail.com  Thu Apr 22 18:00:32 2010
From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:00:32 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>,
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>,
	<z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4BD08EC0.9070706@gmail.com>

At Agincourt Henry was standing over his brother, who was lying on the 
ground, when he had part of his crown hacked off of his great helm by a 
Frog with an axe. The only problem his brother had was that he had 
gotten hit in the knee & his knee cop had dented enough to lock-up & 
prevent him from moving. The damage to his knee was slight though a bit 
bloody according to descriptions.

I can also tell you in 52 years of being a sword jock in a variety of 
forms, getting smacked in the arm or the leg, even if glancing, or 
wouldn't have penetrated the armour, stuns the arm & leg on occasion. 
One trick I've often used in the SCA & elswhere is through a hard punch 
into the shield over where the wrist or elbow rests using my basket hilt 
or shield edge. That often stuns my opponents shield arm enough that it 
slows him down so he's not as fast on blocking.

Skal,
Sven

On 4/22/2010 9:12 AM, strobus at sympatico.ca wrote:
> Thanks, Phil.
>
> Hmm - good case for extending that 'stun' rule to the chest and 
> abdomen then. How about arms and legs?
>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
> > From: snarks at gmail.com
> > To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> >
> > Chris:
> > > ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> > > the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.
> >
> > I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
> > light kick to the stomach.
> >
> > Phil Hibbs.
> > --
> > Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Runequest mailing list
> > Runequest at rpgreview.net
> > http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/a9627ca4/attachment.htm>

From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com  Thu Apr 22 22:04:03 2010
From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?Qmr4cm4gQXJlIFN0+Gxlbg==?=)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:04:03 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>, ,
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>, ,
	<z2p8f63b7251004220800ib75c06c4wbce6b02f2238e396@mail.gmail.com>,
	<SNT124-W4293FC6B2EC656931A029CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY120-W22C1B9556A7DE9A392D8A1BB080@phx.gbl>


I've been stunned in my arm once, from a blunt sword-cut on a show-fight. It hit me in the elbow of my left arm that was holding a shield, my opponent was aiming at (but then hit my elbow). I was so stunned in that arm that I could not hold anything in my hand for quite some time, and the elbow still hurts, some 10 years later (nothing showed up at the x-ray), and I was not bleeding = stunned :)
 


From: strobus at sympatico.ca
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:12:29 +0000
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.



Thanks, Phil.
 
Hmm - good case for extending that 'stun' rule to the chest and abdomen then. How about arms and legs?
 
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:00:47 +0100
> From: snarks at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Three different topics.
> 
> Chris:
> > ... So I apply the flexible armour rule mentioned above, and apply
> > the 'stun rule' only if the victim is hit in the head.
> 
> I've been "stunned" (put out of action for 10 minutes) by a relatively
> light kick to the stomach.
> 
> Phil Hibbs.
> -- 
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100422/36f28720/attachment.htm>

From royce at efn.org  Thu Apr 22 22:47:37 2010
From: royce at efn.org (royce at efn.org)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.27.1271953473.24549.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
References: <mailman.27.1271953473.24549.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <50212.158.165.145.159.1271976457.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>

Greetings, All,
   These are helpful answers.  Many thanks!
Asher





From shaw at caprica.com  Fri Apr 23 15:53:52 2010
From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:53:52 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <r2w8f63b7251004220126uc3297851yb98d40ead977a8af@mail.gmail .com>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<r2w8f63b7251004220126uc3297851yb98d40ead977a8af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201004231553.o3NFrBg4059182@mail2.caprica.com>

At 01:26 AM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
> > 1.  A question on parries.
> >   In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
> > practical.  Is this realistic?
>
>As Tom says, yes, but I'd expand on his caveat to say that some
>weapons are much better suited to parring other weapons. I would not
>be happy parrying a poleaxe with a dagger, nor vice versa. Some of
>this is taken into account by the weapon's AP, and I'm rusty on my RQ
>rules but isn't there some rule about not attacking and parrying with
>the same weapon in the same round?

There was, but it never entirely made sense, or fencing wouldn't work 
as it does.




From shaw at caprica.com  Fri Apr 23 16:00:30 2010
From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:00:30 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<SNT124-W55E97D1AA621B156CD2505CF080@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <201004231600.o3NFxnPg060183@mail2.caprica.com>

At 06:34 AM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
>I'm no weapons expert, but it seems to me the only advantage a sword 
>has over a spear is that the sword might have a guard to protect the 
>hand (if it's a late enough model), whereas I've never seen a spear that did.

There's some intrinsic downsides with any longer, heavier weapon when 
it comes to parrying.  Two handed spear use is probably fine as a 
parrying weapon, but I'm not so sure about one-handed.


>The BRP method doesn't entirely make sense for me. The BRP rules try 
>to accomodate both those who are using hit locations and those who 
>arent. It's fine for the blow to be stunning if you aren't using hit 
>locations, but if someone go crushed in the foot with a mace, I'm 
>not sure why they would be 'stunned'. So I apply the flexible armour 
>rule mentioned above, and apply the 'stun rule' only if the victim 
>is hit in the head.

I can quite see it happening if a hit lands in the torso too.  If 
you're going to use that rule with hit locations, probably some 
location-specific effect is more appropriate; after all, you can get 
hit in a limb in a way that leaves the limb temporarily out of action 
but doesn't do serious damage.




From shaw at caprica.com  Fri Apr 23 15:50:49 2010
From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:50:49 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
Message-ID: <201004231551.o3NFoEqQ058772@mail2.caprica.com>

At 05:12 PM 4/21/2010, you wrote:
>Hi, Guys,
>    If I may impose I have three things I'd like to throw it into one email.
>
>1.  A question on parries.
>    In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
>practical.  Is this realistic?

Almost certainly not.  But do you really, really want to start 
getting into all the special cases that would be required to deal 
with parrying with various weapons?  Because there's probably a good 
dozen or so different cases if I had to guess.


>2.  A question on RQ III vs. 2nd edition BRP.  The RQ III rule of flexible
>armor giving only half protection against crushing attacks (e.g. a mace).
>BRP instead has a stun result for special hits with crushing weapons.
>Which rule do you prefer, and why?

Well, the RQ3 rule (which only showed up in the errata, and which we 
never used locally) is another special-casing example; there's good 
reason to think thatmost armors interact in varied ways to different 
weapons (picks being the poster child here).

Personally, I prefered the RQ: AIG rule where a special with a blunt 
weapon treated all armor at half value and did better knockback.



>3.  The other day, the venerable D&D module B2, Keep of the Borderlands
>got mentioned.  I would not hold it up as an example of excellent
>adventures, but I will jump to its defense for one reason.  It is a very
>satisfactory primer on elementary RPG for youths.  Back in the day, many
>kids around age 12-14 got started with peers.

That assumes its really a good one, though, rather than just one a 
lot of people were exposed to early.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100423/e2589631/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Sat Apr 24 12:28:12 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:28:12 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] runequest search for dragon mountain
In-Reply-To: <16331.86796.qm@web27504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <16331.86796.qm@web27504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1272112092.2797.46.camel@squirrel>

On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:47 +0000, harry woolley wrote:
> hi guys  ive uploaded some of my runequest game on our site with some
> pictures you can get to it on ,www.senwg.blogspot.com.
> this is our club site so there are some more types on there take a
> look i will be doing the storey of dragon mountain every week with
> pictures i will not keep to the storey all the time as im allowed a
> bit of artistic licence as with my spelling.
> 
> 
Hi Harry,

If you like I can link the South East Northhumberland Wargames Club on
rpgreview's clubs list.

Let me know,



Lev





From styopa1 at gmail.com  Sat Apr 24 12:40:01 2010
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:40:01 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Three different topics.
In-Reply-To: <201004231553.o3NFrBg4059182@mail2.caprica.com>
References: <50359.158.165.145.159.1271895158.squirrel@webmail.efn.org>
	<r2w8f63b7251004220126uc3297851yb98d40ead977a8af@mail.gmail.com>
	<201004231553.o3NFrBg4059182@mail2.caprica.com>
Message-ID: <m2z56e64e7a1004240540g107ea1cfw849959e3e322f017@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
>  > 1.  A question on parries.
>> >   In RQ, parrying with a spear and parrying with a sword are equally
>> > practical.  Is this realistic?
>>
>> As Tom says, yes, but I'd expand on his caveat to say that some
>> weapons are much better suited to parring other weapons. I would not
>> be happy parrying a poleaxe with a dagger, nor vice versa. Some of
>> this is taken into account by the weapon's AP, and I'm rusty on my RQ
>> rules but isn't there some rule about not attacking and parrying with
>> the same weapon in the same round?
>>
>
> There was, but it never entirely made sense, or fencing wouldn't work as it
> does.
>
> True, it was clearly meant to be a game-balancer between 2-hand and 1-hand
weapons; personally, I think the balancer should be more about 2 handed
weapons doing overwhelmingly more damage than 1-hand, than about some
artificial action-limit.

For example, if you have a rapier (or even rapier & main gauche) and I have
a poleaxe, you'd frankly be retarded to try to parry the poleaxe instead of
dodging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100424/0881313c/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Mon Apr 26 05:44:44 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:44:44 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
Message-ID: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>

"To gain an extra 1d6-2 percentiles to a skill, an adventurer must train
for hours equal to his or her current percentage in a skill. An
adventurer has 50 hours per week available for training" (RQ III Deluxe)

It is often the case that characters ask for training whilst not
"adventuring". The following chart provides the time required to acquire
a certain percentage. It assumes a gain of 1% rather than 2% which is
consistent with the research add (see page 41).

Note that the following does not include the fifty hours required for a
skill to go from 0% to 1d6-2 (errata, p278).

The calculations can be made from any point. If Red Mouse has 38% in
Sneak he has the equivalent of 741 training. Spending just over four
weeks being trained with Penliss will increase that to 946, or 43%.

% Hours

0 0 
1 1 
2 3 
3 6 
4 10 
5 15 
6 21 
7 28 
8 36 
9 45 
10 55 
11 66 
12 78 
13 91 
14 105 
15 120 
16 136 
17 153 
18 171 
19 190 
20 210 
21 231  
22 253 
23 276 
24 300 
25 325 
26 351 
27 378 
28 406 
29 435 
30 465 
31 496  
32 528 
33 561 
34 595 
35 630 
36 666 
37 703 
38 741  
39 780 
40 820 
41 861 
42 903 
43 946 
44 990  
45 1035 
46 1081 
47 1128 
48 1176 
49 1225  
50 1275 
51 1326 
52 1378 
53 1431 
54 1485  
55 1540 
56 1596 
57 1653 
58 1711  
59 1770 
60 1830 
61 1891 
62 1953  
63 2016 
64 2080 
65 2145 
66 2211  
67 2278 
68 2346 
69 2415 
70 2485  
71 2556 
72 2628 
73 2701 
74 2775 
75 2850 
76 2926  
77 3003 
78 3081 
79 3160 
80 3240  
81 3321 
82 3403 
83 3486  
84 3570 
85 3655 
86 3741  
87 3828 
88 3916  
89 4005 
90 4095 
91 4186  
92 4278 
93 4371 
94 4465  
95 4560 
96 4656  
97 4753 
98 4851 
99 4950  
100 5050 




-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From snarks at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 10:48:13 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:48:13 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>

Quoth Lev:
>"To gain an extra 1d6-2 percentiles to a skill, an adventurer must train
>for hours equal to his or her current percentage in a skill. An
>adventurer has 50 hours per week available for training"

Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it? So the sensible thing
for a sorceror to do is cast a high-level Diminsh spell on a primary
stat before embarking on a training period. Diminsh Agility should be
a very common spell in western military academies.

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Q: What's the most annoying thing in email?
A: Sigs that complain about other people's posting conventions



From lev at rpgreview.net  Mon Apr 26 10:53:10 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:53:10 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>

On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 11:48 +0100, Phil Hibbs wrote:
> Quoth Lev:
> >"To gain an extra 1d6-2 percentiles to a skill, an adventurer must train
> >for hours equal to his or her current percentage in a skill. An
> >adventurer has 50 hours per week available for training"
> 
> Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it?

Not that I recall. 

I have always operated that skill bonuses (rather like equipment bonuses
or weapon base chances etc) are independent of training skill
percentages.



-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From styopa1 at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 15:56:39 2010
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:56:39 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>

>
> > Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it?
>
> Not that I recall.
>
> I have always operated that skill bonuses (rather like equipment bonuses
> or weapon base chances etc) are independent of training skill
> percentages.
>
> YGMV.
I have a RQ campaign where we didn't have frequent play times and I wanted
them to advance fairly rapidly so:
Training d6-1 or 2
Skill d6 or 3
Checks are rolled against your basic skill (without mods) and you ADD your
skill bonus to the roll.  So yes, even if you have 100+ skill chance, you
always have 4%+ skill bonus (96-00 always fails) to increase.
one check for a success, two for a special, three for a crit or a fumble.

This is pretty much everything in the players' favor, throttle down from
there to taste.

Plus my players tend to always try to disrupt SOMETHING (even each other) so
they get just about a POW gain roll every day, which to me is staggeringly
overpowered (in terms of the stacks and stacks of rune magic they can
thereby accumulate) but I can't really figure out how to logically disable
that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100426/f6ef67db/attachment.htm>

From pmaranci at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 16:27:31 2010
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:27:31 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <r2haa2df9f21004260927m7fc25dc7i72534be5ea863a7e@mail.gmail.com>

You allow POW gain rolls for their attempts to Disrupt EACH OTHER?!?

POW gain checks should only be allowed for real life-or-death combat
situations, I thought. Which might describe some intra-party battles, I
suppose.

But I've always been very tough on insisting that skill and POW gain rolls
can only be acquired through meaningful effort in a situation where the
outcome actually matters. That doesn't apply to training and research, of
course!

->Peter

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it?
>>
>> Not that I recall.
>>
>> I have always operated that skill bonuses (rather like equipment bonuses
>> or weapon base chances etc) are independent of training skill
>> percentages.
>>
>> YGMV.
> I have a RQ campaign where we didn't have frequent play times and I wanted
> them to advance fairly rapidly so:
> Training d6-1 or 2
> Skill d6 or 3
> Checks are rolled against your basic skill (without mods) and you ADD your
> skill bonus to the roll.  So yes, even if you have 100+ skill chance, you
> always have 4%+ skill bonus (96-00 always fails) to increase.
> one check for a success, two for a special, three for a crit or a fumble.
>
> This is pretty much everything in the players' favor, throttle down from
> there to taste.
>
> Plus my players tend to always try to disrupt SOMETHING (even each other)
> so they get just about a POW gain roll every day, which to me is
> staggeringly overpowered (in terms of the stacks and stacks of rune magic
> they can thereby accumulate) but I can't really figure out how to logically
> disable that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100426/81a79bde/attachment.htm>

From ahnen at hotmail.com  Mon Apr 26 16:30:36 2010
From: ahnen at hotmail.com (Mark Ahnen)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:30:36 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>,
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>,
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>,
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>


If they are simply disrupting a rat, a dog or each other for the POW roll...cut them off.  I it it was not a 'stressful' situation (combat, life and death, etc)...no POW gain roll, no skill rolls etc.

 

But the greatest 'gotcha' I ever saw was a character who was adventuring and had not used his weapon x (say it was an axe, I can't recall for sure)...saw a wild animal and attacked it...fumbled, crit'ed abdomen for max damage and died.  We left him and did not bring him back for resurrection.

 

Your campaign may vary.
 


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:56:39 -0500
From: styopa1 at gmail.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III




> Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it?

Not that I recall.

I have always operated that skill bonuses (rather like equipment bonuses
or weapon base chances etc) are independent of training skill
percentages.



YGMV.
I have a RQ campaign where we didn't have frequent play times and I wanted them to advance fairly rapidly so:
Training d6-1 or 2
Skill d6 or 3
Checks are rolled against your basic skill (without mods) and you ADD your skill bonus to the roll.  So yes, even if you have 100+ skill chance, you always have 4%+ skill bonus (96-00 always fails) to increase.
one check for a success, two for a special, three for a crit or a fumble.


This is pretty much everything in the players' favor, throttle down from there to taste.


Plus my players tend to always try to disrupt SOMETHING (even each other) so they get just about a POW gain roll every day, which to me is staggeringly overpowered (in terms of the stacks and stacks of rune magic they can thereby accumulate) but I can't really figure out how to logically disable that. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100426/83456840/attachment.htm>

From strobus at sympatico.ca  Mon Apr 26 16:39:44 2010
From: strobus at sympatico.ca (strobus at sympatico.ca)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:39:44 +0000
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <r2haa2df9f21004260927m7fc25dc7i72534be5ea863a7e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>,
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>,
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>,
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>,
	<r2haa2df9f21004260927m7fc25dc7i72534be5ea863a7e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT124-W188272D32309AB5E59C82DCF040@phx.gbl>


Rather an accident than by intent, but in our 2 year campaign nobody has ever taken an offensive spell. Thus POW gain rolls have only been available after winning spirit combat. I've found that this makes the pace of POW gain pretty much exactly what I want it to be, so for the next game I'm considering restricting POW checks to only spirit combat, and not spellcasting. Mind you, we have a lower rate of advancement than most people probably like.

 

@Pete - your website pretty much kept RQ alive for me through the lean years (I wasn't aware of this list at the time) - thanks for that!

 

Chris
 


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:27:31 -0400
From: pmaranci at gmail.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III

You allow POW gain rolls for their attempts to Disrupt EACH OTHER?!?

POW gain checks should only be allowed for real life-or-death combat situations, I thought. Which might describe some intra-party battles, I suppose.

But I've always been very tough on insisting that skill and POW gain rolls can only be acquired through meaningful effort in a situation where the outcome actually matters. That doesn't apply to training and research, of course!

->Peter


On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:





> Training hours includes skill bonus, doesn't it?

Not that I recall.

I have always operated that skill bonuses (rather like equipment bonuses
or weapon base chances etc) are independent of training skill
percentages.



YGMV.
I have a RQ campaign where we didn't have frequent play times and I wanted them to advance fairly rapidly so:
Training d6-1 or 2
Skill d6 or 3
Checks are rolled against your basic skill (without mods) and you ADD your skill bonus to the roll.  So yes, even if you have 100+ skill chance, you always have 4%+ skill bonus (96-00 always fails) to increase.
one check for a success, two for a special, three for a crit or a fumble.


This is pretty much everything in the players' favor, throttle down from there to taste.


Plus my players tend to always try to disrupt SOMETHING (even each other) so they get just about a POW gain roll every day, which to me is staggeringly overpowered (in terms of the stacks and stacks of rune magic they can thereby accumulate) but I can't really figure out how to logically disable that.
_______________________________________________
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/20100426/49690668/attachment.htm>

From styopa1 at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 17:15:19 2010
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:15:19 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>

>
> If they are simply disrupting a rat, a dog or each other for the POW
> roll...cut them off.  I it it was not a 'stressful' situation (combat, life
> and death, etc)...no POW gain roll, no skill rolls etc.
>
>
The (legitimate, I think) question being, "how is this different from
training a weapon skill?"

I can train with an instructor who's not ACTUALLY trying to hurt or kill me.
I can spar with a friend and ultimately we both get better.

Thinking on it, tangentially, that actually might be an argument that a
fumbled skill gain roll from training would cause some accidental injury
that would IMO prevent the character training for an amount of time equal to
what they were investing in that training cycle (the logic being that to
train from skill 12, you don't need to be in PERFECT condition, but to train
above 70, you'd really need to be in peak shape).

With some sort of rationalized penalty debuff applied if they have to
adventure in the meanwhile...we all know adventurers don't always get to
pick when adventure 'finds' them...?

Hm.

This kind of smells like a way to design perhaps a training minigame for the
down times, where risk+cost+time are wagered against reward...POW gain rolls
included, with the potential costs being equivalent to the value gained, ie
fairly big.  Stuff like "soulburned: you regain mana at half rate for X
weeks" or "self-doubt: you're at -4 effective POW vs. spirit combat
possession attempts"....

Ooh, I like this list.  It gives me such great ideas.  I'll be back with
something in a few days.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100426/7f4d15b9/attachment.htm>

From snarks at gmail.com  Mon Apr 26 18:16:40 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:16:40 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>

>> If they are simply disrupting a rat, a dog or each other for the POW
>> roll...cut them off.  I it it was not a 'stressful' situation (combat, life
>> and death, etc)...no POW gain roll, no skill rolls etc.

Styopa:
> The (legitimate, I think) question being, "how is this different from
> training a weapon skill?"

If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
"you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
have a Disrupt spell".

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



From gazza666 at gmail.com  Tue Apr 27 05:02:45 2010
From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:02:45 +0800
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> have a Disrupt spell".

Well, it's never going to be exactly hard. I mean, sure, they
shouldn't get POW gain rolls for non-stressful situations, but an
adventurer's life is generally filled with plenty of valid stressful
situations. I was more interested that they were apparently getting
daily POW gain checks - I thought (possibly unjustified by rules
anywhere) that the basic unit of experience checks and the like was a
week?

What I think RQ is missing - and basically most RPG systems - is skill
deterioration. I was a black belt at Judo when I was 18, but I doubt
20 years after giving it up I'd still be considered that level of
skill (ignoring for the moment the significant decline in my physical
condition ;) ). Skills that aren't used in real life tend to atrophy -
not completely, of course (an expert 20 years out of the game doesn't
become a rank novice), but it isn't insignificant either. The higher
the level of skill the more training you should need just to overcome
atrophy.

But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.
-- 
GAZZA



From snarks at gmail.com  Tue Apr 27 08:00:52 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:00:52 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <n2p8f63b7251004270100icaa8bd76s8965040866390962@mail.gmail.com>

Gary:
> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.

Or dramatic - imagine if the sword that Hattori Hanzo made, breaking a
thirty year vow never to make a sword again again, was a bit rubbish
because he was out of practice.

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



From gazza666 at gmail.com  Tue Apr 27 08:22:09 2010
From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:22:09 +0800
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <n2p8f63b7251004270100icaa8bd76s8965040866390962@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<n2p8f63b7251004270100icaa8bd76s8965040866390962@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h2n9ebd81401004270122x33a62088l2503e2140625f330@mail.gmail.com>

If that hasn't already been in a Discworld novel, it should be. :)

On 27 April 2010 16:00, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary:
>> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.
>
> Or dramatic - imagine if the sword that Hattori Hanzo made, breaking a
> thirty year vow never to make a sword again again, was a bit rubbish
> because he was out of practice.
>
> Phil Hibbs.
> --
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>



-- 
GAZZA



From lev at rpgreview.net  Tue Apr 27 14:59:25 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:59:25 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> > have a Disrupt spell".
> 

The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
rather experienced through epiphany.

Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
fasting for forty days and forty nights :)


> What I think RQ is missing - and basically most RPG systems - is skill
> deterioration. I was a black belt at Judo when I was 18, but I doubt
> 20 years after giving it up I'd still be considered that level of
> skill (ignoring for the moment the significant decline in my physical
> condition ;) ).

I included in the Rolemaster Companion which ICE published (RMC VI,
section 6.5). To translate it into RQ 3e terms would be:

1. Assess which skills the character hasn't used "often" or "recently"
in the past year (yes, subjective assessment).
2. Roll under 75% + (INT+POW-20)
3. If roll is failed, -1d6% from the skill rating

> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.

It wasn't too onerous for adventurer-types...




-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From booksfleamarket at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 27 21:52:33 2010
From: booksfleamarket at yahoo.com (Ken & Juliane Murphy)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Selling some RQ stuff
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1272333611.15639.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <3854.94211.qm@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


Hi gang,
Obvious hucksterism here, but I am selling
my copy of "Sun Country" and the "RQ Down Under" con book (the one with the white cover) on ebay, and thought somebody might be interested. Of course there's the fact that I'm not computer savy enough to post a link, but a search for RQ aughtta do it?:P
Best,
Ken.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100427/ab954d27/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Tue Apr 27 23:02:44 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:02:44 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Selling some RQ stuff
In-Reply-To: <3854.94211.qm@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <3854.94211.qm@web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1272409364.4768.0.camel@squirrel>

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 14:52 -0700, Ken & Juliane Murphy wrote:
>         Hi gang,
>         Obvious hucksterism here, but I am selling
>         my copy of "Sun Country" and the "RQ Down Under" con book (the
>         one with the white cover) on ebay, and thought somebody might
>         be interested. Of course there's the fact that I'm not
>         computer savy enough to post a link, but a search for RQ
>         aughtta do it :P
>         Best,
>         Ken.

Hi Ken,

In this circumstance, a link would be appreciated, because damned if I
can find it!


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Apr 28 09:12:52 2010
From: harryw1602 at yahoo.co.uk (harry woolley)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:12:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 14
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1272420010.6775.runequest_rpgreview.net@rpgreview.net>
Message-ID: <284545.63744.qm@web27506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

but gazza you were a great foot baller,don,t cry

--- On Wed, 28/4/10, runequest-request at rpgreview.net <runequest-request at rpgreview.net> wrote:


From: runequest-request at rpgreview.net <runequest-request at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 14
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Date: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, 3:00


Send Runequest mailing list submissions to
??? runequest at rpgreview.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
??? http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
??? runequest-request at rpgreview.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
??? runequest-owner at rpgreview.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Runequest digest..."


Today's Topics:

???1. Re: Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III (Gary Sturgess)
???2. Re: Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III (Phil Hibbs)
???3. Re: Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III (Gary Sturgess)
???4. Re: Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III (Lev Lafayette)
???5. Selling some RQ stuff (Ken & Juliane Murphy)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:02:45 +0800
From: Gary Sturgess <gazza666 at gmail.com>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
Message-ID:
??? <t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> have a Disrupt spell".

Well, it's never going to be exactly hard. I mean, sure, they
shouldn't get POW gain rolls for non-stressful situations, but an
adventurer's life is generally filled with plenty of valid stressful
situations. I was more interested that they were apparently getting
daily POW gain checks - I thought (possibly unjustified by rules
anywhere) that the basic unit of experience checks and the like was a
week?

What I think RQ is missing - and basically most RPG systems - is skill
deterioration. I was a black belt at Judo when I was 18, but I doubt
20 years after giving it up I'd still be considered that level of
skill (ignoring for the moment the significant decline in my physical
condition ;) ). Skills that aren't used in real life tend to atrophy -
not completely, of course (an expert 20 years out of the game doesn't
become a rank novice), but it isn't insignificant either. The higher
the level of skill the more training you should need just to overcome
atrophy.

But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.
-- 
GAZZA



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:00:52 +0100
From: Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
Message-ID:
??? <n2p8f63b7251004270100icaa8bd76s8965040866390962 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Gary:
> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.

Or dramatic - imagine if the sword that Hattori Hanzo made, breaking a
thirty year vow never to make a sword again again, was a bit rubbish
because he was out of practice.

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:22:09 +0800
From: Gary Sturgess <gazza666 at gmail.com>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
Message-ID:
??? <h2n9ebd81401004270122x33a62088l2503e2140625f330 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If that hasn't already been in a Discworld novel, it should be. :)

On 27 April 2010 16:00, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary:
>> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.
>
> Or dramatic - imagine if the sword that Hattori Hanzo made, breaking a
> thirty year vow never to make a sword again again, was a bit rubbish
> because he was out of practice.
>
> Phil Hibbs.
> --
> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>



-- 
GAZZA



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:59:25 +1000
From: Lev Lafayette <lev at rpgreview.net>
To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
Message-ID: <1272380365.7752.7.camel at squirrel>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> > have a Disrupt spell".
> 

The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
rather experienced through epiphany.

Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
fasting for forty days and forty nights :)


> What I think RQ is missing - and basically most RPG systems - is skill
> deterioration. I was a black belt at Judo when I was 18, but I doubt
> 20 years after giving it up I'd still be considered that level of
> skill (ignoring for the moment the significant decline in my physical
> condition ;) ).

I included in the Rolemaster Companion which ICE published (RMC VI,
section 6.5). To translate it into RQ 3e terms would be:

1. Assess which skills the character hasn't used "often" or "recently"
in the past year (yes, subjective assessment).
2. Roll under 75% + (INT+POW-20)
3. If roll is failed, -1d6% from the skill rating

> But while realistic I'm not sure this would actually be fun.

It wasn't too onerous for adventurer-types...




-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken & Juliane Murphy <booksfleamarket at yahoo.com>
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: [Runequest] Selling some RQ stuff
Message-ID: <3854.94211.qm at web112109.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Hi gang,
Obvious hucksterism here, but I am selling
my copy of "Sun Country" and the "RQ Down Under" con book (the one with the white cover) on ebay, and thought somebody might be interested. Of course there's the fact that I'm not computer savy enough to post a link, but a search for RQ aughtta do it?:P
Best,
Ken.


? ? ? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100427/ab954d27/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Runequest mailing list
Runequest at rpgreview.net
http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net


End of Runequest Digest, Vol 24, Issue 14
*****************************************



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100428/8c7142f2/attachment.htm>

From al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 28 22:56:05 2010
From: al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com (Albert Ramirez)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] RQ Skill Deterioration
Message-ID: <266061.24444.qm@web82406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


>What I think RQ is missing - and basically most RPG systems - is skill
>deterioration. I was a black belt at Judo when I was 18, but I doubt
>20 years after giving it up I'd still be considered that level of
>skill (ignoring for the moment the significant decline in my physical
>condition ;) ). Skills that aren't used in real life tend to atrophy -
>not completely, of course (an expert 20 years out of the game doesn't
>become a rank novice), but it isn't insignificant either. The higher
>the level of skill the more training you should need just to overcome
>atrophy.
?
Gary,
?
This is why most rune priest's combat skills are limited to DEXx5.? They are too busy with cult duties to practice their combat skills and they deteriorate.
?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100428/ded5cfe0/attachment.htm>

From shaw at caprica.com  Thu Apr 29 00:24:02 2010
From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:24:02 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
Message-ID: <201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>

At 07:59 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote:
>On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
> > On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> > > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> > > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> > > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> > > have a Disrupt spell".
> >
>
>The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
>I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
>spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
>rather experienced through epiphany.
>
>Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
>fasting for forty days and forty nights :)
>

When I allowed it, I considered it a guided medatation process.







From snarks at gmail.com  Thu Apr 29 08:45:25 2010
From: snarks at gmail.com (Phil Hibbs)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:45:25 +0100
Subject: [Runequest] RQ Skill Deterioration
In-Reply-To: <266061.24444.qm@web82406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <266061.24444.qm@web82406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2x8f63b7251004290145mdd63fb6bnd46a07c84c8c1bd3@mail.gmail.com>

Albert Ramirez:
> This is why most rune priest's combat skills are limited to DEXx5.  They
> are too busy with cult duties to practice their combat skills and they
> deteriorate.

True, but it's a pretty blunt implement - if a DEX 16 initiate with 120%
sword attack skill becomes a priest, do they lose ~40% instantly?

Phil Hibbs.
-- 
Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100429/f2461e20/attachment.htm>

From lev at rpgreview.net  Thu Apr 29 08:55:05 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:55:05 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] RQ Skill Deterioration
In-Reply-To: <h2x8f63b7251004290145mdd63fb6bnd46a07c84c8c1bd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <266061.24444.qm@web82406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<h2x8f63b7251004290145mdd63fb6bnd46a07c84c8c1bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1272531305.2694.5.camel@squirrel>

On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 09:45 +0100, Phil Hibbs wrote:
> Albert Ramirez:
> > This is why most rune priest's combat skills are limited to DEXx5.
> They
> > are too busy with cult duties to practice their combat skills and
> they
> > deteriorate.
> 
> True, but it's a pretty blunt implement - if a DEX 16 initiate with
> 120% sword attack skill becomes a priest, do they lose ~40% instantly?
> 

Quite true that. If one is to use that rule (and I certainly never have)
the sensible thing would be freeze the value if it is over the limit and
only allow increases to the limit.

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




From styopa1 at gmail.com  Fri Apr 30 14:14:47 2010
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:47 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
Message-ID: <v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote:

> At 07:59 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
>> > On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
>> > > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
>> > > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
>> > > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
>> > > have a Disrupt spell".
>> >
>>
>> The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
>> I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
>> spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
>> rather experienced through epiphany.
>>
>> Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
>> fasting for forty days and forty nights :)
>>
>>
> When I allowed it, I considered it a guided medatation process.
>
> I'm a rules-lawyer player myself, so I tend to want to close every
loophole.
As a player, personally I'd capture a trollkin or somesuch, perhaps
something unintelligent but aggressive.

Then I'd set up a "fight club", with my well-armored and skilled friends
spectating - "I want you to hit me, as hard as you can"...as needed, I'd
cast disrupt until I succeeded.  Fight over, I step out if I'm still
conscious.  I wouldn't kill the target (on purpose).

Sure, you can just deny it as a DM, but logically that it's not a stressful
situation, nor that as a character I wouldn't feel 'at risk'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100430/8cd4e770/attachment.htm>

From ahnen at hotmail.com  Fri Apr 30 15:13:17 2010
From: ahnen at hotmail.com (Mark Ahnen)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:13:17 -0700
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>,
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>,
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>,
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>,
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>,
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>,
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>,
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>,
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>,
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>,
	<v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>


'Logically', it's more barbaric than dog-fighting and poses no threat to the participants...except the captured victim.

 

It's not worthy of an 'experience' check. 

 

Your powergaming may vary.
 


Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:47 -0500
From: styopa1 at gmail.com
To: runequest at rpgreview.net
Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III


On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote:

At 07:59 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote:

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> > have a Disrupt spell".
>

The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
rather experienced through epiphany.

Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
fasting for forty days and forty nights :)


When I allowed it, I considered it a guided medatation process.


I'm a rules-lawyer player myself, so I tend to want to close every loophole. 
As a player, personally I'd capture a trollkin or somesuch, perhaps something unintelligent but aggressive.


Then I'd set up a "fight club", with my well-armored and skilled friends spectating - "I want you to hit me, as hard as you can"...as needed, I'd cast disrupt until I succeeded.  Fight over, I step out if I'm still conscious.  I wouldn't kill the target (on purpose).


Sure, you can just deny it as a DM, but logically that it's not a stressful situation, nor that as a character I wouldn't feel 'at risk'.

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100430/66c1e07a/attachment.htm>

From al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 30 17:20:32 2010
From: al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com (Albert Ramirez)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest]  RQ Skill Deterioration
Message-ID: <381059.37556.qm@web82401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Phil Hibbs:
>True, but it's a pretty blunt implement - if a DEX 16 initiate with 120%
>sword attack skill becomes a priest, do they lose ~40% instantly?

I run RQ2 (1980 edition) and only rune lords can go above 100% in combat skills under RQ2 rules.  When initiates haven't trained their DEX to 20 or above, a reduction of 5% per game month is reasonable and this usually works out to 5% per adventure for priests that are not in combat oriented  cults. 

Priests can still increase by experience to the DEXx5 limit if they are below the limit when they become priests.

Otherwise, if priests want to increase their combat skills above DEXx5 they need to take a leave of absence or become priest-lords under RQ2.




From styopa1 at gmail.com  Fri Apr 30 17:23:26 2010
From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:23:26 -0500
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
	<v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <v2o56e64e7a1004301023mc3e3de42vc9679a0fae8ab493@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Mark Ahnen <ahnen at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  'Logically', it's more barbaric than dog-fighting and poses no threat to
> the participants...except the captured victim.
>
> It's not worthy of an 'experience' check.
>
> Your powergaming may vary.
>

I'm terribly, deeply, agonizingly sorry I've offended your sensibilities.
 Mea culpa maxima.   If you've recovered from the shock, please define
what's "worthy" enough to warrant a check?  What's your definition?

Personally, I prefer to have actual expressed standards rather than
arbitrariness.  I am not really satisfied with arbitrary DM's because the
players are effectively at their whim, and can't anticipate results of
future actions without having to scurry to the DM for pre-approval.

Please remember to consider in your answer that you can level up stats AND
skills by working with a trainer who, at least generally, ISN'T trying to
kill the character and the character knows that.  Is that the
'justification' of the difference between skill-increase-by-experience
(which could, under certain conditions, take place as often as once a day)
and skill-increase-by-training?

Could, for example, a boxer or wrestler gain a skill check from a bout?
 What about a sword duel between masters "to first blood"?  Between novices?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20100430/564f29a6/attachment.htm>

From pmaranci at gmail.com  Fri Apr 30 17:34:39 2010
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:34:39 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
	<v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <p2uaa2df9f21004301034w499798a3w8095a979df0b529b@mail.gmail.com>

The thing is, so far we've been looking at it purely from the player's
perspective. But that makes for lousy roleplaying.

How would the *characters* perceive the issue?

I'm by no means a fan of Glorantha (quite the reverse), but this
conversation smacks of Godlearnerism. Perhaps we should try putting in the
characters terms. Do they represent their abilities by numbers? Do they say
"I want to increase my DEX from 16 to 19, so I need to work out an increase
of three points at a training time of 150 hours"? (my numbers may be off, I
haven't been able to play RQ for years). I'd say no. There can be a desire
to improve, but in most worlds characters should not be thinking of
themselves as a collection of numbers - particularly when it comes to POW,
which represents the soul.

The one problem is that there IS an easy way for a character to measure
their own POW: cast 1-point spells until they fall unconscious, maintaining
a running count until they pass out. Dangerous, but do-able.

I don't know...it seems to me that the enormous cynicism behind "training"
POW should itself invalidate the approach. It's like trying to tickle
yourself; it can't be done, because a fundamental part of the process is the
genuine belief that your life is in danger.

That gives me an idea for an interesting scenario, in which a group trains
POW by targeting unsuspecting individuals with near-fatal attacks. The
problem is, what's in it for them? How could they make money from it? They
can't arrange a deal with the trainee beforehand, because that would
invalidate the training. And if they make the attack without
pre-arrangement, and THEN try to collect from the trainee, what are the odds
that they'd get paid?

Perhaps such a group could act for other reasons than money. Or...perhaps a
parent might purchase such training for their children. I'd suspect that
there would be dangers involved, however. Not only might the trainee die, or
seriously hurt or kill a trainer, but they might also develop a long-term
cynicism that could impair or reduce their ability to ever make POW gains
again. In their most pitched battles, they might find themselves wondering
if the experience was real, or just another POW-training trick.

->Peter


On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Mark Ahnen <ahnen at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  'Logically', it's more barbaric than dog-fighting and poses no threat to
> the participants...except the captured victim.
>
> It's not worthy of an 'experience' check.
>
> Your powergaming may vary.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:47 -0500
>
> From: styopa1 at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:59 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
> > On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
> > > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
> > > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
> > > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
> > > have a Disrupt spell".
> >
>
> The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
> I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
> spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
> rather experienced through epiphany.
>
> Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
> fasting for forty days and forty nights :)
>
>
> When I allowed it, I considered it a guided medatation process.
>
> I'm a rules-lawyer player myself, so I tend to want to close every
> loophole.
> As a player, personally I'd capture a trollkin or somesuch, perhaps
> something unintelligent but aggressive.
>
> Then I'd set up a "fight club", with my well-armored and skilled friends
> spectating - "I want you to hit me, as hard as you can"...as needed, I'd
> cast disrupt until I succeeded.  Fight over, I step out if I'm still
> conscious.  I wouldn't kill the target (on purpose).
>
> Sure, you can just deny it as a DM, but logically that it's not a stressful
> situation, nor that as a character I wouldn't feel 'at risk'.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100430/139ea0d6/attachment.htm>

From pmaranci at gmail.com  Fri Apr 30 17:37:14 2010
From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:37:14 -0400
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <p2uaa2df9f21004301034w499798a3w8095a979df0b529b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
	<v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w50935F4A9074D1DBD06B6AA3000@phx.gbl>
	<p2uaa2df9f21004301034w499798a3w8095a979df0b529b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h2iaa2df9f21004301037g64950b2atb95de1477ca34c04@mail.gmail.com>

Just to be clear, you don't have to believe that your life is in danger in
order to be tickled. :D

But when you try to tickle yourself, it doesn't work. Why? Is it the lack of
control?

->Peter

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Peter Maranci <pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote:

> The thing is, so far we've been looking at it purely from the player's
> perspective. But that makes for lousy roleplaying.
>
> How would the *characters* perceive the issue?
>
> I'm by no means a fan of Glorantha (quite the reverse), but this
> conversation smacks of Godlearnerism. Perhaps we should try putting in the
> characters terms. Do they represent their abilities by numbers? Do they say
> "I want to increase my DEX from 16 to 19, so I need to work out an increase
> of three points at a training time of 150 hours"? (my numbers may be off, I
> haven't been able to play RQ for years). I'd say no. There can be a desire
> to improve, but in most worlds characters should not be thinking of
> themselves as a collection of numbers - particularly when it comes to POW,
> which represents the soul.
>
> The one problem is that there IS an easy way for a character to measure
> their own POW: cast 1-point spells until they fall unconscious, maintaining
> a running count until they pass out. Dangerous, but do-able.
>
> I don't know...it seems to me that the enormous cynicism behind "training"
> POW should itself invalidate the approach. It's like trying to tickle
> yourself; it can't be done, because a fundamental part of the process is the
> genuine belief that your life is in danger.
>
> That gives me an idea for an interesting scenario, in which a group trains
> POW by targeting unsuspecting individuals with near-fatal attacks. The
> problem is, what's in it for them? How could they make money from it? They
> can't arrange a deal with the trainee beforehand, because that would
> invalidate the training. And if they make the attack without
> pre-arrangement, and THEN try to collect from the trainee, what are the odds
> that they'd get paid?
>
> Perhaps such a group could act for other reasons than money. Or...perhaps a
> parent might purchase such training for their children. I'd suspect that
> there would be dangers involved, however. Not only might the trainee die, or
> seriously hurt or kill a trainer, but they might also develop a long-term
> cynicism that could impair or reduce their ability to ever make POW gains
> again. In their most pitched battles, they might find themselves wondering
> if the experience was real, or just another POW-training trick.
>
> ->Peter
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Mark Ahnen <ahnen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  'Logically', it's more barbaric than dog-fighting and poses no threat to
>> the participants...except the captured victim.
>>
>> It's not worthy of an 'experience' check.
>>
>> Your powergaming may vary.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:47 -0500
>>
>> From: styopa1 at gmail.com
>> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
>> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 07:59 AM 4/27/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 13:02 +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote:
>> > On 27 April 2010 02:16, Phil Hibbs <snarks at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > If you want to apply the training mechanic to POW, then there's
>> > > already a system for training stats. The rules state you can't train
>> > > POW, but you can ignore that if you want. I wouldn't want to replace
>> > > "you can't train POW" with "POW is ridiculously easy to train if you
>> > > have a Disrupt spell".
>> >
>>
>> The training stats suggestion is the right yardstick for difficulty, but
>> I must wonder whether it is plausible that one's
>> spiritual/divine/essence connection is something that is trained or
>> rather experienced through epiphany.
>>
>> Maybe POW training could consist of going out into the desert and
>> fasting for forty days and forty nights :)
>>
>>
>> When I allowed it, I considered it a guided medatation process.
>>
>> I'm a rules-lawyer player myself, so I tend to want to close every
>> loophole.
>> As a player, personally I'd capture a trollkin or somesuch, perhaps
>> something unintelligent but aggressive.
>>
>> Then I'd set up a "fight club", with my well-armored and skilled friends
>> spectating - "I want you to hit me, as hard as you can"...as needed, I'd
>> cast disrupt until I succeeded.  Fight over, I step out if I'm still
>> conscious.  I wouldn't kill the target (on purpose).
>>
>> Sure, you can just deny it as a DM, but logically that it's not a
>> stressful situation, nor that as a character I wouldn't feel 'at risk'.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>



-- 
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/20100430/5d599b0a/attachment.htm>

From al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Apr 30 21:35:36 2010
From: al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com (Albert Ramirez)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 14:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Runequest] Looking To Buy RQ Fanzines
Message-ID: <748013.56847.qm@web82406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear fellow RQ fanatics,

I want to BUY Tales of the Reaching Moon no. 19, and all issues of Codex and RQ Adventures. I will pay reasonable prices but I am only interested in legitimate copies. I am not interested in photocopies, .pdfs or illegal copies of these publications.

If you are interested, please email me at:

al_ramirez_2000 at yahoo.com.



From lev at rpgreview.net  Fri Apr 30 22:33:12 2010
From: lev at rpgreview.net (Lev Lafayette)
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 08:33:12 +1000
Subject: [Runequest] Time and Skill Increases in RuneQuest III
In-Reply-To: <201004302015.o3UKFJSs006260@mail2.caprica.com>
References: <1272260684.2758.61.camel@squirrel>
	<n2v8f63b7251004260348u1c646450mdefb42b8bccc1898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272279190.2758.87.camel@squirrel>
	<s2w56e64e7a1004260856y4f2cccd4q1ec5d812eebe8f32@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT144-w69FDCB0564ED3E1E6CD72A3040@phx.gbl>
	<z2g56e64e7a1004261015x59fc49b4k628954e32d1bc003@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2n8f63b7251004261116n8785eb7am1643c3ad0a44dc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<t2m9ebd81401004262202md0b0f893x9a8e3081089ae74c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272380365.7752.7.camel@squirrel>
	<201004290024.o3T0Ojj4075045@mail2.caprica.com>
	<v2g56e64e7a1004300714n8b27b57oda58de11073fa91f@mail.gmail.com>
	<201004302015.o3UKFJSs006260@mail2.caprica.com>
Message-ID: <1272666793.2740.9.camel@squirrel>

On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 01:14 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
> At 07:14 AM 4/30/2010, you wrote:

> 
> Well, part of the problem here is that you can get power gain rolls
> too frequently anyway; as they pointed out when the RQ:AIG playtest
> was under way, with frequent adventuring you should have had 25 year
> old rune priests all over the place. 

Depends on what age you start the PCs (I allowed them to choose between
17 and 27 as per the range in RQ3) and how often they go on
'adventures'. My current PCs manage around 3 every 2 years, the rest of
the time being taken up doing 'normal work'. 

I think our first RunePriest was in his mid thirties when he acquired
that status, although we did have a Shaman in the party by their late
twenties.




-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?




