From jellen at ameritech.net Sun Dec 1 04:50:41 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:50:41 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike Ranks - Continued References: <26142.196.8.104.31.1038547059.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <00a301c29899$000b3d30$3410fea9@frkt5> After much deliberation on the subject, I realized that the only reason to consider weapon length in combat is when allowing the pressing/fending options also. Because the Duck would always press and the Troll would always fend, the option pretty much cancels itself out--unless you're fighting on a cliff's edge, it's pointless. I therefore opted to do what many other GMs have done and switched to an initiative system based entirely on DEX (occasionally modified by fatigue). I'll save Steve the trouble and point out that SPQR (www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html) uses such a system. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Den" To: Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike Ranks - Continued There was a talk regarding strike ranks and whether they truly reflect the use of certain weapons - circa archive #52 - which eventually digressed to other topics. Yesterday I was having a chat in my sites forum when a very simple solution struck me. Ceteris Paribus - two combatants enter melee, one with a weapon with a base SR < 2 and the other with a weapon whose base SR > 2. (Weapons with a base SR of 2 are in between - they are neither too long for close quarters or too short for arms length attacks). Thus the weapons being used are stand offish/pole arm on one side and close quarters on another side. One could assume that the person with the long weapon (<2) could hit his opponent even if he is a meter away while the same would not apply for the close quarters weapon user. So to simulate the advantages and disadvantages in such a match up, one could do the following: Clearly to strike at his opponent, the close quarters weapon (kukri) must move to close quarters, he must announce doing so. The distance weapon holder (naginata) would then get a free hit at his opponent or would state that he backs off to avoid being brought to close quarters (no free hit then). Normal dodge and parry rules would apply. Once at close quarters, the naginata holder would be at a disadvantage. To simulate this, simply swap attack strike ranks, thus the kukri holder would go on 6 and the naginata would go on 8 (where they would usually go on 6 naginata and 8 kukri). To even things out, should the naginata holder back off to use his weapon to its proper advantage, the kukri guy would then get a free hit. It adds a bit more admin, but is similar enough. I am going to suggest it in my next campaign and will see how it goes. ciao tony htto://www.runequest.za.org -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Sun Dec 1 05:51:16 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:51:16 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves Message-ID: <174.12ab070c.2b1a62a4@cs.com> How come all my favorite game designers are named Steve? Steve Perrin Steve Jackson Steve Cole Gary Gygax (Bet his middle name is Steve) Rod From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Dec 1 08:28:28 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:28:28 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves References: <174.12ab070c.2b1a62a4@cs.com> Message-ID: <003001c298b7$7c847d90$6401a8c0@wizard> Don't forget Hero Games' Steve Peterson, not to mention current Hero guru Steve Long. And my RuneQuest co-author Steve Henderson. And Gary's middle name is not Steve. But one of his sources of inspiration is Steve Marsh (not the Pyramid editor). Steve Perrin, charter member of the Association of Several Steves ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:51 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves > How come all my favorite game designers are named Steve? > > Steve Perrin > Steve Jackson > Steve Cole > Gary Gygax (Bet his middle name is Steve) > > > Rod > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jellen at ameritech.net Sun Dec 1 08:32:38 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:32:38 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves References: <174.12ab070c.2b1a62a4@cs.com> <003001c298b7$7c847d90$6401a8c0@wizard> Message-ID: <00b301c298b8$01859010$3410fea9@frkt5> Love that acronym. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Perrin" To: Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Steves Don't forget Hero Games' Steve Peterson, not to mention current Hero guru Steve Long. And my RuneQuest co-author Steve Henderson. And Gary's middle name is not Steve. But one of his sources of inspiration is Steve Marsh (not the Pyramid editor). Steve Perrin, charter member of the Association of Several Steves ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:51 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves > How come all my favorite game designers are named Steve? > > Steve Perrin > Steve Jackson > Steve Cole > Gary Gygax (Bet his middle name is Steve) > > > Rod > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Sun Dec 1 09:28:02 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:28:02 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves Message-ID: In a message dated 11/30/2002 4:29:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve at perrinworlds.com writes: << Association of Several Steves >> LOL From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 11:39:10 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:39:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating in RPG's / Strike Ranks - Continued In-Reply-To: <20021130213102.ABF4E4C266@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021202003910.70491.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Regarding cheating, we never, ever cheated in our games. However, we may have inadvertantly bent the rules by omission, forgetfulness or simply by misunderstanding a particular subrule. For example: Miscalculating an attack/parry chance and scoring a critical/special roll, normally by forgetting defense, or not realising that fighting in the dark gives a -75% penalty. Not totalling all the one and two points of damage in every hit location and consequently not dropping down dead. Forgetting you are demoralised and rolloing a good attack. Forgetting whether the attack chance on your character sheet includes the skill bonuses or not and adding them in again (you know who you are if you are reading). Rolling percentages on dice where the numbers are rubbed smoth and the only way to verify is to hold it against the light and squint (when challenged he was always right). Having scenarios run "back home" and getting new spells/abilities. Not realising that Yelmalians can't use Fireblade. Forgetting geases. Rolling percentage dice "lowest number high" (for those who are confused, normally the player states which colour die is the high number, e.g. green is tens and red is digits, "lowest number high" meant that the lowest number rolled was the tens and the highest was the digits, this seldom worked). Using incompatible spells e.g. Shimmer and Countermagic. Forgetting that the bound spirits you had yesterday have all gone because you died and were resurrected. Using POW storage crystals for binding spirits and storing MPs. Forgetting to cross off one-use spells/magic items after they were used. All these were innocent misunderstandings, even when repeated by the same people time and time again. I, of course, was innocent of any wrongdoing, except as a GM when I followed the cult of B'stard Geem (from Pavic Tales) and could justify any bending of the rules. By the way, Redstone Communications have very kindly sent me two D6s with sixes on each face (to take the gamble out of systems) - they are also pretty good at rolling damage bonuses. J says: > After much deliberation on the subject, I realized that the only reason to > consider weapon length in combat is when allowing the pressing/fending > options also. Because the Duck would always press and the Troll would always > fend, the option pretty much cancels itself out--unless you're fighting on a > cliff's edge, it's pointless. I therefore opted to do what many other GMs > have done and switched to an initiative system based entirely on DEX > (occasionally modified by fatigue). I'll save Steve the trouble and point > out that SPQR (www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html) uses such a system. Realistically, no Duck using a dagger would face a Troll using a maul, it would run away and then sneak up behind the troll. Even if it did stand and fight, when it started to close the troll would be able to hit at it, because it would seem obvious that the duck could not close that quickly. However, once the gap has gone, the duck would be able to use its dagger and the troll could stomp on its little head as nobody can convincingly argue that a troll can use a maul against a duck at its feet. We never had a problem with weapon lengths as we used our common sense (as well as having 10 minute rants on how the GM was being unfair to disallow the use of a pike against someone trying to grapple). > > --J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Den" > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:17 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike Ranks - Continued > > > There was a talk regarding strike ranks and whether they truly reflect > the use of certain weapons - circa archive #52 - which eventually > digressed to other topics. > > Yesterday I was having a chat in my sites forum when a very simple > solution struck me. Ceteris Paribus - two combatants enter melee, one with > a weapon with a base SR < 2 and the other with a weapon whose base SR > 2. > (Weapons with a base SR of 2 are in between - they are neither too long > for close quarters or too short for arms length attacks). > > Thus the weapons being used are stand offish/pole arm on one side and > close quarters on another side. One could assume that the person with the > long weapon (<2) could hit his opponent even if he is a meter away while > the same would not apply for the close quarters weapon user. So to > simulate the advantages and disadvantages in such a match up, one could do > the following: > > Clearly to strike at his opponent, the close quarters weapon (kukri) must > move to close quarters, he must announce doing so. The distance weapon > holder (naginata) would then get a free hit at his opponent or would state > that he backs off to avoid being brought to close quarters (no free hit > then). Normal dodge and parry rules would apply. Once at close quarters, > the naginata holder would be at a disadvantage. To simulate this, simply > swap attack strike ranks, thus the kukri holder would go on 6 and the > naginata would go on 8 (where they would usually go on 6 naginata and 8 > kukri). To even things out, should the naginata holder back off to use his > weapon to its proper advantage, the kukri guy would then get a free hit. > > It adds a bit more admin, but is similar enough. I am going to suggest it > in my next campaign and will see how it goes. > > ciao > tony > htto://www.runequest.za.org > > -- > Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 14 > From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com > Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:51:16 EST > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > How come all my favorite game designers are named Steve? > > Steve Perrin > Steve Jackson > Steve Cole > Gary Gygax (Bet his middle name is Steve) > > > Rod > > --__--__-- > > Message: 15 > From: "Steve Perrin" > To: > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Steves > Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:28:28 -0800 > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Don't forget Hero Games' Steve Peterson, not to mention current Hero guru > Steve Long. And my RuneQuest co-author Steve Henderson. > > And Gary's middle name is not Steve. But one of his sources of inspiration > is Steve Marsh (not the Pyramid editor). > > Steve Perrin, charter member of the Association of Several Steves > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:51 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Steves > > > > How come all my favorite game designers are named Steve? > > > > Steve Perrin > > Steve Jackson > > Steve Cole > > Gary Gygax (Bet his middle name is Steve) > > > > > > Rod > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > End of RQ-Rules Digest __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 11:59:35 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:59:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine & Lunar magic questions In-Reply-To: <20021126120310.34D414C262@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021202005935.72025.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > --- "Hibbs, Phil" wrote: > > 1. When dispelling/dismissing/neutralising a divine > > spell that has > > Extension, does the spell have to overcome the > > extension points as well? I > > think: Yes. > > No. It say specifically that it does not count. I would agree, the extension does not count as Intensity for the purposes of dispelling/dismissing/neutralising nor for blasting through Countermagic. > > 2. When a divine spell is cast with Extension, the > > spell can't be prayed > > back until it expires. Does this count for the > > Extension as well? I think: > > No. > > Yes. While the spell is in effect it can not be > reprayed for. That includes Extension. Once again, the Extension cannot be prayed back until the original spell has expired. This means that people can cast extremely long lasting spells, but cannot get the spells back until they have expired or have been dispelled. > > 3. Can a Red Goddess magician (in Gods of Glorantha) > > really cast 19 > > Disruptions in 2 SR? I think: Wow, it sure looks > > like it! (unless it's a > > dark or dying moon) > > It still takes 1SR per magic point of the spell, so no > it would take a person 19 SR to cast it. I would disagree here, according to my memory of the writeup, Combine allows the spells to be cast on the SR of the largest spell, so 19 Disruptions would go off at DEX SR + 1. However, in our game, we said that the spells go of on DEX SR + Spell Cost + number of points of Combine, so in our House Rules, 19 Disruptions would go off on DEX SR + 1 + 18. However, this would do 19D3 in a single location if it worked, so it would be worth it. However, we also played that a Matrix for a spell allowed the spell to be cast with 0 SR delay, as it provided the method of gathering the Magic Points, this meant that a Lunar Magician with a matrix for Combine 18 could cast the aforementioned Disruption 19 on SR 2. I used to like powerful Lunars with matrices, I liked them a lot, my players weren't too keen, though. When Firshala comes along, it gets even better as her spell of Soul Fire turns a D3 disrupt into a 2D3 disrupt, so a Disruption 19 becomes a fiery 38D3 - good for killing vampires, and anything else. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 12:11:25 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine & Lunar magic questions In-Reply-To: <20021202005935.72025.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20021202011125.73798.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> I guess I am not the only mean GM on this list :) --- Simon Phipp wrote: ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 2 12:16:14 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:16:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New Version of Divine Multispell In-Reply-To: <20021126120310.34D414C262@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021202011614.76101.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> I have been thinking about the changes between RQ2 and RQ3 and which changes were good and which were bad, when I reached the Multispell spell. In RQ2, most cults could provide the spells of Multispell I, II and III, which were 1, 2 or 3 point spells that allowed the user to cast extra Battle Magic spells in the same round for the duration of the spell. So, someone with Multispell III could cast 4 Battle Magic spells each round rather than just one. Most spells did not stack, except Disruption which combined to do more damage in a location (4D3 in this case). In RQ3, this spell was dropped and Multispell became a Sorcery Skill. Presumably, the rationale was that RQ3 allowed more than one Spirit Magic spell to be cast in a round, as long as the caster has the SRs to cast the spells. However, I think that there is still a place for the Multispell idea in Divine Magic, after all the Sorcerers and Lunar Magicians have similar effects. But, since RQ3 is more powerful than RQ2 and dropped the idea of spell limits, I think the spell would be better as a 1 point stackable spell that allowed the user to cast 1 extra spell per point of Multispell. So, a Priest who casts Multispell 5 could cast 6 Spirit Magic spells at a time, each going off at the DEX SR + SR of the highest point spell. The Priest could cast these spells several times in a round (RQ3 style) if he had the SRs. For example, Shergar Sunhoof, Centaur extraordinaire, casts Multispell 2 and can now cast 3 Spirit Magic spells simultaneously. He has a DEX of 25, being a nifty sort of chappie, and casts Multimissile 4 on three arrows, this happens on SR 5, then he casts Multimissile 4 on another three arrows on SR 10. This costs him 24 MPs in total. The problem I have is - how does this affect game balance? Is it too high powered? Does it mean that NPC priests can sit there with Multispell 10 cast and throw 11 Dispel Magic 8s each round, stripping PCs down to their undies? (This happened in RQ2, but only with 4 Dispel Magic 8s). Would Multispell remain a Common Divine Spell (like Spell Teaching, Spirit Block or Divination) or would it become a specialist Divine Spell (such as Shield)? If the latter, which cults would get Multispell? Is it a good idea to bring back Multispell? (I rather liked it in RQ2, except when my characters were being stripped to their undies, except for the Beserker spell, because that was funny :-( ). Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Dec 2 13:30:42 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:30:42 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New Version of Divine Multispell References: <20021202011614.76101.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DEAC5D2.5010603@earthlink.net> Simon Phipp wrote: > > The problem I have is - how does this affect game balance? Is it > too high powered? Does it mean that NPC priests can sit there > with Multispell 10 cast and throw 11 Dispel Magic 8s each round, > stripping PCs down to their undies? (This happened in RQ2, but > only with 4 Dispel Magic 8s). Would Multispell remain a Common > Divine Spell (like Spell Teaching, Spirit Block or Divination) > or would it become a specialist Divine Spell (such as Shield)? > If the latter, which cults would get Multispell? Is it a good > idea to bring back Multispell? (I rather liked it in RQ2, > except when my characters were being stripped to their undies, > except for the Beserker spell, because that was funny :-( ). It seems to me that the ability to shoot of so many Spirit spells may make Sorcery pretty irrelevant. Then again, will you be allowing Spirit spells to be interrupted in the process of being cast? If so, getting that Multispell 10 off will in combat might be difficult, bringing it back into balance. Just a thought. David Smart From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Mon Dec 2 22:36:54 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:36:54 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9796B@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >will you be allowing Spirit spells to be interrupted in >the process of being cast? If so, getting that Multispell >10 off will in combat might be difficult, bringing it back >into balance. I disagree that this introduces balance. Making an ability only work 50% of the time because it is very powerful does not bring it back into balance - quite the reverse, it introduces a huge random (and therefore chaotic in the statistical sense) element. We have a problem at the moment that most of the characters have loads of armour points, protection spells, and shield spells. In order to pose a physical threat, the monsters have to be suped up. This means that any monster critical is an instant character death. The situation isout of balance. Philip Hibbs ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Mon Dec 2 22:46:24 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:46:24 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Divine & Lunar magic questions Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9796C@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >I would agree, the extension does not count as Intensity >for the purposes of dispelling/dismissing/neutralising nor >for blasting through Countermagic. Intensity (with a capital I) is Sorcery, so the rule about only having to overcome Intensity only refers to Sorcery. That dispelling Sorcery is specifically ruled to work this way implies that other magic systems don't work that way, and that the full points are effective. However, I am thinking that if the Extension has to be dispelled, then also it cannot be prayed back until the spell ends. However, a literal reading of the rules leads to the belief that you have to dispel the Extension, but also that you can pray it back straight away. >in our House Rules, 19 Disruptions would go off on >DEX SR + 1 + 18. However, this ould do 19D3 in a single >location if it worked, so it would be worth it. It's 18 separate spells, so just like you can do Bladesharp 6 on two different swords, you can do 6 separate disruptions to each of 3 separate targets. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Mon Dec 2 22:55:09 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:55:09 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Divine & Lunar magic questions Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9796D@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >a Lunar Magician with a matrix for Combine 18 could >cast the aforementioned Disruption 19 on SR 2. A matrix with a pure skill in it? That's rather, um, creative isn't it? Is there an enchantment spell of Create Lunar Manipulation Skill Matrix? Or have I misunderstood you - did you mean a matrix for "Disruption with Combine 18"? Those would be seriously rare, as they have to be created all at once, and who's going to dump 19 POW into an enchantment all in one go? Also, what's the basis for matrixes being used to cast spells more quickly? Is that a house rule, or an official one that I've missed? I've come across it in seceral games, but can't find the origin of the rule anywhere. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Tue Dec 3 03:59:37 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:59:37 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9796B@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <3DEB9179.BFBD96B7@libra.seed.net.tw> > > We have a problem at the moment that most of the characters have loads of > armour points, protection spells, and shield spells. In order to pose a > physical threat, the monsters have to be suped up. This means that any > monster critical is an instant character death. The situation isout of > balance. > > Philip Hibbs Wouldn't things that get around AP be a better solution? Wraiths 'n' such. Weapons that ignore magic or armor. Attacks at night when only a few characters are prepared. Normal damage ranges but suped up attacks that almost always crit (and thus ignore armor). Touch attacks (MP drain and such). Rust Monsters from D&D. Acid. Water (take off that nice armor or drown). Extended campaigns so they are loathe to cast Divine Magic. Or put them in a political situation where their magic does no good and they have to talk their way out. The old Dragonlance scenario of leading a group of refugees to safety while hounded by monsters - if they attack the monsters, they flee and concentrate attacks on the other side of the refugee group. Be nasty. Be the GM... Jeremy From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Tue Dec 3 04:51:47 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:51:47 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97973@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Jeremy: >Wouldn't things that get around AP be a better solution? >Wraiths 'n' such. Weapons that ignore magic or armor. We'd be suckers for a reasonably powerful set of spirits (I'm playing, not running it). The party are all Rune level, but only just. We used Nikk Effingham's points-based system. Everyone has reusable divine magic to some extent, and one character has 18 points of Extension. Two characters have Mindlink. If you interpret the rules literally, you can cast an Extended spell, then pray back the Extension (but not the original spell). My Sword of Humakt currently has extended Find Enemy and Truesword up, the Trickster with extended Conceal got herself killed, and the Wind Lord has just cast his Shield 4 (on top of Iron chainmail). Next on the casting list are Flight (enough for all the party, but cast separately by each character using Mindlink), my Shield 5, which I might donate some of to the Lankhor Mhy bearded lady that just joined the party. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Dec 3 06:26:47 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:26:47 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:36:54 -0000 "Hibbs, Phil" wrote: > We have a problem at the moment that most of > the characters have loads of > armour points, protection spells, and shield > spells. In order to pose a > physical threat, the monsters have to be suped > up. This means that any > monster critical is an instant character death. > The situation is out of > balance. Hmm. The game "Empire of the Petal Throne" introduced the concept of magic areas of a world being aligned with invisible lines of magical force. This allowed areas to be designated as magical "deserts" which would not allow pedhetl/magic points/mana to be regenerated. Occasionally, some of these deserts would wander as the lines of force shifted a bit. Using these deserts would allow a GM to limit players somewhat in casting spells in certain areas. A bit of a GM "screw" but PCs could help offset this somewhat with the use of some specialized Identify spells. Also, a critical hit from a weapon bypasses all normal armor so I've always ruled that a crit hit from an enchanted weapon also bypasses all magical protection. Is this something you already do? If not, would you consider doing this? Heck, would this even help? Either of these ideas really should be implemented from the start, rather than the middle of a campaign. Sorry I couldn't help more. David From DevinC at aol.com Tue Dec 3 09:25:44 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:25:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) Message-ID: <1A33A752.59B153D4.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/2/2002 2:26:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, jurrubin at earthlink.net writes: > Also, a critical hit from a weapon bypasses all normal armor so I've always > ruled that a crit hit from an enchanted weapon also bypasses all magical > protection. Is this something you already do? If not, would > you consider doing > this? Heck, would this even help? I think that is his point. The monsters have to be souped up so much in order to get damage with a regular hit that a crit, which bypasses all that wonderful armour, is instant death. I am afraid that, however, is exactly why crits are in RQ. They humble even the most buff RQ character. What I recommend, however, are possibly magical monsters that bypass armour or even magic. 3rd edition D&D has incorporeal creatures that can reach through armour. That'd at least negate the armour points from the undoubtedly iron platemail everyone is probably wearing. Also, it seems to me that in RQ every spell has a counterspell. PCs of the level you describe should be facing opponents with access to many level of Dismiss Magic. That means they should be able to reduce the PCs, in theory, to just their skivvies (i.e. just their armour). It shouldn't be too hard generating damage against even iron platemail. If my RQ memory hasdn't faded away completely, iron plate is about 14 armour points. A decently strong person with a broadsword and a few points of bladesharp should be able to get through that, and most anyone should be able to on a special hit (aka impale). Basically, you are right in a sense....you cannot simply throw giant spiders and the like at the party and expect to hit them with anything but a critical. But to my mind, that is one of the rewards of being "high level" in any RPG, the pleasure of now scoffing at what used to send shivers of terror up your spine. But important foes should have every thing in their arsenal that the players have. That means they have just as much armour available to them, have good attack rolls to get special and critical hits, and plenty of Dismiss Magics to strip the party down. Devin From alanchambers at attbi.com Tue Dec 3 09:41:05 2002 From: alanchambers at attbi.com (Alan Chambers) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:41:05 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) References: <1A33A752.59B153D4.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <017f01c29a53$e679cbe0$84446218@se1.client2.attbi.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) > In a message dated 12/2/2002 2:26:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, jurrubin at earthlink.net writes: > Basically, you are right in a sense....you cannot simply throw giant spiders and the like at the party and expect to hit them with anything but a critical. But to my mind, that is one of the rewards of being "high level" in any RPG, the pleasure of now scoffing at what used to send shivers of terror up your spine. > You can always have your spiders spit poison at their opponent's face. Then it doesn't matter how much armor they have or if they have shield up. The only things that help are covering the location, leaving or trusting that you have the right anti-venom on hand. It's guaranteed to make the mightiest hero shiver. Alan From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Dec 3 12:48:54 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:48:54 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) References: <1A33A752.59B153D4.00047AF1@aol.com> <017f01c29a53$e679cbe0$84446218@se1.client2.attbi.com> Message-ID: <3DEC0D85.6020802@earthlink.net> Alan Chambers wrote: > From: > >>In a message dated 12/2/2002 2:26:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > jurrubin at earthlink.net writes: > >>Basically, you are right in a sense....you cannot simply throw giant > > spiders and the like at the party and expect to hit them with anything but a > critical. But to my mind, that is one of the rewards of being "high level" > in any RPG, the pleasure of now scoffing at what used to send shivers of > terror up your spine. > > You can always have your spiders spit poison at their opponent's face. Yep! Or have them meet opponents with a few bound elementals. Water elementals do wonders to heavily armored opponents and air elementals can smother them. The use of strong spirits has already been mentioned. If you want to stay with something less magical, throw simple heated sand at them (does small fire-equivalent damage through armor to all struck locations). Luck roll x3 per round to avoid it working its way through the armor seams of full field plate with the multiplier being reduced by 1 per round (damage would also be reduced every two rounds). Less than full field plate (i.e. platemail, chainmail, etc.) will result in being damaged in fewer rounds. Damage continues to be taken every round until either the armor (and the sand it's trapping) is removed or the sand has time to cool off (figure 10 minutes of time). If the players' strengths are their armoring spells, go with anything that will go around, rather than through, the protection. David Smart From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Dec 4 06:11:39 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:11:39 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97977@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Devin: >But important foes should have every thing in their arsenal >that the players have. That means they have just as much >armour available to them, have good attack rolls to get special >and critical hits, and plenty of Dismiss Magics to strip the >party down. That's true of long-term adversaries, but not of every encounter. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From peter at maranci.net Wed Dec 4 07:14:04 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:14:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] HELP! Similarities between D&D & RQ? Message-ID: <3435.216.118.190.11.1038946444.squirrel@webmail> Just a quick call for help. I'm heavily expanding the "RuneQuest for D&D Players" article on my site (at http://www.maranci.net/rqtext.htm), and in the introduction I start out by explaining that RQ and D&D have a lot of similarities. And immediately ran dry: "Both systems use a set of characteristics to define characters, usually rolled on 3d6 and (therefore) ranging from 3 - 18. Both allow characters to use skills, although older versions of D&D restricted those skills to certain classes. Both have . " I know that there are more points of similarity, but my mind has gone blank! Possibly I may have to reword this section a bit, but if anyone can suggest other points which the systems hold in common, I'd appreciate it. Not the super-obvious, please - it won't help to say "both are fantasy role-playing games", for example. I'm just looking for points that will make a D&D player feel more comfortable with the system. Thanks! ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From DevinC at aol.com Wed Dec 4 07:28:09 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:28:09 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] HELP! Similarities between D&D & RQ? Message-ID: <01C6E620.372E98C1.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/3/2002 3:14:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, peter at maranci.net writes: > I know that there are more points of similarity, but my mind has gone > blank! Possibly I may have to reword this section a bit, but if anyone can > suggest other points which the systems hold in common, I'd appreciate it. > Not the super-obvious, please - it won't help to say "both are fantasy > role-playing games", for example. I'm just looking for points that will > make a D&D player feel more comfortable with the system. > Thanks! Both have different systems of magic, including Divine or Clerical and Sorcerous or Arcane. Both systems have hit points, though in RQ they do not increase like they do in D&D. Both systems have religions where priests worship gods and goddesses in exchange for divine powers. Both systems have critical hits (though D&D did not officially have these until 2nd edition). Devin From DevinC at aol.com Wed Dec 4 07:41:55 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:41:55 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) Message-ID: <25F6A3F9.361F6426.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/3/2002 2:11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, phil.hibbs at cgey.com writes: > That's true of long-term adversaries, but not of every > encounter. > > Phil Hibbs It is true, IMO, of every important encounter, even if not a long term adversary. Should every schmo in a tavern suddenly be armed with runespells? No. But basically, a group of PCs of the level intimated by the original poster should be concerning themselves with matters of high import, politics, heroquests, etc., and they should indeed be regularly tangling with folks with access to powerful magics. These guys should be taking on the Lunar Coders or some of the beasts from Dorastor, or enemies like the Sorcerer presented in Strangers to Prax. Devin From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 22:17:59 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:17:59 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... Message-ID: REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... I see your problem, and I have one or two suggestions to help the situation: 1-Don't let the players become superinvulnerable (the spells they seek aren't available \ the superenchanted Mostali steelarmor worth 16 ap aren't possible to get, etc) 2-Try and bend the gamingstyle away from hack and slash (AD'nD) -into a game where killing (and possibly getting killed) -isn't the climax of the night. Little puny Frodo is no mach for his companions and his foes, but he's not around to kill and wreck havoc; he's too busy saving the world... A character I use in a campagin our GM have thought out; Gjermund Werebucher, for instance isn't all that powerful. A diecent NPC like Stikkelbrix form the Sun Dome setting would be more than poor Gjermund could cope with. He is still a very prominent person in Sartar, since he's managed to create peace between several clans, the Lunar provincial ruler and the trolls! (A major feat in my oppinion) He owns a minor castle, and rule a little duck village, and rais half breed tuskers and buffaloes together with his two wives... My point is; it's fun to play a character with children, social responsebilities, a busy political scedule, etc. Many powerful NPC's in the game could no doubht wack Gjermund to pieces, but they don't. -Because then they'd get trolls, Sartari clans and Lunar armies on their necks... Stolenbjorn ------------------------------------------ Add photos to your messages with ------------------------------------------ MSN 8. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Wed Dec 4 22:18:46 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 06:18:46 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] HELP! Similarities between D&D & RQ? Message-ID: <11.3b0045a.2b1f3e96@cs.com> The "core" races from both games are the same. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings etc. One of the best selling points I have used for any of the BRPS games when getting any other gamer interested, is to tell them that RQ uses no experience points. This will immediately cause them to comment, " Well how do you go up in level," or "how do you get better?" etc. To which I say, "just like real life, the only way to improve a skill is to use a skill." In RQ a thief doesn't go out and kill an orc to improve his lockpicking skill, he picks locks. BRPS and RQ in general has the best (IMO) experience system out there. Show any rational D&D player how it works and why it works and it will peek their interest. Also to any D&D players on this list, i'm not bashing you. I also run a weekly D&D campaign and have a lot of fun with that as well. It's just the I love the RQ experience system. Rod From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Dec 4 22:31:12 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:31:12 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97979@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >It is true, IMO, of every important encounter, even if not a long term adversary. If every session involves a physical clash with a similarly-powerful group, then the game will end quite swiftly. It doesn't seem right to me to have characters that have been built up to Rune-level wiped out just because they are Rune-level. Characters can die through carelessness or outrageous misfortune, but to have them die in droves just because they should be fighting people that /can/ kill them seems pointless to me. >These guys should be taking on the Lunar Coders or some of the >beasts from Dorastor, Funny you should mention that, we're doing the Riskland campaign. Stolenbjorn: >I see your problem, and I have one or two suggestions to help the situation: You present some interesting ideas for high-level campaigns. However, the game is already running - and I am a player, not the referee, so I can't reorganise the game anyway. It just seems that whatever we do to improve our characters, the GM just sees it as an excuse for bigger monsters. I'm really enjoying it, though, I don't see a great need to fix the situiation. The other players, however, don't see it the same way. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 22:56:51 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 05:56:51 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance (was: New Version of Divine Multispell) References: <25F6A3F9.361F6426.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DEDED83.5000405@earthlink.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/3/2002 2:11:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, phil.hibbs at cgey.com writes: > > It is true, IMO, of every important encounter, even if not a long term adversary. Should every schmo in a tavern suddenly be armed with runespells? No. But basically, a group of PCs of the level intimated by the original poster should be concerning themselves with matters of high import, politics, heroquests, etc., and they should indeed be regularly tangling with folks with access to powerful magics. > > These guys should be taking on the Lunar Coders or some of the beasts from Dorastor, or enemies like the Sorcerer presented in Strangers to Prax. Agreed. RQ combat without dice fudging, like real combat, is evolution kicked into high gear. Any player who's made it to near Runelord status is going to have a much easier time with lower status opponents. This is due not only to their character's skill level but also due to the _player's_ experience gained in the effectiveness of their own actions. After gaming for 25 years, I've noticed my reactions to various situations are very different (and more effective) than they were 25 years ago. As a GM, I've always ruled that characters near/at Runelord status and in potentially hostile situations unconsciously assume the same body language of very competent combat vets and that the average "tavern schmo" older than 8 years old picks up on it. My players learned early to first review people's mannerisms before approaching them and not to mess with anyone who seemed to be surrounded by an island of quiet deference in a noisy, rambunctious tavern. David Smart From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Dec 5 02:04:23 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:04:23 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c29ba6$6e0e1bd0$df0a0a0a@dohealth.com> > My point is; it's fun to play a character with children, > social responsebilities, a busy political scedule, etc. It may be fun to you, hell it may be fun to a lot of people, but that kind of game bores me to tears. I'm not saying that style of play is wrong, my point is simply that many people don't enjoy the mundane aspects of RPGs. I play in a group with both kinds of players, so when they decided to role play an encounter with a merchant, or a king, or whatever, my character usually has little to no input and I doodle or mess with a miniature or something. If I'm running the game, I put in a lot of action, gloss over the mundane, and all of the players love it. By the way, action isn't a synonym for combat in my games; just thought I'd clear that up. Anyway, the suggestions made to Phil so far have been good ones, I just wanted to point out that action oriented games aren't necessarily out of the question for high-level groups like his. Rich Allen From DevinC at aol.com Thu Dec 5 06:20:21 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:20:21 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... Message-ID: <746C71D6.62F8993F.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/4/2002 10:04:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, rico at ricosweb.com writes: > It may be fun to you, hell it may be fun to a lot of people, but > that kind of game bores me to tears. I'm not saying that style of play > is wrong, my point is simply that many people don't enjoy the mundane > aspects of RPGs. I play in a group with both kinds of players, so when > they decided to role play an encounter with a merchant, or a king, or > whatever, my character usually has little to no input and I doodle or > mess with a miniature or something. If I'm running the game, I put in a > lot of action, gloss over the mundane, and all of the players love it. > By the way, action isn't a synonym for combat in my games; just thought > I'd clear that up. > Anyway, the suggestions made to Phil so far have been good ones, > I just wanted to point out that action oriented games > aren't necessarily > out of the question for high-level groups like his. I tend to fall in the middle but lean towards Rich's side. I think the best RP sessions are paced like a good fantasy novel. That means there is plenty of non-combat time, but it should be spent in actions or dialigue that advance the "plot". I cannot stand sessions where people spend 5 hours buying bread from the locak baker. This bores me to tears. Why even bother with role playing that when I can just go out and talk to a real baker myself? And yes, I will mirror Rich's sentiments that "action" is NOT synonomous with "combat". Devin From DevinC at aol.com Thu Dec 5 06:26:16 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:26:16 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance Message-ID: <05AE366A.738FD10C.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/4/2002 6:31:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, phil.hibbs at cgey.com writes: > If every session involves a physical clash with a similarly-powerful group, > then the game will end quite swiftly. It doesn't seem right to me to have > characters that have been built up to Rune-level wiped out just because they > are Rune-level. Characters can die through carelessness or outrageous > misfortune, but to have them die in droves just because they should be > fighting people that /can/ kill them seems pointless to me. Agreed. I never said every session should involve such combat. I said that every adversary with whom the party fights should. At runelevel, much of the party's sessions should involve political or courtly or cultic intrigues that involve tough role playing decisions and not fighting. If a rune level party (or even a high level D&D party) is only involved in constant fights against ubber-tough opponents, it degrades the value of those opponents (i.e. they become orcs or trollkin with lots of hit points). However, when push comes to shove and the rune level party does fight important adversaries, my suggestion, I feel, are quite viable. > > >These guys should be taking on the Lunar Coders or some of the > >beasts from Dorastor, > > Funny you should mention that, we're doing the Riskland campaign. The Riskland campaign is for low powered folks isn't it? As I remember, you are basically raw recruits and don't face much in the way of tough opponents (though the chaos attack on the farmhouse can be deadly). Devin From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Dec 5 08:08:44 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (jurrubin at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:08:44 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:04:23 -0700 Rich Allen wrote: > > My point is; it's fun to play a character > with children, > > social responsebilities, a busy political > scedule, etc. > > It may be fun to you, hell it may be fun to a > lot of people, but > that kind of game bores me to tears. It _can_ be a great lead-in, however, for exciting adventures when trouble comes to town and messes with the "family man". Many great movies and books have been based around such events. Heck, the funniest reaction I've ever gotten from a player was when one of the merchant princes in my largest campaign found out that attacks on his caravans was due to the beginnings of Evil Arising rather than a competitor: "But I was _peaceful_!" *ponders with narrowed eyes* "Right. No scumbag Patriarch of Death is gonna screw with MY profits!" David Smart From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 08:18:50 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:18:50 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #65 - 14 msgs Message-ID: >If you want to stay with something less magical, throw simple heated >sand at them (does small fire-equivalent damage through armor to all >struck locations). Luck roll x3 per round to avoid it working its way >through the armor seams of full field plate with the multiplier being >reduced by 1 per round (damage would also be reduced every two rounds). >Less than full field plate (i.e. platemail, chainmail, etc.) will result >in being damaged in fewer rounds. Damage continues to be taken every >round until either the armor (and the sand it's trapping) is removed or >the sand has time to cool off (figure 10 minutes of time). If we take a look at history, the battle of Acincort (damn the spelling of those french names...) -for instance, several hundred more or less plated french knights got slaughtered by welch pesants at most wearing padded leather... The reason? You try to stand in a pulp of mud and dead comerades in full plate and swing a bastardsword! Metal doesn't exactly provide the best grip (that's why spikefree tyres are on their way in on the Norwegian carpark arena). The Welch got the knights on their backs, making them slip and fall. -Then killed them with improvised weapons and daggers, opening vizirs, stabbing into the uncovered parts of the joints, etc... I think a worlds grim realities have it's place in a RQ setting, that's why it's given a chapter in the rulebook. >Just a quick call for help. I'm heavily expanding the "RuneQuest for D&D >Players" article on my site >I know that there are more points of similarity, but my mind has gone >blank! Possibly I may have to reword this section a bit, but if anyone can >suggest other points which the systems hold in common, I'd appreciate it. > ->Peter I know this probably isn't exactly what you asked for, but I still must say I totally agree with "Rod"'s reply. In addition to having better rules (I do some medieval martial arts traning and after one and a half year, I haven't found any weak spots in the RQ system as of yet), I think RQ have an atmosphere that provide the players with a broader horizon... Things aren't about quarreling with the GM when you discover that the treasure in the dragons den doesn't have the valueclass it should have according to the rulebook. (Yes, I know that some rules like that is put into the RQ rulebook as well, I focus more on the scenarios like Dorastor, or The River of Cradles \ Sun dome atmosphere) > > My point is; it's fun to play a character with children, > > social responsebilities, a busy political scedule, etc. > > It may be fun to you, hell it may be fun to a lot of people, but >that kind of game bores me to tears. I'm not saying that style of play >is wrong, my point is simply that many people don't enjoy the mundane >aspects of RPGs. I play in a group with both kinds of players, so when >they decided to role play an encounter with a merchant, or a king, or >whatever, my character usually has little to no input and I doodle or >mess with a miniature or something. If I'm running the game, I put in a >lot of action, gloss over the mundane, and all of the players love it. >By the way, action isn't a synonym for combat in my games; just thought >I'd clear that up. >Rich Allen Interesting wiev, Rick. It seems like we simply totally disagree! Since you claim to respect my style of playing, I cant be any worse than to respect yours. But since you bring it up, I still want to argue my case! Some times, I've had the dubious pleassure of playing with people that regard their character like the way a chessplayer wievs his queen. Its just a counter to be moved around on an imaginary tabletop. When I create a character, I try to give him life. What's his motivations? Ambitions? Why? (The character generator system in the white wolf games are brilliant in this aspect) I try to get involved in the situation via my characters experience. What does a Conan'ish character think when he's watching his firstborne son die in a drowning accident? (Those 318%'s in killing, maiming and wreacking general havoc didn't come to much use there, did it?) I have done my share of killing raping and looting in roleplaygames (in one of our Warhammergames, we made Champions of Nurgle -characters, and made the rural parts of the Empire unsafe), but as the years passed, I gradually got more interrested in the scenery, setting and mood of the game. When you say most people prefer your style, my experience is that -Yes, at first, but then they "evolve" into getting fassinated by other aspects of the game. It isn't difficult to figure out what the smartest thing your character should do 3 o' clock in the night is, keeping watch beside a bonefire -while you're sitting in a sofa, chomping chips. But fog of war, misunderstandings, blue on blue, superstition, religion, personal phobias, etc. have been the reason for many bad decitions made up through the milleniums. The Call of Cthulhu game has some nice ways of covering such feelings like insanity and catatonic fear in the rules. Trying to get that into a game session is valuable to me. I've even introduced a modified Sanity point system to my RQ sessions, but I prefear my players to roleplay theese feelings, not to force them onto them with rules. I have had to struggle through too many game sessions with grumpy players, whimping because everybody is trying to play the ultimate hero...well there's usually only space for one ultimate hero in a group. If too many come together, and the players keep stating "You must respect my character, because he's got a strenght of 18..." To me, a perfect game session is like when the characters starts playing real time (last time we played, three players -a were lion, a Carmanian and an evicted Mostali were discussing religion realtime for allmost two hours), spoiling the GM's progressplan, and the whole session ends the same place as it started, in the Inn. This looked like a very passionate mail when reading through it... well I let it stand, though. I agree with you that we both probably have a lot of fun with RQ, playing far away from eachother and with totally different styles. Bjorn Stolen ------------------------------------------ The new ------------------------------------------ MSN 8: ------------------------------------------ smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 6 01:54:32 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:54:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance/Multispell/Lunar Magic Skills In-Reply-To: <20021202171109.802FD4C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021205145432.17853.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > I guess I am not the only mean GM on this list :) You haven't seen the half of it :-) David Smart: > It seems to me that the ability to shoot of so many Spirit > spells may make Sorcery pretty irrelevant. Then again, will > you be allowing Spirit spells to be interrupted in the process > of being cast? If so, getting that Multispell 10 off will in > combat might be difficult, bringing it back into balance. Yes, casting the spell is an Active process, so it can be disturbed. I would say that the rules for active spells would apply (something like cannot attack, parry at half chance, move slowly, as I recall, although I could well be wrong). It doesn't make sorcery irrelevant simply because Divine Multispell does not make one large spell like the sorcery Multispell does, so the spells are treated as separate spells for the purposes of being dispelled and overcoming POW (Disruption being the exception, as in RQ2) although they do add up when blasting through Countermagic. So, a sorcerer could cast a Multispelled Enhace STR 8, Enhance CON 8, Enhance DEX 8 on someone and this would be a single large spell with a high Intensity for dispelling purposes. Someone with Divine Multispell could cast Stength 8, Vigour 8 and Coordination 8 on someone and find that the Strength and Vigour are incompatible, leaving only 2 spells cast. But, yes, it does make sorceres relatively less powerful and priests relatively more powerful. Phil Hibbs: > I disagree that this introduces balance. Making an ability only work 50% of > the time because it is very powerful does not bring it back into balance - > quite the reverse, it introduces a huge random (and therefore chaotic in the > statistical sense) element. > > We have a problem at the moment that most of the characters have loads of > armour points, protection spells, and shield spells. In order to pose a > physical threat, the monsters have to be suped up. This means that any > monster critical is an instant character death. The situation isout of > balance. This is a problem that we had when playing RQ2. All of our PCs were stronger in defence than offence, so the monsters had to be more powerful to get through. This is made worse in RQ3 by having infinitely stackable spells and infintely variable spells. I do not know if there is an answer to that one. However, the Multispell does not really contribute to this, except by allowing the spells to be cast faster. Casting 4 Protection 6 spells does not give Protection 24, merely gives Protection 6 on 4 people, so the problem with PCs having many spells is not really made worse by using Multispell. In fact, it is probably eased by having NPCs able to dispel PC Shield/Protection spells faster. Phil Hibbs: > >I would agree, the extension does not count as Intensity > >for the purposes of dispelling/dismissing/neutralising nor > >for blasting through Countermagic. > > Intensity (with a capital I) is Sorcery, so the rule about only having to > overcome Intensity only refers to Sorcery. That dispelling Sorcery is > specifically ruled to work this way implies that other magic systems don't > work that way, and that the full points are effective. The Intensity skill is Sorcery, but even back in RQ2 we had the concept of Rune Magic being twice as difficult to dispel as Battle Magic, so Shield 4 took a Dispel 8 to remove. In RQ3 this is the same, so Divine Magic has a relative Intensity of 2, Spirit Magic a relative Intensity of 1 and Sorcery an Intensity equal to the Intensity of the spell. So, how can a sorcerer use Neutralise Magic on Spirit or Divine Magic? The Intensity of a spell is not a concept limited to sorcery in this context. This means that dispelling Shield 4 requires Dispel Magic 8 (or Dismiss Magic 4), as does dispelling Shield 4 with Extension 4, dispelling Protection 8 also requires Dispel Magic 8 as does Protection 4 with Amplify 4 (equivalent to Protection 8) and Distance 4. > However, I am thinking that if the Extension has to be dispelled, then also > it cannot be prayed back until the spell ends. However, a literal reading of > the rules leads to the belief that you have to dispel the Extension, but > also that you can pray it back straight away. The RQ3 rules expressly say that Extension cannot be reprayed until it has been cast. This brings it in line with Spell Trading and Truestone. > >in our House Rules, 19 Disruptions would go off on > >DEX SR + 1 + 18. However, this ould do 19D3 in a single > >location if it worked, so it would be worth it. > > It's 18 separate spells, so just like you can do Bladesharp 6 on two > different swords, you can do 6 separate disruptions to each of 3 separate > targets. We played that Combine acted in the same way as RQ2 Multispell, so Disruptions added and struck the same location, a super Shatter if you will. maybe that's a House Rule, but you have to interpret these spells in some way. Phil Hibbs: > >a Lunar Magician with a matrix for Combine 18 could > >cast the aforementioned Disruption 19 on SR 2. > > A matrix with a pure skill in it? That's rather, um, creative isn't it? Is > there an enchantment spell of Create Lunar Manipulation Skill Matrix? Or > have I misunderstood you - did you mean a matrix for "Disruption with > Combine 18"? Those would be seriously rare, as they have to be created all > at once, and who's going to dump 19 POW into an enchantment all in one go? We played a very high level game. If someone had the Enchant Ritual then they could make an enchantment of skills. So, we had enchantments for Sorcery skills that could be used with any sorcery spell. Perhaps it is powerful, it is certainly creative, but we have always extended and improved the rules. > Also, what's the basis for matrixes being used to cast spells more quickly? > Is that a house rule, or an official one that I've missed? I've come across > it in seceral games, but can't find the origin of the rule anywhere. Definitely a House Rule. I don't know where it came from, but we have always used it. It makes spell casting more fun. Jeremy Martin: > Wouldn't things that get around AP be a better solution? Wraiths 'n' such. Weapons that ignore > magic or armor. Attacks at night when only a few characters are prepared. Normal damage ranges > but suped up attacks that almost always crit (and thus ignore armor). Touch attacks (MP drain > and such). Rust Monsters from D&D. Acid. Water (take off that nice armor or drown). Extended > campaigns so they are loathe to cast Divine Magic. Oh yes, have those as well. I'm a firm favourite of acid, in particular, high (and powered) attacks, and fighting in water. All our PCs slept in their armour (they coped with the skill penalty in the morning). Regarding Divine Magic, our scenarios often took the form of a couple of days/weeks feeling the scenario out, then entering the dangerous country/region/valley/caves/temple and defeating/avoiding/befriending/neutralising most minor foees, then the obligatory big hack at the end. If they had to use Divine Magic in the first stages then they didn't have it for the big hack at the end. Perhaps this is too simplistic for many sophisticated GMs and players, but it worked for us. > Or put them in a political situation where their magic does no good and they have to talk their > way out. The old Dragonlance scenario of leading a group of refugees to safety while hounded by > monsters - if they attack the monsters, they flee and concentrate attacks on the other side of > the refugee group. Yep, those girly scenarios could be fun as well, but not too often. though :-) > Be nasty. > > Be the GM... That's the same thing, surely? Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Dec 6 23:02:49 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:02:49 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Balance/Multispell/Lunar Magic Skills Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97986@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >In RQ3 this is the same, so Divine Magic has a relative Intensity of 2, ... >So, how can a sorcerer use Neutralise Magic on Spirit or Divine Magic? The >Intensity of a spell is not a concept limited to sorcery in this context. The paragraph you are thinking of is merely pointing out that when trying to dispel a Sorcery spell, only the Intensity counts. That paragraph is entirely irrelevant when applied to other magic systems. Spirit and Divine do not have Intensity, and you don't have to call it Intensity in order for the rules to work. There are, in my opinion, two ways that Extension can work. 1. It can be recovered straight away, but does not have to be dispelled. 2. It has to be dispelled, but cannot be recovered until it ends. Think of it this way: where is the Extension spell? If it's still in effect, then it cannot be re-prayed, but has to be dispelled. If it is not still in effect, then it does not have to be dispelled, but it can be recovered. The game that I am playing in has the best of both worlds: it has to be dispelled, but also it can be re-prayed straight away. >The RQ3 rules expressly say that Extension cannot be reprayed >until it has been cast. Where does it say that? I can't find it. (And yes, that is a subtle way of saying "No it doesn't" :-) p.s. I've greatly enjoyed re-reading your Dorastor stories. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 7 05:03:51 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:03:51 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Character & Creature sheets Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9798B@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> I found some Microsoft Word character sheets a while back, and have recently adapted them for creatures and NPCs. The set comprises of: Various 2-sided PC sheets A 2-page set of every RQ3 hit location chart A page with 2 cut-down humanoid character sheets on it A page with 1 humanoid and 1 4-legged animal A page with 9 humanoid hit charts and 3 blank non-humanoid hit charts A page with 9 spiders on it (!) There's also a GoG-style calendar with runes on it. http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/rqsheets.zip The old "R" Runes font is in the zip as well, you'll need to install it to print them properly. I'd give credit to the original sheet designer, but I can't find them any more, so I don't know who did it! Anyone know? Philip Hibbs ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 7 05:27:12 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:27:12 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Character & Creature sheets Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9798C@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >There's also a GoG-style calendar with runes on it. Oops, no there isn't. I'll put it up separately next week. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From peter at maranci.net Sun Dec 8 13:29:04 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:29:04 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Characteristic Maximums Message-ID: I'm still working on the "RuneQuest for D&D Players" piece (http://www.maranci.net/rqtext.htm), and recently came up with an issue that has always bothered me. Actually, with TWO issues. I know I've brought them both up before, but that was a while ago and I could use some new suggestions. 1. Characteristic maximums. One thing I hate about RQ3 is that STR and CON can only be raised to equal whichever was the highest of the original values of STR, CON, and SIZ. I get the *reason* for it, I guess; some sort of balance issue. But it means that if STR and CON are equal and SIZ is equal or less, the character can never improve. They can lift weights and eat tofu until they *die* and they will still never improve their STR or CON. Not logical. In the article I recommend punting this rule. Anyone want to defend it, or explain why it's needed? Also, I'm inserting boxed "optional" rules here and there in the article. One item is the modified Dodge rules which I think everyone uses, since otherwise regular use of Dodge makes death statistically certain. Another one I'm considering is removing effective limits on POW increase, with a flat 5% chance after normal racial maximum has been reached. Just a possible optional rule, but does anyone hate this idea? There was something else, but I've forgotten what it was. I've mostly been writing this thing without checking on the rulebook - I plan to proofread and such later - so if anyone catches a mistake or some bad phrasing or something, or (dare I dream) writes up one of the unfinished sections, please let me know. Oh, now I remember the final issue: Fumbles. Mathematically the chances to critical and special are easy to express (5% and 20% of the skill, respectively), but how would you express the chance to fumble? Just wondering, as this has always confused me. Perhaps 101 minus the critical of the chance of *failure* in the skill? But this breaks down for skills above 100. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Sun Dec 8 23:28:55 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 07:28:55 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Characteristic Maximums Message-ID: <124.1b1bbbee.2b249507@cs.com> I just went over the article and find it quite interesting. One thing you might want to clarify is that there are hit location Hit Points AND Total Hit Points, for as written it is kind of confusing to someone who does not understand the system as follows... Hit Locations: RQ uses hit locations (seven of them), so it's possible to lose the use of an arm or leg in combat -- or to be hit in a vital spot such as the head, chest, or abdomen. A location can be used until it has taken more damage than is in the location, when it is badly damaged. If a location takes double its Hit Points in damage, the person is incapacitated. If a person is reduced to 1 hit point, he is unconscious. If a person is reduced to 0 Hit Points, he is dead. The last paragraph seems to contradict unless the reader is aware that it is talking about both Location and Total HP. Other than that I think it is coming along nicely. Rod From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 9 08:57:46 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:57:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters In-Reply-To: <20021206180702.9AE2F4C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021208215746.80763.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> This has turned into quite a long post, sorry about that, but I am replying to two Digests. Phil Hibbs says: > Simon Phipp: > >In RQ3 this is the same, so Divine Magic has a relative Intensity of 2, ... > >So, how can a sorcerer use Neutralise Magic on Spirit or Divine Magic? The > >Intensity of a spell is not a concept limited to sorcery in this context. > > The paragraph you are thinking of is merely pointing out that when trying to > dispel a Sorcery spell, only the Intensity counts. That paragraph is > entirely irrelevant when applied to other magic systems. Spirit and Divine > do not have Intensity, and you don't have to call it Intensity in order for > the rules to work. Yes, but there is a rule of thumb that says that 1 point of dicine magic = 2 points of spirit magic = 2 points of sorcery magic. Since sorcery Neutralizes only work against intensity, then it is not an unreasonable step to say that the same principles apply to sorcery vs divine/spirit magic, divine vs divine/spirit/sorcer and so on. Perhaps it is not in the rules, but it does not sound unreasonable to me. > There are, in my opinion, two ways that Extension can work. > > 1. It can be recovered straight away, but does not have to be dispelled. > 2. It has to be dispelled, but cannot be recovered until it ends. > > Think of it this way: where is the Extension spell? If it's still in effect, > then it cannot be re-prayed, but has to be dispelled. If it is not still in > effect, then it does not have to be dispelled, but it can be recovered. This is an interesting point that I hadn't thought about before. If you could simply target the Extension then you can dispel powerful spells at low cost, e.g. Shield 40 and Extension 4, if you target the Extension 4 after half an hour then the whole spell goes down. This would be a silly rule and therefore should not be allowed. If you had to target the Shield and not the Extension then it wouldn't matter how much Extension was cast, the spell would be just as hard to dispel. So Shield 4 Extension 40 (effectively on forever) would be so easy to dispel that nobody would try to use long extensions. This means that the most sensible way to go forward would be to have to dispel the Shield and the Extension, which is exactly your point. This is a most disturbing conclusion :-) > The party are all Rune level, but only just. We used Nikk Effingham's > points-based system. Everyone has reusable divine magic to some extent, and > one character has 18 points of Extension. Two characters have Mindlink. If > you interpret the rules literally, you can cast an Extended spell, then pray > back the Extension (but not the original spell). Ah, now you see the reason for the aversion to repraying Extension before it has expired - things just get silly otherwise. Most people will cast a few points of Extension with several spells, giving effects that last for the duration of a battle. > The game that I am playing in has the best of both worlds: it has to be > dispelled, but also it can be re-prayed straight away. > > >The RQ3 rules expressly say that Extension cannot be reprayed > >until it has been cast. > > Where does it say that? I can't find it. (And yes, that is a subtle way of > saying "No it doesn't" :-) That's extremely odd, because it used to say it somewhere. The reason I know that is because I made a mental note of all the things in RQ3 that were diferent to RQ2 and this was one of them - in RQ2 Extension could be reprayed straight away, which didn't matter beciase it only worked on Battle Magic, but in RQ3 it works only on Divine Magic and could not be reprayed. Again, this is a disturbing concept. Maybe this was in the Games Workshop version of the rules, which I no longer have. Is it that any Divine spell, not just Extension, must expire before it is reprayed? If you had cast Shield 40 Extension 40, what is to stop you from repraying both spells and casting them again 80 days afterwards? After a year or so you have made the entire party pretty invunerable. Once again, this is silly. I made a decision ages ago that a rule that is silly should not be adhered to. It seems to work for me. > p.s. I've greatly enjoyed re-reading your Dorastor stories. Thanks, I sincerely hope your GM hasn't read them and used them as background for your campaign - my players had really hard characters and they didn't like some of the things there at all. I particularly used to enjoy inflicting Heidi, Uzarl, the Giant King of Neverdead and The Mistress of Light, Guardian of the Fires of Heaven on them. Phil Hibbs: > Jeremy: > >Wouldn't things that get around AP be a better solution? > >Wraiths 'n' such. Weapons that ignore magic or armor. > > We'd be suckers for a reasonably powerful set of spirits (I'm playing, not > running it). Big spirits were one of the few things that made the PCs in my campaign run away, especially with the house rules we played. A powerful shaman was one of things they really feared. > My Sword of Humakt currently has extended Find Enemy and Truesword up, the > Trickster with extended Conceal got herself killed, and the Wind Lord has > just cast his Shield 4 (on top of Iron chainmail). Ha, ha - how did you find her afterwards? Loads of fumbling around the flor trying to kick her corpse? > Next on the casting list are Flight (enough for all the party, but cast > separately by each character using Mindlink), my Shield 5, which I might > donate some of to the Lankhor Mhy bearded lady that just joined the party. In my campaign, Derak had more than 20 points of Shield, Brankist and Solarus had 15 or so points, they all had Mindlink and they never cast Shield with Extension. The reason? They would not be able to dispel or overpower the spells with Spirit Block if a hunter-killer spirit came along. It was to inflexible. Also, what they could do, NPCs could do and NPCs had more magic available, by their very nature. Derak did cast Extension 4 or 5 on Shield or his Crush 20 against powerful foes, but that was very rare. David Smart: > > We have a problem at the moment that most of > > the characters have loads of > > armour points, protection spells, and shield > > spells. In order to pose a > > physical threat, the monsters have to be suped > > up. This means that any > > monster critical is an instant character death. > > The situation is out of > > balance. > > Hmm. The game "Empire of the Petal Throne" introduced the concept of magic > areas of a world being aligned with invisible lines of magical force. This > allowed areas to be designated as magical "deserts" which would not allow > pedhetl/magic points/mana to be regenerated. Occasionally, some of these > deserts would wander as the lines of force shifted a bit. Using these deserts > would allow a GM to limit players somewhat in casting spells in certain areas. > A bit of a GM "screw" but PCs could help offset this somewhat with the use of > some specialized Identify spells. In Glorantha, such places include the Dead Place and a few others. In other worlds, it is possible to play that spells only work in places where the deities have power. So, spells from Lugh would not work in Greece. I don't particularly like this idea, but I can see its merits. > Also, a critical hit from a weapon bypasses all normal armor so I've always > ruled that a crit hit from an enchanted weapon also bypasses all magical > protection. Is this something you already do? If not, would you consider doing > this? Heck, would this even help? Magical protection such as Shield or Protection simply add to APs, so a critical ignores them as well. Criticals do not get past the Dragon Magic spell of Absorb Damage, which is a real pain. We played that Criticals did not ignore Damage Resistance, but they counted as double damage for the purposes of working out resistance, so a 12 point critical counted as 24 points when matched against Damage Resistance. > Either of these ideas really should be implemented from the start, rather than > the middle of a campaign. Sorry I couldn't help more. True, otherwise people will scream and shout, whinge and whine that the evil GM is taking away all their abilities. Devin: > Also, it seems to me that in RQ every spell has a counterspell. PCs of the level you describe > should be facing opponents with access to many level of Dismiss Magic. That means they should be > able to reduce the PCs, in theory, to just their skivvies (i.e. just their armour). It shouldn't > be too hard generating damage against even iron platemail. If my RQ memory hasdn't faded away > completely, iron plate is about 14 armour points. A decently strong person with a broadsword and > a few points of bladesharp should be able to get through that, and most anyone should be able to > on a special hit (aka impale). Yep, that's exactly the best tactic to use against people with too much magic cast. > Basically, you are right in a sense....you cannot simply throw giant spiders and the like at the > party and expect to hit them with anything but a critical. But to my mind, that is one of the > rewards of being "high level" in any RPG, the pleasure of now scoffing at what used to send > shivers of terror up your spine. Yep, then Rurik Runespear goes and gets killed by the trollkin with an impaling spear. > But important foes should have every thing in their arsenal that the players have. That means > they have just as much armour available to them, have good attack rolls to get special and > critical hits, and plenty of Dismiss Magics to strip the party down. I loved the RQ2 Antiparry rules, because they meant that powerful enemies could negate parrying weapons and reduce the damage blocked. IN RQ3 we allowed splitting against the same person, so someone with superior skills could negate parrying by attacking a person more than once. Both seemed to cut the PCs down to size, espcially when combined with multiple attackers. Phil Hibbs: > Devin: > >But important foes should have every thing in their arsenal > >that the players have. That means they have just as much > >armour available to them, have good attack rolls to get special > >and critical hits, and plenty of Dismiss Magics to strip the > >party down. > > That's true of long-term adversaries, but not of every encounter. But you wouldn't expect every encounter to be difficult at that level. If 5% of the adult population is Rune Level (Acolyte/Adept/Shaman or above) then of those Rune Levels, you would expect 90% to be reasonably powered Rune Levels and 10% to be very high powered Rune Levels. So, 1 in 20 encounters will be with similarly powered parties and one in 200 will be with more powerful opponents. If you are Rune Level then this may be skewed by going after powerful foes or by being attacked by powerful enemies, but even so, you will meet less powerful foes more often than not. However, you will meet more of them, because being overwhelmed by superior numbers is a reasonable tactic in RQ. You may well be able to overcome a Lunar gate guard, but what about a squad of 20 guards and their Rune Lord commander? In any case, if you met one person with Dismiss/Dispel Magic and he knocked down your spells, then you would be lost becuase you wouldn't have time to repray them before the conclusion of the scenario. If you met two such people and the big, nasty thing at the end then you wouldn't stand a chance. Devin: > It is true, IMO, of every important encounter, even if not a long term adversary. Should every > schmo in a tavern suddenly be armed with runespells? No. But basically, a group of PCs of the > level intimated by the original poster should be concerning themselves with matters of high > import, politics, heroquests, etc., and they should indeed be regularly tangling with folks with > access to powerful magics. Phil Hibbs: > If every session involves a physical clash with a similarly-powerful group, > then the game will end quite swiftly. It doesn't seem right to me to have > characters that have been built up to Rune-level wiped out just because they > are Rune-level. Characters can die through carelessness or outrageous > misfortune, but to have them die in droves just because they should be > fighting people that /can/ kill them seems pointless to me. If you go and attack a Thed Temple, then you shouldn't be surprised to meet Thed Priests and Spirits. If you go down the shop for a packet of crisps, then it would be unreasonable to be attacked by the Doomed Man and his squad of Teleporting Thanatari (again) unless they were seeking you out. > These guys should be taking on the Lunar Coders or some of the beasts from Dorastor, or enemies > like the Sorcerer presented in Strangers to Prax. Exactly, meet like with like. Bjorn Stolen: > REGARDING THE PROBLEM Philip Hibbs HAVE WITH TO GOOD CHARACTERS... > I see your problem, and I have one or two suggestions to help the situation: > > 1-Don't let the players become superinvulnerable (the spells they seek aren't available \ the > superenchanted Mostali steelarmor worth 16 ap aren't possible to get, etc) This is very dificult to justify in some ways. If you face a foe with a single magic item and you defeat him, then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't used Divine Intervention to escape. If over the cause of 40 scenarios, you encounter and defeat 40 such people then you have access to 40 such magic items. Is this unreasonable? It is very easy to build up powerful characters bit by bit. Bear in mind that you have to take the powerful item from a powerful person, so you are not giving the items away. It is also difficult to restrict spells, unless you have a magic-poor campaign. In Glorantha, anyone who belongs to a cult can gain Divine Spells at temples. You can charge for the spells, you can only allow spells to be taken from the home temple, you can place arbitrary restrictions on PCs, but they will eventually become powerful. > 2-Try and bend the gamingstyle away from hack and slash (AD'nD) -into a game where killing (and > possibly getting killed) -isn't the climax of the night. Little puny Frodo is no mach for his > companions and his foes, but he's not around to kill and wreck havoc; he's too busy saving the > world... But the others happily went around killing, maiming and adventuring. Frodo was on a Quest, the others were not. Phil Hibbs: > You present some interesting ideas for high-level campaigns. However, the > game is already running - and I am a player, not the referee, so I can't > reorganise the game anyway. It just seems that whatever we do to improve our > characters, the GM just sees it as an excuse for bigger monsters. I'm really > enjoying it, though, I don't see a great need to fix the situiation. The > other players, however, don't see it the same way. Ah, the penny drops. The "Whingeing Player" problem. This happens to all GMs at s0ome point and normally goes along the lines of "Whatever we do, the GM can always throw something bigger and more dangerous at us, so what is the point of continuing?" The solution is as follows: 1. Do not view things in terms of success as success in combat. 2. Work out some long term goals that you wish to achieve that are not concerned with gaining extra spells, skills, abilities, or defeating foes. 3. Work with the GM as to how to achieve those goals. 4. If you face a powerful opponent then use it as an opportunity to show how skillful you are by defeating it imaginatively. 5. Try to get the GM to see things your way - they are normally fairly flexible. I am glad that you are enjoying it and are not one of the whingers :-) By the way, you say that you are adventuring in Riskland and some of the other players are complaining about bigger monsters being thrown at you. HELLO!! Tell them that Riskland is in Dorastor, the place which has the disclaimer "Visitors to Dorastor have been determined to provide nourishment and amusement for big, rude, ugly, disgusting things". Whatever they have faced is nothing, absolutley nothing, compared to what is in the middle of Dorastor. Point your GM to my website and see if they complain about the NPCs in the Stats section. David Smart: > As a GM, I've always ruled that characters near/at Runelord status and > in potentially hostile situations unconsciously assume the same body > language of very competent combat vets and that the average "tavern > schmo" older than 8 years old picks up on it. My players learned early > to first review people's mannerisms before approaching them and not to > mess with anyone who seemed to be surrounded by an island of quiet > deference in a noisy, rambunctious tavern. We had the "3 metre exlusion zone" around the party that basically meant that anyone in a bar or in the street who came within 3 metres of a party member would be summarily put to the floor and possibly killed. It stopped thieves, meant that we never, ever were involved in bar brawls and gave us a level of respect that was unrivalled, until another similarly powered party came along. Imagine Madonna and her entourage of minders in a bar, then imagine them in armour with swords and a 9 foot Great Troll and you get the picture. Rich Allen: > Anyway, the suggestions made to Phil so far have been good ones, > I just wanted to point out that action oriented games aren't necessarily > out of the question for high-level groups like his. Our group had very high level PCs and we had enough action to go aorund, without resorting to super-high level NPCs. It needs a bit of work to be realistic but is possible. Devin: > > Funny you should mention that, we're doing the Riskland campaign. > > The Riskland campaign is for low powered folks isn't it? As I remember, you are basically raw > recruits and don't face much in the way of tough opponents (though the chaos attack on the > farmhouse can be deadly). Boo! Hiss! It can be easily souped up to Rune Level with no effort at all. What's the point of wasting it on a bunch of farmer boys who only want to clear some land and marry their sweetheart back home? The Riskland Campaign is a campaign setting that the Dorastor Book gave a few low level scenarios for. We used it to link between the Bilini intrigues and the Dorastor Campaign proper. This was a high level campaign set in the Riskland environment. Jeremy Martin: > Then point it out to them. Talk to the GM and have see if he'll throw some small things your > while for a fight or two, to bore the party, then include in descriptions things like, "Roll a > Spot. Okay, you easily see 12 Trollkin, quietly pulling back from an ambush and waiting for you > guys to go by." > > You can harrass them if you want, but pretty soon, you'll get a rep for being bullies, other > Rune characters will tell you to lay off, and the troll Rune Lords will come looking for you. > Gee, back where we started. That's a great idea. Incidentally, fighting low-level foes all the time means that there are no magic items to get and the chances of being killed by a critical is fairly high, so the risk/reward balance changes - some risk/no reward. In my opnion, most people prefer reasonable risk/reward and occasionally tolerate high risk/great reward. If they always have high risk/low reward then there is a problem, if it is often low risk/high reward then it gets boring as does low risk/low reward. > Are you sharing all of these emails with your GM? What a silly idea :-) Maybe he'll change things and make the game better. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Dec 9 20:43:16 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:43:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Characteristic Maximums References: Message-ID: <005601c29f67$66c1cce0$8502600a@otvfrap043> Hello > 1. One thing I hate about RQ3 is that STR and > CON can only be raised to equal whichever was the > highest of the original values of STR, CON, and SIZ. <...> > Anyone want to defend it, or explain why > it's needed? Well, I think CON is something you were intrinsically born with. No matter how much tofu you eat ;-) if you have a bad constitution (i.e. if you catch diseases easily) I don't think you can write this off. STR on the other hand should be allowed to be increaseD. > Another one I'm considering is removing effective limits on > POW increase Hey, are you a power gamer or something? ;-) Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Mon Dec 9 23:37:48 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:37:48 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97992@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >Yes, but there is a rule of thumb that says that 1 point of >divine magic = 2 points of spirit magic = 2 points of sorcery magic. True, but that's irrelevant to the fact that if the rules say Intensity, with a capital I, then it is referring to Sorcery. I don't feel bound to extrapolate that to cover Extension, but as the rules for Extension are ambiguous, it can be interpreted any way you wish. >Ah, now you see the reason for the aversion to repraying >Extension before it has expired - things just get silly otherwise. I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud at this! You're worried about RQ getting silly? May I quote your web site: "Then Brankist summoned a herd of Sky Bulls and Berserk Minotaurs, sent the Sky Bulls Berserk and sent them all charging down the stairs. The party followed these by a couple of Zombie Bison pulled from a Jar where they were kept and sent this herd forward, trampling everything in its path. They followed this by an Immense Salamander protected by a massive Shield Spell and strengthened with an Enhance Oakfed or two, which torched those who managed to kill the herd." - "The Tower of Lead" Copyright (c) 1997 Simon E. Phipp I find it hard to believe that you're scared of a few spells cast with extension. I've only found 2 divine spells that get outrageous with long extension - Axe Trance and Absorbtion, and even these are only just about as powerful as the average hero power, and can be fixed with house rules. >If you had cast Shield 40 Extension 40, what is to stop you from >repraying both spells and casting them again 80 days afterwards? >After a year or so you have made the entire party pretty invunerable. >Once again, this is silly. If a spell is cast with extension, then the spell cannot be prayed back until the duration expires. That's pretty much the exact wording, although it's from memory (I re-read it at the weekend). It could be argued that "the spell" refers to the spell that is being described, i.e. Extension, but it's certainly unclear, and in my interpretation it means the spell referred to earlier in the sentence. >I made a decision ages ago that a rule that is silly >should not be adhered to. It seems to work for me. I agree, but "silly" is relative. I find the idea of a Prolong matrix silly. >>the Trickster with extended Conceal got herself killed, >Ha, ha - how did you find her afterwards? Loads of >fumbling around the flor trying to kick her corpse? We never did. Either the spell dropped when she died and she was dragged off by the giant spider that killed her (falling damage is a bitch), or the spell still works, and due to the way the spell works, we'll not find her until some time next year. Neither will the flies and worms, I'm thinking. >In my campaign, Derak had more than 20 points of Shield, >Brankist and Solarus had 15 or so points, they all had >Mindlink and they never cast Shield with Extension. Yeah, that would be really awkward. We only have a few points, though, so a decent healing spell will still work. >If you face a foe with a single magic item and you defeat him, >then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't >used Divine Intervention to escape. One word: Conditions. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Dec 10 02:30:18 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:30:18 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Characteristic Maximums References: <005601c29f67$66c1cce0$8502600a@otvfrap043> Message-ID: <00e401c29f97$e137be00$3410fea9@frkt5> Yes, CON is something you're born with, but that doesn't mean you can't improve it. Just look at today's fitness industry. It's not *all* humbug. Personal testimony: I was sedentary and ate poorly until I was 17. I then went away to college, where I began to jog and lift weights and to eliminate all excess carbs and proteins from my diet. Not only did I attract women for the first time in my life (APP increase) but I no longer needed my asthma medication. Ever since changing my diet (which does, in fact, include some tofu), I get a cold about once every two years, far less often than I used to get them. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Characteristic Maximums Hello > 1. One thing I hate about RQ3 is that STR and > CON can only be raised to equal whichever was the > highest of the original values of STR, CON, and SIZ. <...> > Anyone want to defend it, or explain why > it's needed? Well, I think CON is something you were intrinsically born with. No matter how much tofu you eat ;-) if you have a bad constitution (i.e. if you catch diseases easily) I don't think you can write this off. STR on the other hand should be allowed to be increaseD. > Another one I'm considering is removing effective limits on > POW increase Hey, are you a power gamer or something? ;-) Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From nikk at cyber-rights.net Tue Dec 10 03:00:45 2002 From: nikk at cyber-rights.net (nikk at cyber-rights.net) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:00:45 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High level games Message-ID: <200212091600.gB9G0j5L006382@mailserver1.hushmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Simon you're still around! Cool. *prods* Put more on your webpage. As for high level gaming, my group has also started to approach dizzy heights. And sometimes, just sometimes, it does get silly. But not really silly. For instance, selling magical items - I allowed that quite a lot at low levels (they rarely found anything worth selling) but had to stop it at high levels when they thought that there was some sort of "magical marketplace" rather than the odd sorceror I had intended. As for magical jars, and undead bison, isn't that what Glorantha is about at the Heroic level? Oddities, magical items, strange wonderous things. Big powerful things. I always thought so. But yeah, at high level you do get odd, silly stuff going on. The accumulation of power does it. One character of mine lost one leg, and two arms and demanded he be "given a chance to kick his sword" into his target. He demanded a penalty, which i then awarded, forgetting that he was beserk, and stacked up with sorcery (I still think Sandy's system may be too powerful at high levels) so that the penalty (some 250%) wasn't actually _that_ deliberating (it took him down to some 120-140% or something like that). High level games do have an ever increasing power level, especially if you allow the party to gather the items of the fallen dead they killed. Plus there's also HeroQuests which can greatly increase their power level (or get them killed - or worse). It's not for everyone. Nikk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.2 (Java) Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wl0EARECAB0FAj30viwWHG5pa2tAY3liZXItcmlnaHRzLm5ldAAKCRCzzg9aP/unzefp AKCh79mgL2GbT5IUCKCh+6xZi1ZcbwCgjwlPW1cxEIuV0OhTBXZVOBoMnuw= =fzY1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 03:22:25 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:22:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #67 - 6 msgs Message-ID: >1. Characteristic maximums. One thing I hate about RQ3 is that STR and >CON can only be raised to equal whichever was the highest of the >original values of STR, CON, and SIZ. I get the *reason* for it, I >guess; some sort of balance issue. But it means that if STR and CON >are equal and SIZ is equal or less, the character can never improve. >They can lift weights and eat tofu until they *die* and they will >still never improve their STR or CON. Not logical. In the article I >recommend punting this rule. Anyone want to defend it, or explain why >it's needed? The SIZ should not be possible to explain a rational reason for increasing (unless you use 2 SIZ stats; one for height and one for mass as I do with the Mostali, because I love the Warhammer Dwarves) Height can only be explained with growht deseases, your mother was a half gigant, etc. For CON\STR, you have good arguents, but I think it should be left the way it is. -Because I'm conservative. ...and because there is actually room for some improvement allready, mabye not written in the rules perhaps, but still -if you look at some characters released, some of them have "impossible" stats. Why is that? In my campagins, I explain it with magics; wierd objects, gifts from the gods, etc. So in my game, say a dude is left with a maximum STR of 15 and the GM (I) know that the player have aced for a bigger STR for years, I just might let a god or some wierd circomstance grant him a permanent STR increase! -And then you have the Characteristic increasing spells, of course. (I have an initiate of Humakt and Priest of Uleria that might get STR 60 if he wants to). >Also, I'm inserting boxed "optional" rules here and there in the >article I love the basic rules of RQ3, they are perfect balance between time consumption and detail. But i realise that if someone wants to alter that balance, more detail \realism could be gained. >Oh, now I remember the final issue: Fumbles. Mathematically the >chances to critical and special are easy to express (5% and 20% of the >skill, respectively), but how would you express the chance to fumble? >Just wondering, as this has always confused me. Perhaps 101 minus the >critical of the chance of *failure* in the skill? But this breaks down >for skills above 100. The fumble has its place in any RPG, I think, but I am a very nice GM when it comes to fumbling characters (I'd hate the idea to get killed by chopping my own head off with a Ninjato, as one of the players in my campagin really did while fighting marauding trollkin in a foodstore... I let him off the hooc with ruling that he made a permanent scar across his head, ruining his nice hairstyle.) >But you wouldn't expect every encounter to be difficult at that level. If 5% of the adult >population is Rune Level (Acolyte/Adept/Shaman or above) then of those Rune Levels, you would >expect 90% to be reasonably powered Rune Levels and 10% to be very high powered Rune Levels. So, 1 >in 20 encounters will be with similarly powered parties and one in 200 will be with more powerful >opponents. If you are Rune Level then this may be skewed by going after powerful foes or by being >attacked by powerful enemies, but even so, you will meet less powerful foes more often than not. >However, you will meet more of them, because being overwhelmed by superior numbers is a reasonable >tactic in RQ. You may well be able to overcome a Lunar gate guard, but what about a squad of 20 >guards and their Rune Lord commander? This is Important to me, trying to help my players into a "world", not a "boardgame". Realsm as contradictionary as it might seem must be present. I love it as a player when I feel that mugging a poor guy on the street is potentially dangerous; because it isn't a predictable world. This doesn't mean that the GM allways should let the players get killed \ jailed everytime they try somthing, but he should let them feel uncertain wether they're gonna pull it off or not. > >This is very dificult to justify in some ways. If you face a foe with a single magic item and you >defeat him, then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't used Divine >Intervention to escape. If over the cause of 40 scenarios, you encounter and defeat 40 such people >then you have access to 40 such magic items. Is this unreasonable? Well, the GM doesn't have to let them meat the powerful dude in every playsession in the first place. In addition "mood" should have an important place. What if the supermegamagical helmet previously wore by the nown slain "Broo king of GNYLDROCH" give the character nightmares? (even if his supermegapowerful magical friends have assuerd that it is cleansed for desease spirits, bad spells, etc.) -Makes him not wanting to take it off? Makes him inadverted \agressive to friends? (Yes, that means that the player actually have to do some roleplaying, not only dicerolling) It is very easy to build up >powerful characters bit by bit. Bear in mind that you have to take the powerful item from a >powerful person, so you are not giving the items away. What if you have to? If making Conan the hero trade his immensly powerful sword for somthing else he wants, or the safe passing through a Mostali strongpoint. What if your quest was to retrieve this artifact and return it to it's right owner? (I have stolen a Wyvern in a WH game, and the GM surely makes me regrett it sometimes; where to land, fear of betrayal, etc.) Powerful adversaries should be placed by care; don't toss them about as tin soldiers on a boy's bedroom. And if they're so powerful; there's likely to be some reason for it! This could prove to be a major follow up campagin or encounter some sessions later! (the nown slain "Broo king of GNYLDROCH's BIG BROTHER!, or the secret police of some state, etc) >It is also difficult to restrict spells, unless you have a magic-poor campaign. In Glorantha, anyone who belongs to a cult can gain Divine Spells at temples. What if there was no open space for a new priest? What if the high priest finds them too arrogant and delay \ stops the innitiation? (On some site, I've read some funny stuff about sourcwerers you wouldn't like to work for...)This shouldn't degenerate into never letting a player succeed though, but used the right way, it doesn't only stall characters' immaturely increasing powers, but might allso provede extra flavor to the game. >You can charge for the spells, you can only allow spells to be taken from the home temple, you can place arbitrary restrictions on PCs, but they will eventually become powerful. Yes, they will, but in my oppinion they should by then have been given bigger responsebilies so that the game evolve around somthing bigger than just wandering from inn to inn trying to pick a fight. -Or leaping from hill to hill relentlessy killing monsters, etc. Players should at this stage have veteran characters rounding the 40's where they begin to long for a safe haven (or a kingdom, like Conan), fear old rivals \ enemies \ envious NPC's and start getting kids, facing age decrease rolls, etc.) > > 2-Try and bend the gamingstyle away from hack and slash (AD'nD) ->>into a game where killing (and possibly getting killed) -isn't the climax of >>the night. Little puny Frodo is no mach for his companions and his foes, >>but he's not around to kill and wreck havoc; he's too busy saving >>the world... >But the others happily went around killing, maiming and adventuring. Frodo was on a Quest, the others were not. Isn't it called Rune QUEST? -And wouldn't the others get tired eventually? ------------------------------------------ Add photos to your e-mail with ------------------------------------------ MSN 8. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Tue Dec 10 04:07:13 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:07:13 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Characteristic Maximums Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97997@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >I was sedentary and ate poorly until I was 17. So your CON had deteriorated from it's optimim. >I then went away to college, where I began to jog and lift weights >and to eliminate all excess carbs and proteins from my diet. Your CON went back up to its peak level. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From peter at maranci.net Tue Dec 10 04:52:39 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:52:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Characteristic Maximums Message-ID: <3738.216.118.190.11.1039456359.squirrel@webmail> *Rod wrote: >I just went over the article and find it quite interesting. Thanks! Eventually I'll need to find some willing D&D players to see if they understand it. But there's a lot of work to be done on it before that happens. >One thing you might want to clarify is that there are hit location Hit Points AND Total Hit Points, for as written it is kind of confusing [snip] Right, that's definitely one of the areas to be expanded. It's just that there's so much to do...I don't even want to THINK about a Creatures section right now, for example. As I've said before, if anyone feels inspired to write some material for this project I'd be delighted to receive it! *Gianni wrote: >Well, I think CON is something you were intrinsically born with. No matter how much tofu you eat ;-) if you have a bad constitution (i.e. if you catch diseases easily) I don't think you can write this off. Hmm. Personally, I think that CON is less improvable than STR, but, like J, I agree that it definitely can be improved. For example, regular aerobic exercise will certainly strengthen your heart and ciculatory system, improve your blood oxygenation, and reduce your resting blood pressure and heartbeat. And we know that certain foods reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease, not to mention diabetes. On CNN this morning they announced the results of a new study: people who get at least moderate exercise three times a week have 20 - 30% fewer colds. All evidence that CON can be improved. Although I suspect that RQ mechanisms don't reflect this properly; for example, you can't just work out for a number of weeks and then stop. It's a lifetime commitment. I've been working out for a month now and I can testify that my general energy level has gone WAY up. >> Another one I'm considering is removing effective limits on POW increase >Hey, are you a power gamer or something? Not at all! I'm considering suggesting (as an OPTIONAL rule) that POW be allowed to rise above 21 for humans, for example, but with only a flat 5% chance of increase past the normal peak. I don't think that's very unbalancing; it basically reflects a feeling on my part that a limit to the soul doesn't feel logical. I didn't come up with this idea myself, incidentally; I think it was part of one draft of RQ:AIG. Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Oliver? I understand the case against him was finally dismissed. *Bjorn Stolen wrote: >The SIZ should not be possible to explain a rational reason for increasing (unless you use 2 SIZ stats; one for height and one for mass as I do with the Mostali [snip] You misread it, I think, because I never suggest that SIZ could be changed. In fact, I thought I'd said specifically that INT and SIZ could *never* be changed. Although I'm familiar with the "false SIZ" concept that was used somewhere in RQ for weight gain. But that seems too complicated to get into in the guide; I don't want to scare off D&Ders, after all! And it's really not a necessary rule. If a GM is desperate to have a scenario in which drastic weight gain is an issue (hmm, an interesting idea!), s/he is free to make up their own mechanic as far as I'm concerned. One of the best things about RQ is that it's so easy to make up logical extensions to the system. >For CON\STR, you have good arguents, but I think it should be left the way it is. I'm not sure what you mean; I only used the two methods from the RQ2 and RQ3 systems, but found what I think is undeniably a flaw: that a character with STR and CON that are equal to each other and are equal to or greater than their SIZ can *never increase*. Which is why I suggest punting that portion of the characteristic maximum rule. Seriously, there's simply no logical basis for it at all. >...if you look at some characters released, some of them have "impossible" stats. Why is that? I assume because they've Heroquested, or encountered some unusual magic in their pasts. I have no problem with that! But I think that one of the strengths of RQ, and one of the best arguements we have to persuade D&Ders to convert, is that it's simply a more logical system. Having to resort to a deus ex machina to raise STR a point due to a flawed rule makes RQ look bad. >I love the basic rules of RQ3, they are perfect balance between time consumption and detail. Obviously I also think RQ is the best system around, but I can't agree that it's perfect; the ENC/Fatigue rules require far too much paperwork, for example. I still haven't decided how to address that issue in the article, to tell you the truth. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Dec 10 05:37:35 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:37:35 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Characteristic Maximums References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97997@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <010101c29fb2$0b15fa60$3410fea9@frkt5> Oooookay, maybe. But who's to say whether a PC's current CON is due to his healthful lifestyle (in which case, that would be his max CON ever) or due to his mead binges, his pixiedust habit, and his tendency to sell his body to Broo to pay for it all (behaviors which could conceivably lessen one's CON)? But I already argued the use-it-or-lose-it case, i.e. sorcerers and others who spend much time researching or in a lab should suffer a CON loss, sort of a negative-training rule. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hibbs, Phil" To: Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Characteristic Maximums >I was sedentary and ate poorly until I was 17. So your CON had deteriorated from it's optimim. >I then went away to college, where I began to jog and lift weights >and to eliminate all excess carbs and proteins from my diet. Your CON went back up to its peak level. Phil Hibbs. **************************************************************************** **************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". **************************************************************************** **************** _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 09:30:59 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:30:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters In-Reply-To: <20021209124203.331214C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021209223059.70110.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > >Ah, now you see the reason for the aversion to repraying > >Extension before it has expired - things just get silly otherwise. > > I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud at this! You're worried about RQ getting > silly? May I quote your web site: > > "Then Brankist summoned a herd of Sky Bulls and Berserk Minotaurs, sent the > Sky Bulls Berserk and sent them all charging down the stairs. The party > followed these by a couple of Zombie Bison pulled from a Jar where they were > kept and sent this herd forward, trampling everything in its path. They > followed this by an Immense Salamander protected by a massive Shield Spell > and strengthened with an Enhance Oakfed or two, which torched those who > managed to kill the herd." > - "The Tower of Lead" Copyright (c) 1997 Simon E. Phipp What, pray, is silly about this? Brankist had gained an armband on a Storm Bull HeroQuest that allowed him to sacrifice POW to open a void and summon Servants of the Bull. When he gained the item, he rolled to see what they were and gained a Berserk Minotaur and 2 Sky Bulls. This was a gift from Storm Bull himself. He could only summon them once a week and if they were killed then they could be resummoned. Derak had taken some Jars from a Doratoran tomb that could hold a single creature and could be carried. He decided to put his Zombie Bison in them so that the HUmakti did not know that he had them with him. Since they had numerous Berserks amongst the party they decided to use them on the Sky Bulls and send the Bisons with Strength, Ironhand and Mobility cast so they could basically run down the stairs and fall over onto the undead horde beneath them. The Salamander had been gained by Derak on a HeroQuest to Amanstan, where he stole and bound an Immense Salamander which he could only summon once a week. Since salamanders are useless in combat as they have no armour, he decided to cast a big Shield spell to save it from harm. Since we played that RQ3 salamanders with high POW burned hotter, it did 6D6 damage per round, I think, with the Enhance Oakfed this became quite a dangerous foe. It succeeded in destroying the hundreds of zombies, mummies and skeletons that guarded the stairwell. Now, what is so silly about that? When you have a long campaign, you get magical abilities that can be used together imaginatively. By the way, as a GM, I had no control over what the PCs actually did, so they could try to use things as they wanted, I only ruled on their respective silliness. > I find it hard to believe that you're scared of a few spells cast with > extension. I've only found 2 divine spells that get outrageous with long > extension - Axe Trance and Absorbtion, and even these are only just about as > powerful as the average hero power, and can be fixed with house rules. It is the principle that is difficult. If it works with Shield 5 Extension 5 then it should work with Shield 40 Extension 40. Clearly one of these means permamnent spells on every party member. Derak had Crush 20 or 30, I can't remember which, so the party could have made their fists and boots into stomping machines by using Mindlink to combine their Extensions. Silly? I think so. Allowed? Not on my life. > >If you had cast Shield 40 Extension 40, what is to stop you from > >repraying both spells and casting them again 80 days afterwards? > >After a year or so you have made the entire party pretty invunerable. > >Once again, this is silly. > > If a spell is cast with extension, then the spell cannot be prayed back > until the duration expires. That's pretty much the exact wording, although > it's from memory (I re-read it at the weekend). It could be argued that "the > spell" refers to the spell that is being described, i.e. Extension, but it's > certainly unclear, and in my interpretation it means the spell referred to > earlier in the sentence. We read that as meaning the Extension had to be used up as well. Different people have different interpretations. > >I made a decision ages ago that a rule that is silly > >should not be adhered to. It seems to work for me. > > I agree, but "silly" is relative. I find the idea of a Prolong matrix silly. Probably, but we never really used that kind of thing, except in the hands of NPCs. It is merely an extension of an idea or principle. Imaginative use of the rules. Also, if I could be persuaded that something was not silly, or I could persuade the players that something was silly then a consensus could be reached. > >If you face a foe with a single magic item and you defeat him, > >then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't > >used Divine Intervention to escape. > > One word: Conditions. Only if you made the magic item yourself. I suppose you can tag conditions on afterwards, but we never really made any use of them. Restricting things to yourself is incredibly selfish from a cult point of view as the item can no longer be used by the cult once you die. Using less specific restrictions (members of Zorak Zoran, Lightbringers, descendants of Bambi One-Tooth, people with red hair) are only restrictive until the item is taken by people who can use it. POW Storage Crystals, items gained on HeroQuests and many one-off items are not bound by conditions. Have you placed conditions on all your magic items? If not then it is reasonable to assume that other parties have not. If you have then I give up, shake my head despairingly and think of happier times with herds of Berserk Sky Bulls, Minotaurs and Zombie Bison. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Dec 10 10:26:04 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:26:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High level games In-Reply-To: <20021209223703.DDEE34C26E@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021209232604.10263.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> Nikk Effingham: > Simon you're still around! Cool. *prods* Put more on your webpage. Yep, still around, always thinking of quitting but never quite managing. There is more on my website, but I have had to balance doing RQ/Gloranthan stuff with a wife who absolutely hates the very idea :-( > As for high level gaming, my group has also started to approach dizzy heights. And sometimes, > just sometimes, it does get silly. But not really silly. For instance, selling magical items - I > allowed that quite a lot at low levels (they rarely found anything worth selling) but had to > stop it at high levels when they thought that there was some sort of "magical marketplace" > rather than the odd sorceror I had intended. Sometimes my PCs sold items to each other, but it was frowned upon - any items that are no longer required should be given to the nearest temple as cult tribute, possibly in exchange for cult support. That stops them in their tracks. > As for magical jars, and undead bison, isn't that what Glorantha is about at the Heroic level? Oh yes. > Oddities, magical items, strange wonderous things. Big powerful things. I always thought so. But > yeah, at high level you do get odd, silly stuff going on. The accumulation of power does it. One > character of mine lost one leg, and two arms and demanded he be "given a chance to kick his > sword" into his target. He demanded a penalty, which i then awarded, forgetting that he was > beserk, and stacked up with sorcery (I still think Sandy's system may be too powerful at high > levels) so that the penalty (some 250%) wasn't actually _that_ deliberating (it took him down to > some 120-140% or something like that). Base skill of 200% (not too high, really), Berserker doubles that, a good whack of Bladesharp and Strength and you are up in the 400s - -250% penalty, thank you very much. > High level games do have an ever increasing power level, especially if you allow the party to > gather the items of the fallen dead they killed. Plus there's also HeroQuests which can greatly > increase their power level (or get them killed - or worse). It's not for everyone. Absolutely, you have to be very, very careful as a GM. Bjorn Stolen: > This is Important to me, trying to help my players into a "world", not a "boardgame". Realsm as > contradictionary as it might seem must be present. I love it as a player when I feel that > mugging a poor guy on the street is potentially dangerous; because it isn't a predictable world. > This doesn't mean that the GM allways should let the players get killed \ jailed everytime they > try somthing, but he should let them feel uncertain wether they're gonna pull it off or not. An initiate of Orlanth who mugs someone on the street will be chased by the watch and he could be captured, killed, jailed, marked as a bandit or whatever. This is dangerous. An Orlanthi Hero mugging someone on the street would not be chased by the watch, or if they did chase him he could evade them or kill them without raising a sweat. Seemingly without consequence? However, what would the other Orlanthi think about him mugging someone in the street? Not much, I reckon. There are always ways of stopping people doing things or of punishing them if they do. > >This is very dificult to justify in some ways. If you face a foe with a single magic item > and you > >defeat him, then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't used Divine > >Intervention to escape. If over the cause of 40 scenarios, you encounter and defeat 40 such > people > >then you have access to 40 such magic items. Is this unreasonable? > Well, the GM doesn't have to let them meat the powerful dude in every playsession in the first > place. In addition "mood" should have an important place. What if the supermegamagical helmet > previously wore by the nown slain "Broo king of GNYLDROCH" give the character nightmares? (even > if his supermegapowerful magical friends have assuerd that it is cleansed for desease spirits, > bad spells, etc.) -Makes him not wanting to take it off? Makes him inadverted \agressive to > friends? (Yes, that means that the player actually have to do some roleplaying, not only > dicerolling) I am not talking about powerful people. If you meet a party of broos with a POW Storage Crystal or a Lunar squad with a Bladesharp 3 matrix, these would become the party's possessions after a victorious fight. These are not powerful items. Having one such item per scenario is not excessive. After 40 such scenarios, you have 40 such items. Things mount up. Of course, you could restrict magic items and have a low-magic game, which is fair enough, but is difficult to justify given the RQ rules. > It is very easy to build up > >powerful characters bit by bit. Bear in mind that you have to take the powerful item from a > >powerful person, so you are not giving the items away. > What if you have to? If making Conan the hero trade his immensly powerful sword for somthing > else he wants, or the safe passing through a Mostali strongpoint. What if your quest was to > retrieve this artifact and return it to it's right owner? (I have stolen a Wyvern in a WH game, > and the GM surely makes me regrett it sometimes; where to land, fear of betrayal, etc.) Powerful > adversaries should be placed by care; don't toss them about as tin soldiers on a boy's bedroom. > And if they're so powerful; there's likely to be some reason for it! This could prove to be a > major follow up campagin or encounter some sessions later! (the nown slain "Broo king of > GNYLDROCH's BIG BROTHER!, or the secret police of some state, etc) Of course, that is what a campaign is all about. If you want to see more on High Level Gaming, check out my website on www.geocities.com.soltakss and it covers all that kind of thing. When I say "you are not giving the items away" I meant as a GM, not as a player. I have had players give items to other PCs, to NPCs, to temples and to strangers. I have had scenarios where the fee for passing through a gate was a magic item. PCs have gambled magic items away and lost them. These things happen, quite often. In my campaign, the PCs campaigned in Dorastor, they had a number of tasks they had to perform. They met nasty and powerful things and defeated them. They met nasty and powerful things and befriended them. They met friends and made them enemies. They met enemies and were defeated. They Quested for items and returned them to their cults. Derak found Gbaji's Adamant Claws and immediately gave them to the Priestesses in Dagori Inkarth, even though they would have made him powerful, because he had no other thoughts other than helping the troll race. > >It is also difficult to restrict spells, unless you have a magic-poor campaign. In Glorantha, > anyone who belongs to a cult can gain Divine Spells at temples. > What if there was no open space for a new priest? What if the high priest finds them too > arrogant and delay \ stops the innitiation? (On some site, I've read some funny stuff about > sourcwerers you wouldn't like to work for...)This shouldn't degenerate into never letting a > player succeed though, but used the right way, it doesn't only stall characters' immaturely > increasing powers, but might allso provede extra flavor to the game. If there is no place for a Priest then you play politics. If he still resists then you HeroQuest to prove your worth. If all else fails, you change Temples. When you become a Priest, how can your High Priest stop you from learning magic? If he manages it, then start up a new Temple. It is difficult but possible. We are talking High Level here, after the struggle to become a Priest or Rune Lord. > >You can charge for the spells, you can only allow spells to be taken from the home temple, you > can place arbitrary restrictions on PCs, but they will eventually become powerful. > Yes, they will, but in my oppinion they should by then have been given bigger responsebilies so > that the game evolve around somthing bigger than just wandering from inn to inn trying to pick a > fight. -Or leaping from hill to hill relentlessy killing monsters, etc. Players should at this > stage have veteran characters rounding the 40's where they begin to long for a safe haven (or a > kingdom, like Conan), fear old rivals \ enemies \ envious NPC's and start getting kids, facing > age decrease rolls, etc.) Who is talking about wandering from Inn to Inn picking a fight? At High Level this is the last thing you want to do. In my experience, many High Level scenarios involve being told by your cult what to do, reacting to the actions of personal enemies, HeroQuesting, playing politics, helping the people and so on. If you want to settle down then you will be tracked down by enemies. If you forge a kingdom you must fight for it or fight to defend it. If you are a Wind Lord then you may well be called upon to attack a Broo Temple and clear it out. As a GM, you may decide never to run such a hack and slash scenario and to try and talk to the broos and persuade them to stop buggering the local cattle, but I doubt if it will work. There will always be some need for killing monsters etc. > > > 2-Try and bend the gamingstyle away from hack and slash (AD'nD) ->>into a game where killing > (and possibly getting killed) -isn't the climax of >>the night. Little puny Frodo is no mach > for his companions and his foes, >>but he's not around to kill and wreck havoc; he's too busy > saving >>the world... > >But the others happily went around killing, maiming and adventuring. Frodo was on a Quest, > the others were not. > Isn't it called Rune QUEST? -And wouldn't the others get tired eventually? They got tired because they won. Also, I think you misunderstand - we are not talking about hack and slash here. At High Levels, hack and slash becomes boring - a 20 minute single combat is not my idea of fun, nor is slashing my way through a hundred broos. You very quickly get tired of these things. We are talking about the difficulties of High Level Gaming (or at leats we seem to be at the moment, it was about Game Balance based on the Multispell rewrite, but this is far more interesting). Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Dec 10 19:53:24 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:53:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Characteristic Maximums References: <3738.216.118.190.11.1039456359.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <003901c2a029$99400c50$8502600a@otvfrap043> > Hmm. Personally, I think that CON is less improvable than STR, but, like > J, I agree that it definitely can be improved. For example, regular > aerobic exercise will certainly strengthen your heart and ciculatory > system, improve your blood oxygenation, and reduce your resting blood > pressure and heartbeat. As Phil said, you are merely making your CON get back to its previous optimum level. Plus I don't think people in an ancient setting like Glorantha would eat junk food or become couch potatoes! G. From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Tue Dec 10 20:45:23 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:45:23 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97999@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >It is the principle that is difficult. If it works with Shield 5 >Extension 5 then it should work with Shield 40 Extension 40. I can't imagine a Gloranthan RuneQuest campaign ever getting to those levels. How did they survive that long? I gather they had access to Resurrection - that's something that is outrageously hard to get access to in my games, even discounting the stat and skill losses and psychological effects. >>One word: Conditions. >Only if you made the magic item yourself... >Restricting things to yourself is incredibly selfish from a >cult point of view as the item can no longer be used by the >cult once you die. So restrict it to "members of Thanatar cult", or "weaponthanes of Blue Spruce Clan", or a command word for activation. Then it's only value is for ransom to the owner, or to a museum. I'd imagine the Lunars have a large collection of conditioned items that their sorcerors are studying to try and work around. Now there's a scenario idea! >items gained on HeroQuests and many one-off items are not >bound by conditions. Why not? They can be, it's just that generally they aren't described as being such. Most one-off items must have been created somehow, I don't see why they couldn't also be conditioned. Boris, my Troll sorceror, has feasted heartily on conditioned magic items. Mmmmm, magic! >Have you placed conditions on all your magic items? Only occasionally. And remember, most PCs are selfish with their POW. Priests and acolytes that live their lives in service to their temple are generally more long-term in their thinking. One of my players had a spell matrix and binding enchantment item stolen from him by a Broo, and was hit with it a few times. He put a condition on it after he got it back. Also, Control Intellect Spirit is a ranged spell, all the enemy have to do is identify the binding enchantment and cast the spell on it - bye bye, spells! Really nasty to do to a sorceror, especially if they felt that they had better things to do with the free INT than keep Dominate Intellect Spirit. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Dec 10 20:51:15 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:51:15 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Characteristic Maximums Message-ID: >Oooookay, maybe. But who's to say whether a PC's current CON is due to his >healthful lifestyle (in which case, that would be his max CON ever) or due >to his mead binges, his pixiedust habit, and his tendency to sell his body >to Broo to pay for it all (behaviors which could conceivably lessen one's >CON)? > >But I already argued the use-it-or-lose-it case, i.e. sorcerers and others >who spend much time researching or in a lab should suffer a CON loss, sort >of a negative-training rule. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hibbs, Phil" >To: >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:07 AM >Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Characteristic Maximums > > >>I was sedentary and ate poorly until I was 17. > >So your CON had deteriorated from it's optimim. > >>I then went away to college, where I began to jog and lift weights >>and to eliminate all excess carbs and proteins from my diet. I always liked the system because it was possible to be below par health wise (CON < SIZ) or not at optimum fitness (STR < SIZ) but no matter how much you trained, ate macrobiotic food etc, there was a physiological limit to general health and fitness that only Magic could take you beyond (CON & STR training limited to SIZ). That this is probably another argument that SIZ as a characteristic is doing too much, is a separate issue ;-) regards, Nick Middleton From rog_benham at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 01:19:48 2002 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:19:48 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Iron Golems Message-ID: Slight query... in my campaign one of the races are a race of sentient iron golems.  I've given them oodles of hit points and armour points, but they still seem to be weak, I mean they're solid iron statues wandering around... so without them being overkill (Which they easily could be), any suggestions as to how they should be damaged, scratched, lightly polished etc? ------------------------------------------ The new ------------------------------------------ MSN 8: ------------------------------------------ smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 01:53:52 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:53:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Iron Golems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210145352.83047.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> Well they are iron to start, so should be immune to all magic and should have a chance of canceling any magical spell within an area (lets say 15 feet) around them. Their armor(hit) points per location should be in the 30 range and none iron, none magical weapons should be damaged then hitting the golem. How is that for a start. --- Roger Benham wrote: > > Slight query... in my campaign one of the races are > a race of sentient iron golems.  I've given > them oodles of hit points and armour points, but > they still seem to be weak, I mean they're solid > iron statues wandering around... so without them > being overkill (Which they easily could be), any > suggestions as to how they should be damaged, > scratched, lightly polished etc? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bick10 at attbi.com Wed Dec 11 02:25:22 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:25:22 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Iron Golems Message-ID: <20021210152740.3604C4C1DC@thinbits.com> Roger Benham wrote: > > Slight query... in my campaign one of the races are > > a race of sentient iron golems.  I've given > > them oodles of hit points and armour points, but > > they still seem to be weak, I mean they're solid > > iron statues wandering around... so without them > > being overkill (Which they easily could be), any > > suggestions as to how they should be damaged, > > scratched, lightly polished etc? Leon Kirshtein > Well they are iron to start, so should be immune to > all magic and should have a chance of canceling any > magical spell within an area (lets say 15 feet) around > them. Their armor(hit) points per location should be > in the 30 range and none iron, none magical weapons > should be damaged then hitting the golem. > > How is that for a start. I love the cancel magic. What a GM'ish thing. Great chance for a change from the standard type of challenges. Add in very high AP and the player will think Roger is throwing an "unbeatable" at them. I would like to add to the polishing. I suggest a lower than normal Dex. Also slower speed than Human. Say Dex 7 and 2m/SR. What is their STR. Is it so high that any good hit breaks a PC? I would bend the rules and lower their damage and blame it on their slower speed. While strong, their swings are ponderous. What can be done to make them beatable. Sword and magic will fail. They will have to be outwitted. Will there be a controller with high INT to work them or are they independent thinkers? But you probably already worked that out. But you can always beef them up with great coordination. That is more valuable than HP and AP. Jim From dahak at compuserve.com Wed Dec 11 02:56:46 2002 From: dahak at compuserve.com (dahak at compuserve.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:56:46 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #67 - 6 msgs In-Reply-To: <20021209124204.DCC3D4C265@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DF60EBE.15425.5E2A98@localhost> On 9 Dec 2002 at 4:42, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:57:46 +0000 (GMT) > From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters > Is it that any Divine spell, not just Extension, must expire before it is reprayed? > This is very dificult to justify in some ways. If you face a foe with a single magic item and you > defeat him, then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't used Divine > Intervention to escape. If over the cause of 40 scenarios, you encounter and defeat 40 such people > then you have access to 40 such magic items. Is this unreasonable? It is very easy to build up > powerful characters bit by bit. Bear in mind that you have to take the powerful item from a > powerful person, so you are not giving the items away. RuneQuest magic Items tend not to be as easily lootable or as useful as D&D ones. A second Bladesharp 2 matrix does a character little good and Divine matrices for spells their cults don't have are going to be more than a little difficult to refill. Leaving out that spirit bindings should always be user limited [IIRC to prevent opponents commanding the contents] even if other items are not [and reasonably restrictive use limits, things like Runemasters of Thed or servants of the Temple of the Reaching Storm, make sense. ]. Adam From dahak at compuserve.com Wed Dec 11 03:05:19 2002 From: dahak at compuserve.com (dahak at compuserve.com) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:05:19 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters In-Reply-To: <20021209124204.DCC3D4C265@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DF610BF.19417.660016@localhost> On 9 Dec 2002 at 4:42, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:57:46 +0000 (GMT) > From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters > Is it that any Divine spell, not just Extension, must expire before it is reprayed? Yes. See the last sentance of Dragon Life. Godunya Divine Sorcery has the same limitatation as well. Note that Extension extends itself [Or it wouldn't have an effect after 15 minutes being a temporal spell]. > This is very dificult to justify in some ways. If you face a foe with a single magic item and you > defeat him, then it is reasonable to be able to take the item if he hasn't used Divine > Intervention to escape. If over the cause of 40 scenarios, you encounter and defeat 40 such people > then you have access to 40 such magic items. Is this unreasonable? It is very easy to build up > powerful characters bit by bit. Bear in mind that you have to take the powerful item from a > powerful person, so you are not giving the items away. RuneQuest magic Items tend not to be as easily lootable or as useful as D&D ones. A second Bladesharp 2 matrix does a character little good and Divine matrices for spells their cults don't have are going to be more than a little difficult to refill. Leaving out that spirit bindings should always be user limited [IIRC to prevent opponents commanding the contents] even if other items are not [and reasonably restrictive use limits, things like Runemasters of Thed or servants of the Temple of the Reaching Storm, make sense. ]. Also given the tendancy of my players to tattoo their enchantments into their skin... Adam From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 11 03:23:00 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:23:00 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Iron Golems References: Message-ID: <028901c2a068$68951980$3410fea9@frkt5> They'd likely become mired in soft sand or mud. If the latter, there's also the problem of rust. Actually, that "disease" would be pandemic in all moist climes, above & below ground. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Benham" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:19 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Iron Golems Slight query... in my campaign one of the races are a race of sentient iron golems.  I've given them oodles of hit points and armour points, but they still seem to be weak, I mean they're solid iron statues wandering around... so without them being overkill (Which they easily could be), any suggestions as to how they should be damaged, scratched, lightly polished etc? ------------------------------------------ The new ------------------------------------------ MSN 8: ------------------------------------------ smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Dec 11 03:47:21 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:21 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9799B@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >Note that Extension extends itself [Or it wouldn't have >an effect after 15 minutes being a temporal spell]. I don't see the need for this statement. Using Extension extends the spell that it is being cast with, it's as simple as that. To Say that the Extension would end after 15 minutes and therefore the extending of the duration would cease is to create a problem that doesn't exist. >Also given the tendancy of my players to tattoo their enchantments >into their skin... Ooh, that's so dangerous! The only enchantment that's safe to put on yourself is Strengthening (for Hit Points). Anything more portable, and you'll be hunted for your skin! Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 03:52:11 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:52:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Silliness in RQ In-Reply-To: <20021209124203.331214C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021210165211.70423.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > >Ah, now you see the reason for the aversion to repraying > >Extension before it has expired - things just get silly otherwise. > > I'm sorry, but I laughed out loud at this! You're worried about RQ getting > silly? May I quote your web site: > > > I find it hard to believe that you're scared of a few spells cast with > extension. I've only found 2 divine spells that get outrageous with long > extension - Axe Trance and Absorbtion, and even these are only just about as > powerful as the average hero power, and can be fixed with house rules. Look at it this way - if I, with my extreme views on RQ and reputation as a power-gamer, think that a rule is too powerful or becomes silly at higher levels, what does that say about the rule? Surely if it appalls me then it should be worth looking at again. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 04:22:34 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:22:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters In-Reply-To: <20021210162814.2C8BB4C26A@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021210172234.76579.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Simon Phipp: > >It is the principle that is difficult. If it works with Shield 5 > >Extension 5 then it should work with Shield 40 Extension 40. > > I can't imagine a Gloranthan RuneQuest campaign ever getting to those > levels. How did they survive that long? I gather they had access to > Resurrection - that's something that is outrageously hard to get access to > in my games, even discounting the stat and skill losses and psychological > effects. The PCs did not have Shield 40, Extension 40, it was merely an example. However, they could mount Shield in excess of 20 for a one-off encounter. They generally didn't because that meant they hadn't any Shield for later on. When Derak left Zorak Zoran, forced out by the Lord General of Death, he transferred any spells that were associate spells of cults he belonged to but lost over 100 points of Zorak Zorani Divine Magic. Had he concentrated on Shield and Extension, he could easily have had Shield 40 Extension 40, instead he went for exotic magic like Create Zombie, Command Zombie, Salamanders (at double cost) and so on. We always had access to Resurrection, because even before I was the permanent GM the scenarios were very dangerous and had an average kill rate of 3-4 PCs per scenario. My own PC, Soltak Stormspear, died and was resurrected or used Divine Intervention to return over 50 times. Many people will shudder at this, but it made for very exciting sessions. No Danger = No Excitement. We played the RQ2 skill losses for days dead, not the RQ3 losses, but we rarely stayed dead for more than a couple of days. We never used psychological penalties/effects for Resurrection, as we saw no need to do so. Also, the loose campaign was played from 1983 to 1996 or thereabouts, so it was 13 years real time with the same core PCs. You can do a lot in that time. > So restrict it to "members of Thanatar cult", or "weaponthanes of Blue > Spruce Clan", or a command word for activation. Then it's only value is for > ransom to the owner, or to a museum. I'd imagine the Lunars have a large > collection of conditioned items that their sorcerors are studying to try and > work around. Now there's a scenario idea! Restricitng it to "Thanatar Cult" means that associates cannot use it, again weakening the larger cult basis. Using "Members of and Associates of " then makes it too broad so that many different cultists could use it. In any case, we played most of our RQ in RQ2 which had no Conditions, and we carried the mentality to RQ3. Nick Middleton: > I always liked the system because it was possible to be below par health > wise (CON < SIZ) or not at optimum fitness (STR < SIZ) but no matter how > much you trained, ate macrobiotic food etc, there was a physiological limit > to general health and fitness that only Magic could take you beyond (CON & > STR training limited to SIZ). > > That this is probably another argument that SIZ as a characteristic is > doing too much, is a separate issue ;-) I liked the CON & STR being limited to max(CON,STR,SIZ) because from a personal point of view, even if I trained hard, my body frame is not geared up to supporting high strength, so I could never be as strong as a six foot six chappie. In RQ terms, this is because my STR cannot exceed my SIZ (I won't even start going on about my low CON). Roger Benham: > Slight query... in my campaign one of the races are a race of sentient iron golems.  I've > given them oodles of hit points and armour points, but they still seem to be weak, I mean > they're solid iron statues wandering around... so without them being overkill (Which they easily > could be), any suggestions as to how they should be damaged, scratched, lightly polished etc? If you use the rules for stone creatures, then they become difficult to defeat. Basically, they don't have HPs, each location has APs and any blow must exceed the APs of the location to do a single point of damage, so you just chip bits off it. That makes them pretty polished. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From michaelch at corbis.com Wed Dec 11 09:17:02 2002 From: michaelch at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:17:02 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Presence??? Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9748@seamail1.corbis.com> I took a very long break from Runequest and I am just now getting back into it after a 12 year absence. As a result of this Sandy's Sorcery is very new to me. It all makes perfect sense with the exception of Presence. Maybe I'm just missing something crucial or misreading or just not getting it. What is initial presence derived from? I notice that to increase it you take vows, but what is the base (if there is one)? Does it have any effect on the manipulation of spells, or solely on how many can be maintained at one time? Is there something outside of the basic Sandy's Sorcery that I should be reading that I've missed? Thanks for any enlightenment provided, Michael --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 11 12:27:48 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:27:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Presence??? In-Reply-To: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9748@seamail1.corbis.com> Message-ID: <20021211012748.18153.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> --- Michael Christian wrote: > What is initial presence derived from? I notice that > to increase it you take > vows, but what is the base (if there is one)? The base is really your High Vow = Magic Bonus. (http://onview.comtecnet.com/RQ/Sorcery/vows.asp) > Does > it have any effect on the > manipulation of spells, or solely on how many can be > maintained at one time? Yes and no. You Presence determines the amount of spell manipulation a sorcerer can have active at one time. So if your "free" Presence is currently 5 you can not cast an Intensity 6 spell, even if your skill level is high enough to do so. Leon Kirshtein __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 12:56:35 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:56:35 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Reply to SIMON -how to gm with (too) powerful characters Message-ID: >I am not talking about powerful people. If you meet a party of broos with a POW Storage >Crystal or a Lunar squad with a Bladesharp 3 matrix, these would become the party's >possessions after a victorious fight. These are not powerful items. Having one such item per >scenario is not excessive. After 40 such scenarios, you have 40 such items. Things mount >up. Of course, you could restrict magic items and have a low-magic game, which is fair >enough, but is difficult to justify given the RQ rules. OK, I get it. Well, perhaps an orlanthi would be suspicious to Lunar trinkets, allthough it -acording to the rules is fully useable? >When I say "you are not giving the items away" I meant as a GM, not as a player. I have >had players give items to other PCs, to NPCs, to temples and to strangers. I have had >scenarios where the fee for passing through a gate was a magic item. PCs have gambled >magic items away and lost them. These things happen, quite often. In my campaign, the PCs >campaigned in Dorastor, they had a number of tasks they had to perform. They met nasty >and powerful things and defeated them. They met nasty and powerful things and befriended >them. They met friends and made them enemies. They met enemies and were defeated. >They Quested for items and returned them to their cults. Derak found Gbaji's Adamant >Claws and immediately gave them to the Priestesses in Dagori Inkarth, even though they >would have made him powerful, because he had no other thoughts other than helping the >troll race. >If there is no place for a Priest then you play politics. If he still resists then you HeroQuest to >prove your worth. If all else fails, you change Temples. When you become a Priest, how >can your High Priest stop you from learning magic? If he manages it, then start up a new >Temple. It is difficult but possible. We are talking High Level here, after the struggle to >become a Priest or Rune Lord. >Who is talking about wandering from Inn to Inn picking a fight? At High Level this is the last >thing you want to do. In my experience, many High Level scenarios involve being told by >your cult what to do, reacting to the actions of personal enemies, HeroQuesting, playing >politics, helping the people and so on. If you want to settle down then you will be tracked >down by enemies. If you forge a kingdom you must fight for it or fight to defend it. If you are >a Wind Lord then you may well be called upon to attack a Broo Temple and clear it out. As >a GM, you may decide never to run such a hack and slash scenario and to try and talk to >the broos and persuade them to stop buggering the local cattle, but I doubt if it will work. >There will always be some need for killing monsters etc. They got tired because they won. >Also, I think you misunderstand - we are not talking about hack and slash here. At High >Levels, hack and slash becomes boring - a 20 minute single combat is not my idea of fun, >nor is slashing my way through a hundred broos. You very quickly get tired of these things. >We are talking about the difficulties of High Level Gaming (or at leats we seem to be at the >moment, it was about Game Balance based on the Multispell rewrite, but this is far more >interesting). >Simon I'm an Norwegian; misunderstanding is what we do best... I realise I'm out of my league. In my 12 years of gaming, we have never had so powerful characters, so I asumed you (the GM) were giving the players too easy carreers, but now i'm beginning to realise that the problem you're addressing is that when the same group have been playing the same dudes for 20 hours a week for 7 years, the characters gets this powerful, even with a tight GM! From what you wrote in this last mail, I realise that all the advices I've come up with have been in use all the time, and that they still have risen to a hero level... Well I have no experience, and no advise. ...When characters reach this level, they're the cause for new campagins, not the players in campagins, but if one still wants to play them....I as a GM sould start developing the Hero Plane (mabye inspired by the umbra dimensions in the White Wolf games?) ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 helps ------------------------------------------ ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 13:11:36 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:11:36 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: The last messages the past day have clarified things to poor mee. I started fearing that people went around playing RPG's just to kill and loot, but now I see that people have mood, feelings and "realism" in their games as well. It's not only me, then : ) A Question: Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? The mood or culture in different RPGs is my major argument for playing Warhammer \ RQ rather than D&D ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 helps ------------------------------------------ ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From DevinC at aol.com Wed Dec 11 16:19:50 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:19:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/10/2002 9:11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > A Question: > > Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? > > The mood or culture in different RPGs is my major argument > for playing Warhammer \ RQ rather than D&D While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of it being harder to die in D&D and the fact that experience points allow advancement and these are gained by killing things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D campaign that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as any RQ campaign. Devin From s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 11 16:04:26 2002 From: s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr (Stephane FRANCOIS) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:04:26 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style In-Reply-To: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: le 11/12/02 7:19, DevinC at aol.com ? DevinC at aol.com a ?crit?: > While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of it being harder > to die in D&D and the fact that experience points allow advancement and these > are gained by killing things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D > campaign that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as any RQ > campaign. AFAIK in 3rd Edition you can get experience by *overcoming* challenging creatures/persons. This could be as simple (and definitive) as killing them, but (for exemple) bribing, bullying or sweet-talking them to go away also qualifies as overcoming the challenge. So the *system* is less "hack-n-slash" prone than it's previous incarnations - but maybe not some players 8-) ! From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Dec 11 21:02:14 2002 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:02:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: <796730.1039600934808.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> I have a feeling that the difference in culture is more to do with the ages and maturity of the players - FREX when I was younger I preferred a wargaming with some RPG elements approach. These days, I'm more into roleplaying with less emphasis on twatting things with big sticks. Cheers, Ash > from: Bjorn Stolen > date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:11:36 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RPG style > > > > > The last messages the past day have clarified things to poor mee. I started fearing that people went around playing RPG's just to kill and loot, but now I see that people have mood, feelings and "realism" in their games as well. It's not only me, then : ) > > > A Question: > > Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? > > The mood or?culture in?different RPGs is my major argument for playing Warhammer \ RQ rather than D&D > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > MSN 8 helps > ------------------------------------------ > ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. > ------------------------------------------ > Get 2 months FREE*. > ------------------------------------------ > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > text/html (html body -- converted) > --- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From nikk at cyber-rights.net Wed Dec 11 22:43:29 2002 From: nikk at cyber-rights.net (nikk at cyber-rights.net) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:43:29 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Level Gaming Message-ID: <200212111143.gBBBhUP2026982@mailserver1.hushmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All this talk of muggin people at high level is all very odd, it just shouldn't be the sort of thing a high level (Gloranthan) RQ character should be doing. To get to the heady heights of "high level" one needs support of your clan, family, cult, friends, nation etc... especially if you want to go wandering around the HeroPlane. Certainly in my group the very idea of mugging people is implausible, they have far better things to be doing. For instance, in my current campaign the characters have three goals. The first is to help their Family in a war against the (evil) pagan Orlanthi north of Otkorion, to which end they've attempted to manipulate the selection of Heads of the Humakti Houses (sort of like huge groups of Humakti banded together), helped build four forts on the border of their lands and the enemy lands, and are planning a Quest into the mythical landscape of the enmy family to kill their Clan Founder (the next game to be played in fact). Their second aim is to sol ve the ever increasing problems in their land of Humakti who want to split from the Henotheistic Church and those who want to stay, and as they plunge the land into a civil war they're trying to figure out who best to handle that. Lastly, in true epic gaming style, they are trying to find a lost Cloud Castle of St. Orlanth plagued by Chaos and have collected prophecies, gifts etc... from those around them in an effort to achieve this (thanks to Simon for that one, I've stolen lots of ideas from his campaign and his webpage including the Cloud Castle). The joy of a high level game is the politics and intrigue, the fact that you've played a low level character up, got to know the social structure of where you play, become involved (Glorantha rewards those who involves them in their society) and no, finally, get a chance to alter things, to effect the bigger picture. It's not about combat, or hack and slash. At some point you have to lop someone's head off, but that is only a small point in the much larger game - who is the guy you just killed, why did you kill him, who's going to be pissed off at you for doing it, what forces in the world will now change because of his death? When faced with problems like this, the idea of mugging people, or killing trollkin becomes a bit pointless. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.2 (Java) Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wl0EARECAB0FAj33JOAWHG5pa2tAY3liZXItcmlnaHRzLm5ldAAKCRCzzg9aP/unzTOf AKCZDQ+/CX6QsIJ6ITwS4Bf5rBAOIwCffVw37Ju+2LbNuI+krxE9Yly/VEM= =CzK2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 11 23:57:51 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 06:57:51 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Reply to SIMON -how to gm with (too) powerful characters References: Message-ID: <3DF7364F.4070908@earthlink.net> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > When characters reach this level, they're the cause for > new campagins, not the players in campagins, but if one > still wants to play them....I as a GM sould start > developing the Hero Plane (mabye inspired by the umbra > dimensions in the White Wolf games?) Or get a copy of Stormbringer (4th edition) or Elric! and let the players start facing demonic weapons and equipment that make inner plane spirits look like bits of fairy lace. Oh, and can't be used by them. Planar travel can be used to strip PCs down to nothing..literally. I've always ruled that PCs moving across planes are automatically "translated" into life forms that can survive there and know the basic language(s). However, the translation can mean they appear normally, with or without original equipment, or as different lifeforms. Sometimes _radically_ different. A two-handed iron sword with Bladesharp 6 isn't of much use to a squid. David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Dec 12 00:00:50 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:00:50 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style References: Message-ID: <3DF73702.1010801@earthlink.net> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > The last messages the past day have clarified things to poor mee. I started fearing that people went around playing RPG's just to kill and loot, but now I see that people have mood, feelings and "realism" in their games as well. It's not only me, then : ) > > > A Question: > > Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? > > The mood or culture in different RPGs is my major argument for playing Warhammer \ RQ rather than D&D Absolutely. That's one of the main reasons I tossed D&D out with the trash when I found RQ. D&D's rules set promotes roll-playing, RQ promotes role-playing. All IMO, of course. David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Dec 12 00:04:12 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:04:12 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style References: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DF737CC.8060703@earthlink.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/10/2002 9:11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > > >>A Question: >> >>Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? >> >>The mood or culture in different RPGs is my major argument >>for playing Warhammer \ RQ rather than D&D > > > While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of it being harder to die in D&D and the fact that experience points allow advancement and these are gained by killing things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D campaign that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as any RQ campaign. True but I prefer a set of rules that makes things easier for the GM, not force him/her to compensate for them. Take any GM who has successfully brought mood/culture/_life_ to a D&D campaign, introduce him to BRPS, and you'll have a happier GM. At least, that's been my experience. David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Dec 12 00:05:18 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 07:05:18 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style References: <796730.1039600934808.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DF7380E.3030003@earthlink.net> aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > I have a feeling that the difference in culture is more to do with the ages and maturity of the players - FREX when I was younger I preferred a wargaming with some RPG elements approach. These days, I'm more into roleplaying with less emphasis on twatting things with big sticks. > > Cheers, > > Ash Exactly, Ash. Exactly. David Smart From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Thu Dec 12 00:23:23 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:23:23 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RPG style Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9799F@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Nikk: >All this talk of muggin people at high level is all very odd, >it just shouldn't be the sort of thing a high level (Gloranthan) >RQ character should be doing. I think that's what everyone is saying - those that have mentioned mugging as a lifestyle have mentioned it as something that powerful characters don't do. Bjorn Stolen: >Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the >mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting >and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc. -than in RQ? Apparently there's a lot more to, say, the Ravenloft campaigns than dungeon bashes - there's some really sophisticated psychological manipulation of the players going on. A friend of mine was saying the other day that he turned a high level Palladin to evil within about two hours of the game starting. I think the Forgotten Realms campaign is a bit more well thought out than the 20th Anniversary Dungeon Bash as well. Oh, and Birthright absolutely kicks ass. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From talmeta at talmeta.net Thu Dec 12 00:24:17 2002 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:24:17 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Presence??? References: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC9748@seamail1.corbis.com> Message-ID: <3DF73C81.8090202@talmeta.net> Michael Christian wrote: > > What is initial presence derived from? I notice that to increase it you take > vows, but what is the base (if there is one)? Does it have any effect on the > manipulation of spells, or solely on how many can be maintained at one time? > Is there something outside of the basic Sandy's Sorcery that I should be > reading that I've missed? Initial Presence is the same as that granted by their 'High Vow", i.e. the sorcerer's INT+POW-20 (or 1, if this results in a zero or less). -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - i take you where you want to go From talmeta at talmeta.net Thu Dec 12 00:48:50 2002 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:48:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style References: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DF74242.3080201@talmeta.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/10/2002 9:11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of it being harder to die in D&D and the fact that experience points allow advancement and these are gained by killing things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D campaign that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as any RQ campaign. And yet, RQ is also the game where a group of Storm Bulls rampaging through a Chaos warren is considered a typical outing. So the argument can be used to cut both ways. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they worried someone will clean them? From kruch7 at cox.net Thu Dec 12 00:57:52 2002 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:57:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style References: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> <3DF74242.3080201@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <004001c2a11d$4ccf4210$6f7ba8c0@kenneith93j41k> I find the style of the game depends a lot upon the players and the Gm, as I have done my share of dungeon hopping in RQ too. snake pip hollow etc, and of course there is the whole golf bag of weapons so that each of them gets a tick to watch out for :) While rules can to a limited extent effect the style of the game I really do feel most of it comes form the players, it may be that rune quest attracts a certain style of players Ken hi tal Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tal Meta" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RPG style > DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/10/2002 9:11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > > While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of it being harder to die in D&D and the fact that experience points allow advancement and these are gained by killing things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D campaign that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as any RQ campaign. > > And yet, RQ is also the game where a group of Storm Bulls rampaging > through a Chaos warren is considered a typical outing. So the argument > can be used to cut both ways. > > -- > talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine > AIM - talmeta > ICQ - 12594453 > Homepage - > > Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they worried someone will > clean them? > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From ameron1 at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Dec 12 01:57:58 2002 From: ameron1 at blueyonder.co.uk (Ian 'Earl' Martin) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:57:58 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low level gaming, confessions of a tight ass GM In-Reply-To: <20021211130612.205324C1DC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <000001c2a125$b2f2be70$fc7ba8c0@main> Hi, I've played a campaign of Adnd that lasted for 11 years, at some points running up to 100 hours of it a week but mostly about 30. I've seen high power gaming and I know what fun it can be. Now RQ has always struck me as a low power game, I played quite a bit in the past but took a break from RPG's to concentrate on my family, now my kids want to play games with me and some of there 'uncles' and the game of choice happened to be RuneQuest. I've had to collect my gaming stuff from scratch and I've had to seek out people who don't mind helping out with advice, but its been worth it. I think new players should always be slowly immersed into a game system and game world, let them learn myths from NPC's don't just hand them a printout of Mythinglinks. Now the title says it all, as a GM for RuneQuest I'm a little tight when it comes to rewards, but I've always admired high level gaming, I just want the players to appreciate every little thing they get, so as they work through mass's of adventures they collect trinkets (the odd matrix, crystal etc) and then when they get to a point politically in there respective cults they can reap the rewards of hard work and loyalty. My group has been playing RuneQuest for about six months now, there are four characters and are all initiates, a Buller, Orlanthi, Humakti and a Yelmalian. None have any divine magic apart from the heroic casting of breath air water and river eyes (spirit magic I think). This stems from them joining the cleansed one cult when they completed river of cradles. They have 1 enc of enchanted iron, forged into a pike tip. They all wear ring mail and one has a plate arm piece. They have a crystal each between 4 and 8 MP and various other small items, gained much the same way as Simon mentioned, slowly picked up from various broo bands and enemies. They have done a lot of adventures, yet are never above the poverty line, rely on the secret wind for a place to sleep and have to scrimp and save to pay for there stable fee's. The group is HEAVILY in debt, the Buller owes 10,000 Lunars to the CA temple for resurrection and the others all owe their respective cults about 2k. Though in truth I would love to help them out as a GM, sometimes I realy do feel mean when they are loaning each other 5 Lunars to get supplies, I know that eventually they will crack something, and make that pot of gold that will afford them some of the things that adventurers of there skills usually have. I'm running the barracks in Pavis (Thanks Simon!) for them, and they are having a VERY rough time of it, I plan on running the whole Pavis campaign for them, possibly even making them into the Grey Company thanks to the Pavis companions. You can bet if this happens then the Armoury will be stripped bare when they get the job. The very idea of letting them have a house in the real city is a leap of faith for me. So, why am I so mean to them? There is a few reasons, firstly I think that they need to earn what they get, even if it's a small trinket. Secondly I know this campaign will go on a long long time, and as such its going to get very high powered, if they have to work hard now for a 4MP crystal then they are not going to expect world shattering godlearner items in a few years from now when they are pushing for runelord. Lastly because I know how inevitable it is that something will slip through, a bad guy in plate or someone with an iron weapon is going to get killed and stripped like locusts, give them there due, they never miss a thing, a battery of detect spells follows every fight, and they are good at making friends.... most of the time. In closing, all long (much time invested) games become high powered, if you stick with them, its inevitable. It has to be as much fun at the bottom as it is at the top. Its great when players look back and laugh about how they lived on rubble pigeon and wore leather armour, while at the same time appreciate the NPC's you create about them for not handing out cash/items/power to them. Monty Haul is a bad way to run a game, but the slow gaining of power, even when it gets to massive amounts is true fun, IMHO. Earl/Ian depending on how well I know you :) From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Dec 12 02:41:39 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:41:39 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style In-Reply-To: <5B7868CD.71303733.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <000901c2a12b$cc21d470$df0a0a0a@dohealth.com> > While D&D does promote this style of gaming more by virtue of > it being harder to die in D&D and the fact that experience > points allow advancement and these are gained by killing > things, any GM worth his salt can easily mould a D&D campaign > that is just as mood, roleplaying, and non-hack and slash as > any RQ campaign. No, the D&D rules do not promote a style of play any more than RuneQuest does. XPs in D&D are awarded by successfully meeting a challenge; "killing things" is just one of the easier way for an inexperienced DM to provide challenges for the characters, it certainly isn't the only way, or even the prefered way! IMHO, comparing RuneQuest to D&D is like comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Red Delicious. Yes, they're both apples, but they have different textures, flavors, etc. D&D uses a class/experience D20 system, RQ uses a skill-based percentil system. But these are rules differences, and rules don't dictate play style. Rich Allen From DevinC at aol.com Thu Dec 12 06:02:37 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:02:37 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: <4E5C0B92.336BF64B.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/11/2002 10:41:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, rico at ricosweb.com writes: > No, the D&D rules do not promote a style of play any more than > RuneQuest does. XPs in D&D are awarded by successfully meeting a > challenge; "killing things" is just one of the easier way for an > inexperienced DM to provide challenges for the characters, > it certainly > isn't the only way, or even the prefered way! First, let me state that I currently only play D&D and not RQ, so I am not an RQ-partisan. However, while 3rd edition gives lip service to the "meet a challenge" mantra, 2nd edition didn't, nor did 1st edition. As well, meet a challenge still often means, to most people, overcoming big bad guys. I note that the Story Bonus has actually been relegated to a "variant" rule in 3rd edition. Say what you want, in RQ a person can never fight a monster in his life and he can still become a powerful priest (you get a POW check every High Holy Day in RQ I believe). How much guidance in there in the D&D handbooks for awarding XP for someone who bargains well? And frankly, this is a necessity for D&D because in D&D advancement essentially occurs on all aspects of a character. When you go up a level, everything improves. Because of that, you cannot really hand out experience points for too many non-combat actions or you end up with a combat monster who has never swung a sword in his life. RQ's skill based XP system allows people to advance in whatever they try, but only in those areas. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Thu Dec 12 06:06:31 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:06:31 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: <30A15B63.2350B848.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/11/2002 8:48:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, talmeta at talmeta.net writes: > And yet, RQ is also the game where a group of Storm Bulls rampaging > through a Chaos warren is considered a typical outing. So > the argument > can be used to cut both ways. While this may be true, RQ lends itself less to hack and slash by two virtues: 1. A more deadly combat system that makes hack and slash more risky, and 2. Means to advance in power directly without hack and slash. Devin From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Dec 12 06:28:13 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:28:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style In-Reply-To: <30A15B63.2350B848.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20021211192813.80107.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > While this may be true, RQ lends itself less to hack > and slash by two virtues: > > 2. Means to advance in power directly without hack > and slash. I have to disagree. The path to power in RQ is based mostly on using skills associated with combat. In D&D you can receive XP for solving a problem and become more powerful, in RQ the only way to improve your combat skills is to fight. Even priests become more powerful through combat much more quickly by virtue of gaining more power gain rolls per session. Leon Kirshtein __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bick10 at attbi.com Thu Dec 12 07:37:37 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:37:37 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG style Message-ID: <20021211204007.181824C1DC@thinbits.com> Rich Allen makes two very good statements. > No, the D&D rules do not promote a style of play any more than > RuneQuest does. and > But these are rules > differences, and rules don't dictate play style. You are right Rich. Rules are rules and they do not dictate play style. The GM and players do. I have run RQ that degenerated into simple dungeon bashing. (well old rubble and prax bashing) I have also ran RQ where it was rare to have a weapons drawing fight. As an example of rules not dictating, I am currently a player in a Tunnels & Trolls campaign where we do a fair amount of role playing. (T&T is the real Roll-playing game.) So we decide what style the game will be, and we can change that from session to session. I do not believe that a skill baised system makes it easier to roll play. What it does is makes the power gamers more focussed on specifics. So I can not back any system as more role playing than any other. From dahak at compuserve.com Thu Dec 12 06:10:33 2002 From: dahak at compuserve.com (dahak at compuserve.com) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:10:33 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #70 - 12 msgs In-Reply-To: <20021211130612.205324C1DC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DF78DA9.19811.26279F@localhost> On 11 Dec 2002 at 5:06, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > Send RQ-Rules mailing list submissions to > rq-rules at crashbox.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > rq-rules-request at crashbox.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of RQ-Rules digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters (Hibbs, Phil) > 2. Re: Silliness in RQ (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) > 3. Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) > 4. Presence??? (Michael Christian) > 5. Re: Presence??? (Leon Kirshtein) > 6. Reply to SIMON -how to gm with (too) powerful characters (Bjorn Stolen) > 7. RPG style (Bjorn Stolen) > 8. Re: RPG style (DevinC at aol.com) > 9. Re: RPG style (Stephane FRANCOIS) > 10. Re: RPG style (aescleal at btinternet.com) > 11. Re: High Level Gaming (nikk at cyber-rights.net) > 12. Re: Reply to SIMON -how to gm with (too) powerful characters (David Smart) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: "Hibbs, Phil" > To: "'rq-rules at crashbox.com'" > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:47:21 -0000 > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Extension, High Level/Hard Characters > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > >Note that Extension extends itself [Or it wouldn't have > >an effect after 15 minutes being a temporal spell]. > > I don't see the need for this statement. Using Extension extends the spell > that it is being cast with, it's as simple as that. To Say that the > Extension would end after 15 minutes and therefore the extending of the > duration would cease is to create a problem that doesn't exist. Extension is Temporal, not instant. So what else is its duration for? Silly way of doing it, Dragon Life is clearer. > >Also given the tendancy of my players to tattoo their enchantments > >into their skin... > > Ooh, that's so dangerous! The only enchantment that's safe to put on > yourself is Strengthening (for Hit Points). Anything more portable, and > you'll be hunted for your skin! You think they don't use limitations? The Immanent Mastery hardcase is the only one who doesn't [He's of the opinion that 30AP all over makes him hard to skin.] Though it did lead to the dying Shamen instructing his apprentice to turn his skin into a medcine jacket. [Security by obscurity has its problems but we didn't realise his condition was useable by him, his apprentices and people who had been trained by people who had used it.] That gave the apprentice a lot of fun trying to make sure that it wasn't still infected with acute soul waste. I think he still suspects the shamen of haunting it. Adam From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu Dec 12 17:22:41 2002 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (Tony Den) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:22:41 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG Style Message-ID: <10742.196.8.104.31.1039674161.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Bjorn Stolen wrote: A Question: Is it only me, or are there more people thinking that the mood \ culture in D&D \AD&D is far more focused on looting and pointless treassurehuntings in caves etc.-than in RQ? *************** I reckon you are right. They should change D&D's name to G&L, Graverobbers and Looting. I see the new version of D&D is more skills oriented which leads to better roll play, but having played the old version basic D&D many years back, there was not much else to do but slope around looking for treasure and fighting monsters. Tony - The anti D&D -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu Dec 12 17:26:46 2002 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (Tony Den) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:26:46 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Saturnalia Message-ID: <12726.196.8.104.31.1039674406.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Ah, I see the festival of Saturnalia is upon us. The December slow down at work has caused the many rules list punters to become most verbose:) (I haven't seen so many digest's arrive in such a short period). Have a good festival and may Janus' seconf face look towards a bright year. (MMIII) -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 03:04:20 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:04:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Joys of Hack and Slash In-Reply-To: <20021211214604.681394C269@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021212160420.56940.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Tal Meta: > And yet, RQ is also the game where a group of Storm Bulls rampaging > through a Chaos warren is considered a typical outing. So the argument > can be used to cut both ways. Ah, that brings back memories ..... Devin: > While this may be true, RQ lends itself less to hack and slash by two virtues: > > 1. A more deadly combat system that makes hack and slash more risky, and > > 2. Means to advance in power directly without hack and slash. At lower levels, this is true, as you have to be careful about dying, especially when Resurrection is not commonly available. However, at medium level (beginning to mid-range Rune Level) hack and slash comes into its element because: 1. Rune Lords have guaranteed Divine Intervention 2. Rune Levels can be pretty much guaranteed cult assistance in being resurrected. 3. Reusable Divine Magic is a godsend (literally) in chopping, bashing and staying alive while being chopped and bashed. 4. Stored Magic Points are at a high because you can make Enchantments all by yourself, with reusable Enchant spells. 5. Cults tend to send people of this level on enemy-bashing missions, especially to enemy temples. At this level, hack and slash is probably at its most fun, at lower levels you are too likely to die, at higher levels and there is no danger from broos or scorpionmen, so it becomes boring or unrealistic. (I may have seemed a bit wimpy in earlier posts, saying how high level scenarios involve more than hack and slash, being more intelligent and sophisticated, but don't believe a word of it. Hack and slash is fun at any level.) Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 13 03:34:22 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:34:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels In-Reply-To: <20021211130609.921124C1FC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021212163422.87806.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn Stolen: > OK, I get it. Well, perhaps an orlanthi would be suspicious to Lunar trinkets, allthough it > -acording to the rules is fully useable? Some Orlanthi will be suspicious of enemy items, but it depends on the item. We took the view that if we used enemy items then we were using their own things against them, so it was a revenge thing. However, we did not use anything that was Chaos Tainted, anything that allowed us to use Chaotic spells, anything that looked as though it was an enemy item (breastplate with Thed's head engraved on it) or anything that would get us killed if we met any Storm Bulls. Also, certain items would be given to our cults or simply destroyed on sight. > I'm an Norwegian; misunderstanding is what we do best... I realise I'm out of my > league. First of all, there is no need to feel "out of my league". We played a style of game that we felt comfortable with and had done so for a long time. It is not to everyone's taste and a lot of people would hate the game we played. I am sure that I, for one, would be out of my depth in a less intense, more emotional game with family ties and so on. Each of us plays in games that we enjoy in the styles that we enjoy. > In my 12 years of gaming, we have never had so powerful characters, so I asumed you > (the GM) were giving the players too easy carreers, but now i'm beginning to realise that the > problem you're addressing is that when the same group have been playing the same dudes for 20 > hours a week for 7 years, the characters gets this powerful, even with a tight GM! I cannot say hand on heart that I am a tight GM, in fact when I played, we normally had a treasure list at the end of a scenario that gave each of us 3 or 4 picks of magic items. As a GM, I reduced that slightly but still gave access to more items than you would expect. The example of 1 magic item per session was simply an example - my players would have lynched me if I had tried that. > From > what you wrote in this last mail, I realise that all the advices I've come up with have been in > use all the time, and that they still have risen to a hero level... But they were very useful pieces of advice and would be helpful for any GM wanting to run a balanced campaign. We tended to use some of them, but our campaign was more high-powered so we could not use them all. > Well I have no experience, and no advise. ... Having no experience has never stopped me from having an opinion :-) > When characters reach this level, they're the cause for new campagins, not the > players in campagins, but if one still wants to play them....I as a GM sould start developing > the Hero Plane (mabye inspired by the umbra dimensions in the White Wolf games?) We tried that, but our players did not like the idea. I experimented with an Elric style model with the many planes, but they hated that idea as it didn't seem very Gloranthan. In the end, we used HeroQuesting to add extra danger and to add more spice to the campaign. We did start a new campaign - the Dorastor and Dragon Pass campaigns were new campaigns using old characters. They were quite difficult to set up and run becuase the players were not used to a formal, time-dependent campaign. > The last messages the past day have clarified things to poor mee. I started fearing that people > went around playing RPG's just to kill and loot, but now I see that people have mood, feelings > and "realism" in their games as well. It's not only me, then : ) Yes, we had mood, feelings and "realism" in our games, as well as killing and looting. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Dec 13 05:29:29 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:29:29 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Power Levels Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979A9@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> I think it's important to mention how subjective a term "high powered" is. I have played in a fairly long-running AD&D campaign. We played characters that were 12th to 16th level, and considered ourselved powerful. Occasionally we would come across a group that played 60th or 100th level AD&D, and they would laugh at us for thinking that we were powerful. Our group contained two Deities' champions, a psionic character that could mind-control nearly anyone, everyone else either had psionic powers or were immune to psionics (we'd fought a war against the Gythianki, so needed to get the power or get immune real bad), and weapons with funky powers. This was in a world where the Gods themselves were 18th - 24th level, all this talk of 60th level characters was un-necessary to us. Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to have 300% skill in order to be a Hero. If every other Hero has those skill levels, then yes it's necessary, but if the game world doesn't get into that particular arms race, then neither do the players. I find it unlikely that anyone (certainly not a PC) would get to Heroic level without easy access to as much Restore Health, Regrow Limb and Resurrection as they need, and I just don't see Glorantha as a world where those magics are commonplace. How many characters would each player have to go through in order for one of them to survive even to Rune level? So many that in my 20+ years of playing RuneQuest, none of my characters have ever made it that far. With this taken into consideration, I don't find reusable Extension overpowered, as the chances of any character making it to the level where they can really start to abuse it (40 points of Shield has been mentioned) is slim. YGMV. But even with the alternate interpretation, Absorbtion 10 with Extension 17 (quite achievable) is about as sick as it needs to be, even if the spells are genuinely one-use. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Dec 13 07:06:26 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:06:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <20021212163422.87806.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b001c2a219$f41b09d0$3410fea9@frkt5> From: "Simon Phipp" > I cannot say hand on heart that I am a tight GM, in fact when I played, we normally had a treasure > list at the end of a scenario that gave each of us 3 or 4 picks of magic items. As a GM, I reduced > that slightly but still gave access to more items than you would expect. The example of 1 magic > item per session was simply an example - my players would have lynched me if I had tried that. In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was cursed (which it was...). From bick10 at attbi.com Fri Dec 13 07:57:09 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:57:09 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <20021212205945.91E364C1DC@thinbits.com> Simon Phipp > The example of 1 magic > > item per session was simply an example - my players would have lynched me > if I had tried that. jellen at ameritech.net > In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they > immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was cursed (which it > was...). Gack... my players would lynch me. I have had steady players playing onece to twice a month for 10 years. But it has been over three campaigns. As for treasure and magic, I put in what I think is approperate. Sometimes none, sometimes plenty. And if the magic is loot, they most likley have to fight against it first. One item? Each to thier own. I like magic and I like the effects. So most mid level NPC's will have at least one item. Half the time it will be useful to them. Sometimes it is even useful to the players. However they did burn the hairless Broo with power storage matrixes tatooed on it's hide. And the tanned human skin with a Farsee on it doesn't get used unless it is an emergancy. The last campaigns had seen two Rune Levels. One Humakt and one Yelmellio. High skills are in the 90's but nothing greater than 115 or 120. (magic does bump it up more) I do allow for contiuned increases over 100+% Experince checks only and they have to roll within the skill mod. While some may have a 20% manip, gaining 1-6% at a time over 100% did not result in rapid growth. It was steady slow growth. Beside, once over 100 they were only improving thier special chances. But this is all our flavor of play. Other flavors may change with each customer. Jim From DevinC at aol.com Fri Dec 13 10:06:12 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:06:12 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <5A8BE1B8.4DC1D542.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/12/2002 3:57:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at attbi.com writes: > > In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they > > immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was > cursed (which it > > was...). Which is fine...but begs the question what happened to all those people in your campaign (including NPCs) with access to spells that create matrices and spirit bindings et al? I am at the tail end (last 3 sessions) of an 8 year 2nd edition AD&D campaign. The PCs are now all 12th-15th level. Quite high and powerful. They are in the process of either saving or destroying the world. In my D&D world, magic is indeed rare. But only permanent magic. IMO the problem with magical accretion by high level parties comes from the fact that permanent magic items never go away. They always accumulate. This is, in fact, a problem I have with the 3rd edition D&D magic creation rules. It is too easy to create permanent magic items. A 12th level wizard can essentially churn out 5-10 Sword +3 per year under 3rd edition. Now assume there are at least 5 such wizards per large nation and 10 nations in the continent and you get 250-500 Swords +3 per year. Over the course of a 1000 year history, you can do the math. A glut of +3 swords everywhere! The solution is one use or small use magic items. In my AD&D world, potions, scrolls, and wands (which can never be recharged) are fairly common. The party has tons of these. But they are used, discarded, and new ones come about. But permanent items? There is a single suit of +3 chainmail amongst the entire PCs. A +2 weapon is regarded as a precious possession and a +3 weapon is regarded by the party as an artifact. Most permanent miscellaneous magic items are basically one of a kind relics in my world. It works out quite well IMO. The players get plenty of magical toys to play with, but they never accrete to the point of ridiculousness because they are always being used up and thrown away. I as the GM can feel comfortable giving such items to my monsters, because the monster will use some of the charges in battle and the party will quickly use the remainder. In addition, when I do feel like giving a permanent magic item, the party is immensely grateful and pleased and one does experience item inflation where some high level parties scoff at +2 weapons and literally throw them away if they are anything under +4 or +5. Devin From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Dec 13 21:47:57 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:47:57 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979AE@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >what happened to all those people in your campaign (including NPCs) >with access to spells that create matrices and spirit bindings et al? There are many variables that affect the quantity of matrices in a game. Do you allow access to the Spirit spell versions? If not, you have to sacrifice for the Divine version, so Initiates have to spend an extra point of POW per matrix. Priests and Lords will be making them for the cult (90% tithing etc.) so most will be conditioned. Shamans can teach magic to anyone, but I rule that anyone that learns a spell from a spirit also learns it's true name, so can summon and bind it. This makes teaching your culture's magic to outsiders very dangerous, as you can lose access to it permanently. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Dec 13 22:02:35 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:02:35 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979AF@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Another technique for discouraging maxing out on magic is to impose experience penalties for enhancements. If someone has Bladesharp 4 up, they have +20% to hit, but don't get an experience tick unless they roll under their skill by 20%, so 50% skill becomes 70% to hit but 30% chance of an experience tick. The drawback is that it involves much maths. For example if someone has Strength 4 cast on them, +12 STR = +6 to hit, -6% for experience, so 50% skill becomes 56% to hit, 44% chance of experience, etc. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From bick10 at attbi.com Sat Dec 14 01:14:37 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:14:37 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <20021213141723.170404C1DC@thinbits.com> Phil Hibbs. > Another technique for discouraging maxing out on magic is to impose > experience penalties for enhancements. > The drawback is that it involves much maths. For example if > someone has Strength 4 cast on them, +12 STR = +6 to hit, -6% for > experience, so 50% skill becomes 56% to hit, 44% chance of experience, etc. I love it. I absoulty love it. But I see a problem with this formula. What do you do when they used the skill without magic once and then use it with magic latter? Jim Bickmeyer From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 14 04:13:39 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:13:39 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979B8@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Jim Bickmeyer: >What do you do when they used the skill without magic once >and then use it with magic latter? The roll is to get the tick, not the roll to gain experience. "I hit, but I didn't get a tick". Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Dec 14 04:14:34 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:14:34 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:02:35 -0000 "Hibbs, Phil" wrote: > Another technique for discouraging maxing out > on magic is to impose > experience penalties for enhancements. If > someone has Bladesharp 4 up, they > have +20% to hit, but don't get an experience > tick unless they roll under > their skill by 20%, so 50% skill becomes 70% to > hit but 30% chance of an > experience tick. Oh, I _like_ this. Thank you for posting it! David Smart From bick10 at attbi.com Sat Dec 14 05:16:57 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:16:57 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: <20021213181940.D0B324C1DC@thinbits.com> > Jim Bickmeyer: > >What do you do when they used the skill without magic once > >and then use it with magic latter? > Phil Hibbs > The roll is to get the tick, not the roll to gain experience. "I hit, but I > didn't get a tick". Oh HO! I get it. That is a twist from the usual, but very interesting. Do you roll once after the event for all successes? Or once for each success during/after the event? I have a home rule to reward players that do not Tick Hunt. (and I believe I bowwored it from someone on the list.) I give an increased chance to succed in experince checks for every special and critical success for that skill achived during the adventure. This is added to the die roll when making the experince checks. Only once on a very long adventure did a player have more than 10% increase to his chance. But they do like that plus 1% or 2% they might earn from short adventures. Jim Bickmeyer From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Sat Dec 14 12:30:08 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:30:08 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <20021213181940.D0B324C1DC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DFA89A0.7FDA2616@libra.seed.net.tw> Yeah, my players complained about the fact that you could use a skill all week (10 Track rolls to find the thing), use another skill once (then one to hit it) and they both use the same formula for increase. The skill you use more should be increasing faster. So we played that you if you could accumulate five hash marks, you would get +5% to your chance for your increase roll. I use d20 instead of d% for ease of rolling, so it had to be in 5% increments, but you could easily say +1% for each extra Tick, to a maximum of x. Jeremy bick10 at attbi.com wrote: > > Jim Bickmeyer: > > >What do you do when they used the skill without magic once > > >and then use it with magic latter? > > > Phil Hibbs > > The roll is to get the tick, not the roll to gain experience. "I hit, but I > > didn't get a tick". > > Oh HO! I get it. That is a twist from the usual, but very interesting. Do > you roll once after the event for all successes? Or once for each success > during/after the event? > > I have a home rule to reward players that do not Tick Hunt. (and I believe I > bowwored it from someone on the list.) I give an increased chance to succed in > experince checks for every special and critical success for that skill achived > during the adventure. This is added to the die roll when making the experince > checks. Only once on a very long adventure did a player have more than 10% > increase to his chance. But they do like that plus 1% or 2% they might earn > from short adventures. > > Jim Bickmeyer > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Dec 14 12:46:37 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:46:37 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels In-Reply-To: <3DFA89A0.7FDA2616@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: <000001c2a312$a4b417c0$0a01a8c0@MAIN> > So we played that you if you could accumulate five hash > marks, you would get +5% to your chance for your increase roll. So you had a house rule that allowed you to earn more than one tick at a time? Rich Allen From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Sat Dec 14 12:54:56 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 09:54:56 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <000001c2a312$a4b417c0$0a01a8c0@MAIN> Message-ID: <3DFA8F70.958339DC@libra.seed.net.tw> Rich Allen wrote: > > So we played that you if you could accumulate five hash > > marks, you would get +5% to your chance for your increase roll. > > So you had a house rule that allowed you to earn more than one tick at a > time? No, each time you used the skill. Generally in a game, the Sorcerer will use one spell several times, the Thief-type will do lots of Spots and Searches, and everyone will use their favorite weapon several times. Since increase rolls are after some time off, we allowed an accumulation of checks, one for each successful use of the skill. You hit three times in that fight with your Mace, so you have three Ticks when we get to see if you increase: +2%. Jeremy From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Dec 14 13:12:18 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:12:18 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels In-Reply-To: <3DFA8F70.958339DC@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: <000101c2a316$3af22170$0a01a8c0@MAIN> Since > increase rolls are after some time off, we allowed an accumulation of > checks, one for each successful use of the skill. You hit > three times in that fight with your Mace, so you have three Ticks when we > get to see if you increase: +2%. Yikes! In a typical session, that would have gained our characters between 40 and 60 ticks! In our game, characters usually got one or two ticks per session, and most of the time we went several sessions before having an oppurtunity to make skill increase checks. How fast did your characters advance? Rich Allen From bick10 at attbi.com Sat Dec 14 16:28:22 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:28:22 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <000001c2a312$a4b417c0$0a01a8c0@MAIN> <3DFA8F70.958339DC@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: <002001c2a331$aaa10700$6401a8c0@attbi.com> There is also Steve Perrin's method too. The players get a tick for each success (and maybe fumble). At the end of the adventure the GM tells the player how many tries they can have. For each tick they can roll for experience. But not more than the GM awarded checks. They can go on any skill with a tick and some or all can be used to on one skill. Once the skill is successfully raised by an experience check, no more awarded checks can be used. Have to go on to other skill. I have also used this. Some liked it. Some were luke warm. Jim Bickmeyer From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Sat Dec 14 13:23:53 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 10:23:53 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <000101c2a316$3af22170$0a01a8c0@MAIN> Message-ID: <3DFA9639.4FF1A3D7@libra.seed.net.tw> Not very, since, as I said, we gave a max of +5%. It was mostly a small benefit for the skills that got used the most. Jeremy Rich Allen wrote: > Since > > increase rolls are after some time off, we allowed an accumulation of > > checks, one for each successful use of the skill. You hit > > three times in that fight with your Mace, so you have three Ticks when > we > > get to see if you increase: +2%. > > Yikes! In a typical session, that would have gained our characters > between 40 and 60 ticks! In our game, characters usually got one or two > ticks per session, and most of the time we went several sessions before > having an oppurtunity to make skill increase checks. How fast did your > characters advance? > > Rich Allen > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Dec 14 13:47:26 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:47:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels References: <5A8BE1B8.4DC1D542.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <00a101c2a31b$22d082d0$3410fea9@frkt5> From: > In a message dated 12/12/2002 3:57:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at attbi.com writes: > > > > In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they > > > immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was > > cursed (which it > > > was...). > > Which is fine...but begs the question what happened to all those people in your campaign (including NPCs) with access to spells that create matrices and spirit bindings et al? The spell-casting NPCs are all bad guys & mostly way too powerful for the party. The campaign takes place in the Young Kingdoms, but I use customized RQ3 rules. I've been thinking of starting up a Middle Earth campaign, where magic wouldn't be quite as ubiquitous as in the YK.... --J From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Dec 14 14:05:24 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:05:24 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels In-Reply-To: <3DFA9639.4FF1A3D7@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: <000201c2a31d$a6244890$0a01a8c0@MAIN> > Not very, since, as I said, we gave a max of +5%. It was > mostly a small > benefit for the skills that got used the most. Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you meant a max of 5% per successful tick check!! Rich Allen From diadochi at bigfoot.com Sat Dec 14 17:03:23 2002 From: diadochi at bigfoot.com (David Ford) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 06:03:23 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Training Strength and Constitution (and Size) In-Reply-To: <20021211130609.921124C1FC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021214055636.009f7e80@pop.ntlworld.com> Hi, A while back there was some talk about the limits of Strength and Constitution training up to the STR, CON, SIZ limit. My own research has shown that in real life Strength can be doubled or even tripled by extreme training, but Constitution (as in endurance) can only be raised about 30%. In my campaign I ignore the STR, CON, SIZ limit and allow STR to be trained up to double its starting value (i.e. +100%), and CON up to 1.5 its the starting value (i.e. +50%). IMHO these are reasonable levels. If anyone passionately wanted to raise SIZ I might allow a small increase but otherwise haven't worried about SIZ training. David --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- From shannonwright_1966 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 15 15:52:05 2002 From: shannonwright_1966 at yahoo.com (shannon wright) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:52:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RPG Style Message-ID: <20021215045205.50344.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, usually I do not comment, but I feel that since AD&D is taking such a bashing that I needed to respond in some manner. What it mainly boils down to is " Any system is what you make it" Now, some systems make it harder to run a good, effective, Role-playing style of game , say 'Chivalry & Sorcery ' which sucked so bad. To other systems that made Role playing very easy , like C.o.C. , RQ , Bushido , etc..... Now granted, D&D and AD&D have changed a lot over the last 25 years , but it still comes down to how a DM and/ or players want to play the game. A DM can set up a game to reward good role playing, but if his players want to roll dice and kill everything, then they will . He also has to reason if these players are what he is looking for and/or if he can change them into the PC's he needs. AD&D has gotten better slowly over time. There was 1st edition, then the survival guides and extra skills , then 2nd edition (which IMHO was a set back ) and now 3rd edition which seems to look more like RQ everyday. Any system can be good or bad . It is all in the mind's of it's DM and PC's . Sloth Old School RPG'r - represent ' yo :-) Never in the course of Human conflict has so much been owed by so many, to so few. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From esoteric at crashbox.com Mon Dec 16 08:29:14 2002 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 13:29:14 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] mundane encounters against Rune-level characters Message-ID: Some time ago (I am just catching up on pst-due reading), there was inquiry about mundane encounters against Rune-level characters, how to challenge the players. Typical response by GM's include: raising the creatures and NPC's to higher levels; use of non-corporeal attacks (e.g. wraiths, elementals); tricky exceptional tactics As GM, I dislike retrofitting the creatures and NPC's. That is a lot of effort to redesign encounters already written. As GM, I dislike needing to rely upon tricky exceptional tactics (e.g., spitting spiders, throwing hot sand at armored characters) more than once. After that, the contrivance becomes a boring. I do like to use many varieties of non-corporeal attacks. My players appreciate the combat action, whether physical or spiritual, and frequently fear the wrath of the gods which allow such entities to be bound into the service even low-level NPC's. However, perhaps even the best is simply to severely outnumber the player characters. The PC's have only a limited number of opponents against whom they can defend, so some of the attackers will _not_ be parried or dodged. Multiple attacker need not roll standard attacks. Indeed, with multiple attackers they should use the options for attacking a specific hit location [albeit at the reduced chances according to the rules]. RQ3 requires such attackers to wait until the end of the round and roll under half-normal chances, so be sure to have at more than twice the usual quantity of foes to attempt this. Multiple attackers can grapple, using their STRength and DEXterity which is on par with the PC's in general, and better than the PC's when acting in concert. Some of the grapplers will suffer weapon damage, but the player character cannot attack all of them; some will be allowed an undefended grapple attack. Multiple attackers can strike to disarm. Truesword is useless if removed from the character's hand. House rules can include some of the best of the defunct RQ4 rules. Those rules allow for choosing to offer no defense while attacking "all-out" for damage which is 150% normal damage. This 150% damage can be just what is needed to get past that iron armor. Steve Perrin's rules include similar options for sacrificing defense to improve offense. Sacrificing defense is a worthwhile risk for coordinated multiple attackers, since only a small portion of them will suffer when the player-character can only attack one or two of them. Meanwhile _all_ of them get their enhanced attack form. If the player characters routinely get first attacks, then the GM should simply add "throw away" foes to occupy the PC's until the remaining slower adversaries accomplish their first attacks. More later, after catching up on reading.... -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 16 09:44:49 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 22:44:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Experience In-Reply-To: <20021213182102.8CE614C265@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021215224449.27516.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> > Simon Phipp > > The example of 1 magic > > > item per session was simply an example - my players would have lynched me > > if I had tried that. J: > jellen at ameritech.net > > In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they > > immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was cursed (which it > > was...). In a magic-poor world this may be reasonable, but in a magic-rich world like Glorantha with a magic-rich system like RQ which has rules for the creation of magic items and rules (Treasure Factors) for the rolling up of magic items, it seems a bit hard. However if that's how you want to run your campaign then fair enough, but it wouldn't be for me. I see you run in the Young Kingdoms, so that is a magic-poor setting, so such a rule might be reasonable, but not in Glorantha, in my opinion. As a matter of interest, do your PCs make their own magic items? Jim: > Gack... my players would lynch me. I have had steady players playing onece to > twice a month for 10 years. But it has been over three campaigns. As for > treasure and magic, I put in what I think is approperate. Sometimes none, > sometimes plenty. And if the magic is loot, they most likley have to fight > against it first. Sounds roughly like the number of items in my campaign. > The last campaigns had seen two Rune Levels. One Humakt and one Yelmellio. > High skills are in the 90's but nothing greater than 115 or 120. (magic does > bump it up more) I do allow for contiuned increases over 100+% Experince > checks only and they have to roll within the skill mod. While some may have a > 20% manip, gaining 1-6% at a time over 100% did not result in rapid growth. It > was steady slow growth. Beside, once over 100 they were only improving thier > special chances. We used RQ2 for a long while and had 180%-200% as an average best skill, with a few PCs with higher best skills (the low-rolling Derak had about 290% Maul and Sling Attack, Raven had about 250% Bastard Sword Attack, but she had 24 INT). When we used RQ3, some PCs had Manipulation Bonus of 50%+ so experience rolls were easy to make, so we restricted them to INT rather than Skill Bonus as a minimum. It didn't help much, though. In the end, we resorted to a completely different system for experience where each skil had a Difficulty Level (DL) and I gave out a number of Experience Points (EPs) at the end of a session. The players could allocate 1 EP per DL to increase a skill without rolling for experience gain. For example, Climb had a DL of 1, Maul Attack had a DL of 2, so if Maul Attack had been ticked, then it would cost 2EPs to increase it by experience. This had several advantages: 1. It stopped the "skill chase" where everyone tried to tick as many skills as they could in order to gain experience. 2. PCs could concentrate on certain skills and could become specialists rather than the usual RQ generalist. 3. Players could stop complaining that they never made experience rolls and "so-and-so" always made them, because it took the random element out of experience. Phil Hibbs: > Another technique for discouraging maxing out on magic is to impose > experience penalties for enhancements. If someone has Bladesharp 4 up, they > have +20% to hit, but don't get an experience tick unless they roll under > their skill by 20%, so 50% skill becomes 70% to hit but 30% chance of an > experience tick. The drawback is that it involves much maths. For example if > someone has Strength 4 cast on them, +12 STR = +6 to hit, -6% for > experience, so 50% skill becomes 56% to hit, 44% chance of experience, etc. I actually don't like this, not because it is unreasonable (because it isn't) but because it over-complicates an already complex system. I spent 8 years playing RQ2 with a rulebook in one hand and a calculator in the other and then spent 5 years as a GM trying to make the game simpler, freer and easier to play, so this goes against that in a big way. However, assuming the rule is OK (which it is whether I like it or not), we still have problems or things that are unclear: Do you use the same rules for increases through terrain or positional features? What about Chaos Features? What about Magical Negatives, are they included as well? What about combinations of all the above? Are you only ruling against magical adds or trying to make the rule consistent? For instance, let's assume I have an attack of 60% and lok at a few scenarios. 1. I attack a character who has fallen over and I have height advantage, so my attack chance is 60 + 20 + 10 = 90%. If I roll 70 do I get a tick? 2. I use Bladesharp 4 and attack a character with Shimmer 6, so my attack chance is 60 + 20 - 30 = 50. I roll 55, which is a hit but only because of my Bladesharp spell. Do I get a tick? (My roll is magically assisted but beneath my base skill). 3. I attack a broo with a Chaos Feature of "opponents get + 20% to hit", so my chance is 60 + 20 = 80%, I roll a 70, do I get a tick? 4. I am demoralised, but am using Bladesharp 4 against someone who is using Shimmer 6 and on the floor. My attack chance is 60 / 2 + 20 + 20 - 30 = 40. I roll 30, so I have only succeeded because of the Bladesharp, do I get a tick? 5. I am Fanatical but someone has cast Dullblade 4 on my sword, I attack a foe on the ground with Shimmer 4, my chance is 60 x 1.5 - 20 + 20 - 20 = 70. I roll 55, beneath my base skill but I have only succeeded because I am Fatanical, do I get a tick? I saw someone who had ruled that you only get a tick if you rolled skill - skill bonus, so if I had 60% attack and had a Manipulation Bonus of 7 then I needed to roll 53 or below to get a tick. This is similar in spirit to your rule and I thought it over-complicated. It seems that I would be using a calculator not only to work out my attack chance but also to work out whether I get a tick or not. Doesn't sound like fun to me. As a matter of interest, why would you introduce such a rule? Is it to slow down the advance of skills to keep a campaign artificially low-level? Is it a way to dissuade PCs from using magic in RQ (a purpose-built magical system where everyone has magic)? If so, why allow magic in the first place? I am very confused. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From jellen at ameritech.net Mon Dec 16 13:19:26 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 20:19:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Experience References: <20021215224449.27516.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <023601c2a4a9$8ea80700$3410fea9@frkt5> From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Experience > J: > > jellen at ameritech.net > > > In the past 14 years, my players have found exactly one magic item, and they > > > immediately sold it because they were afraid that it was cursed (which it > > > was...). > > In a magic-poor world this may be reasonable, but in a magic-rich world like Glorantha with a > magic-rich system like RQ which has rules for the creation of magic items and rules (Treasure > Factors) for the rolling up of magic items, it seems a bit hard. However if that's how you want to > run your campaign then fair enough, but it wouldn't be for me. I see you run in the Young > Kingdoms, so that is a magic-poor setting, so such a rule might be reasonable, but not in > Glorantha, in my opinion. > > As a matter of interest, do your PCs make their own magic items? No, they don't. In the YK, magic = evil, and the players are, to paraphrase Judge Dredd, the law. From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Dec 16 18:00:10 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:00:10 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Experience References: <20021215224449.27516.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006901c2a4d0$d7de2d10$6401a8c0@wizard> I may be remembering a rule from someone else's game, but I figure that being Fanatical means you don't get to make tick rolls, since you are essentially berserk. You really aren't remembering what you are doing. But I could be wrong. Though I think I will put the rule into SPQR. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html >snip< > 5. I am Fanatical but someone has cast Dullblade 4 on my sword, I attack a foe on the ground with > Shimmer 4, my chance is 60 x 1.5 - 20 + 20 - 20 = 70. I roll 55, beneath my base skill but I have > only succeeded because I am Fatanical, do I get a tick? > > Simon > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Dec 16 20:32:21 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:32:21 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: >>Jim Bickmeyer: >>What do you do when they used the skill without magic once >>and then use it with magic latter? > >The roll is to get the tick, not the roll to gain experience. "I hit, but I >didn't get a tick". > >Phil Hibbs. Being of a lazy disposition, when I was running lots of RQ and BRP derived games, I used an accumulation sytem: players kept a separate sheet and got a point for every successful, stressful use of a skill. Five points were awarded for specials and ten points for criticals. When they had accumulated points equal to their current skill, they got to make a standard RQ experience / skill improvement check in that skill. Certain Knowledge skills were excluded and although I toyed with expanding the system to cover POW, I never did. Training and such remained an option for other skills. I liked it because it DID make active experiecne relate to skill increases, and it did give the players a sense of gain from skill use without the need for cheating or rules nit-picking (I had NEVER heard of tick-hunters until I found various RQ discussions on the internet...). It does however best suit the low to middle end of the spectrum in terms of style of play... Nick Middleton From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Mon Dec 16 22:55:02 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 06:55:02 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: In a message dated 12/16/2002 4:33:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: << I used an accumulation sytem: players kept a separate sheet and got a point for every successful, stressful use of a skill. Five points were awarded for specials and ten points for criticals. When they had accumulated points equal to their current skill, they got to make a standard RQ experience / skill improvement check in that skill. >> I find this interesting as an alternative. I have experienced situations as well where a player will use his sword once just to get the "tick" then switch weapons to get another. Very unrealistic from a GMs prospective. Creative players will still try to justify it in some way but I hate it just as well. You don't want to penalize anyone for there are legitimate reasons to switch in combat, melee to ranged for example, so it can be tough. One thing I was wondering though, if the players get to track the points as the skill is used, each time it is used, do you find combat skills increasing faster than non combat skills? For instance you may make one lock pick attempt in an encounter but many weapon attempts in the next encounter. Anyway, I do like your idea and as it compares to some ideas I was working on as well I may mess around with it. Thanks, Rod From DevinC at aol.com Tue Dec 17 06:16:40 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:16:40 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] mundane encounters against Rune-level characters Message-ID: <25DF30CA.39DCABEC.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/2002 4:29:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, esoteric at crashbox.com writes: > However, perhaps even the best is simply to severely outnumber the > player characters. The PC's have only a limited number of opponents > against whom they can defend, so some of the attackers will > _not_ be > parried or dodged. While this may be the case, the problem is, especially with a system like RQ where everyone has access to healing magicks, such a combat can take hours and hours and dominate an entire gaming session. Throw such things too often and the game gets tedious IMO. This is actually one reason I switched to D&D. Combat is much quicker so that a session can have both combat and time for role playing. Devin From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Tue Dec 17 22:50:50 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:50:50 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Tue Dec 17 23:00:28 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:00:28 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Whats the difference? Message-ID: <1bf.181b6cc7.2b306bdc@cs.com> I was wondering what the difference between the AH 3rd ed of RQ and the GW (UK) version is? I have seen that the GW version has both a Basic and Advanced book as well as a Monster book. Can someone compare what is in the GW version with the AH version for me? Thanks, Rod From paulstolar at sprintmail.com Wed Dec 18 00:10:54 2002 From: paulstolar at sprintmail.com (Paul Stolar) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:10:54 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Houston -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of GameMaster1978 at cs.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:51 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Dec 18 00:47:00 2002 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:47:00 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <3DFF2AD4.7090700@talmeta.net> GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. Browns Mills, NJ -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer? -- Steven Wright From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Dec 18 00:48:44 2002 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:48:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Whats the difference? References: <1bf.181b6cc7.2b306bdc@cs.com> Message-ID: <3DFF2B3C.4000700@talmeta.net> GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: > I was wondering what the difference between the AH 3rd ed of RQ and the GW > (UK) version is? > > I have seen that the GW version has both a Basic and Advanced book as well as > a Monster book. The Basic/Advanced books replicate all the info in the deluxe box/book, except some of the monsters. The Monsters book contains all of the stuff from the deluze book/box, as well as several of the encounters from the Monster Coliseum box. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer? -- Steven Wright From alanchambers at attbi.com Wed Dec 18 00:55:47 2002 From: alanchambers at attbi.com (Alan Chambers) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:55:47 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <001c01c2a5d4$008a2b20$84446218@se1.client2.attbi.com> Alan Chambers Lawrenceville Ga USA ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:50 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. > > It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > when we could be playing RQ face to face. > > Rodney Leary > Rochester > New Hampshire > USA > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Dec 18 00:57:20 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:57:20 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Whats the difference? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979C0@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> The GW edition has new colour illustrations, and has the errata applied to the text (in bold type). The rules are divided into Basic and Advanced, I'm not sure if it's the same cut as the AH Basic RQ box. There is no Glorantha material in the GW books. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Dec 18 00:58:30 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:58:30 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979C1@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Birmingham, UK. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Dec 18 00:59:35 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:59:35 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <002101c2a5d4$88212ac0$8502600a@otvfrap043> > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. Cergy, France (30 km NW of Paris) G. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 01:05:51 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:05:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979C1@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <20021217140551.72496.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> Mahwah, New Jersey Leon Kirshtein __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From bick10 at attbi.com Wed Dec 18 01:14:39 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:14:39 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <20021217141757.32E624C261@thinbits.com> > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. Muskegon, MI - USA From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Dec 18 01:17:01 2002 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:17:01 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <3DFF31DD.5070505@padrigu.gu.se> Peter Johansson G?teborg Sweden This is actually my first posting, but I've been lurking for 3 years or so. :-) /PJ GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: >Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where >we all live. > >It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other >when we could be playing RQ face to face. > >Rodney Leary >Rochester >New Hampshire >USA >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Wed Dec 18 01:34:52 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:34:52 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: In a message dated 12/17/2002 9:20:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: << Peter Johansson G?teborg Sweden This is actually my first posting, but I've been lurking for 3 years or so. :-) >> Kewl, I've only been here a couple weeks or so and I already found a hidden person. Spot Skill 98% Rod From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 18 01:13:12 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:13:12 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <03e701c2a5d6$6f21ddb0$3410fea9@frkt5> Evanston, IL USA ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:50 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Wed Dec 18 01:42:51 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:42:51 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D96CC@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Etiolles, 30 km south of Paris France Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : GameMaster1978 at cs.com [mailto:GameMaster1978 at cs.com] Envoy? : mardi 17 d?cembre 2002 12:51 ? : rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet : [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Dec 18 01:11:33 2002 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:11:33 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <3DFF3095.3070304@padrigu.gu.se> Peter Johansson G?teborg Sweden This is actually my first posting, but I've been lurking for 3 years or so. :-) /P GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: >Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where >we all live. > >It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other >when we could be playing RQ face to face. > >Rodney Leary >Rochester >New Hampshire >USA >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- Peter Johansson Institutionen f?r freds- och utvecklingsforskning/Department of Peace and Development Research G?teborgs universitet/G?teborg University Postal address: Box 700, SE-405 30 G?teborg, SWEDEN tel: +46-31-773 1335 fax: + 46-31-773 4910 From Alain.RAMEAU at totalfinaelf.com Wed Dec 18 02:25:48 2002 From: Alain.RAMEAU at totalfinaelf.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:25:48 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Where_does_everyone_live=3F?= Message-ID: I live in Paris, France Alain. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From slaanesh at szafir.univ.szczecin.pl Wed Dec 18 02:44:26 2002 From: slaanesh at szafir.univ.szczecin.pl (Slaanesh) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:44:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D96CC@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Message-ID: > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. Szczecin, Poland. :) From jgould at io.com Wed Dec 18 03:05:33 2002 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:05:33 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021217100533.01247eb0@mail.io.com> At 06:50 AM 12/17/2002 EST, you wrote: >Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where >we all live. Austin, Texas Technically, USA :) -- "Dammit" Jim Gould jgould at io.com http://www.io.com/~jgould http://www.britanniamanor.org You just say that because you have untreated Clue Deficit Disorder. -- Chris Leithiser From esoteric at crashbox.com Wed Dec 18 03:20:53 2002 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:20:53 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Re: [RQ-Rules] : Where does everyone live? I live in Portland, Oregon, USA -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From kruch7 at cox.net Wed Dec 18 04:01:41 2002 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:01:41 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <002701c2a5ed$f8d647a0$6f7ba8c0@kenneith93j41k> Kenneth Virginia beach Virginia USA Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:50 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. > > It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > when we could be playing RQ face to face. > > Rodney Leary > Rochester > New Hampshire > USA > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From michaelch at corbis.com Wed Dec 18 04:21:20 2002 From: michaelch at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:21:20 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC978D@seamail1.corbis.com> Seattle -----Original Message----- From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com [mailto:GameMaster1978 at cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 3:51 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From trentfs at ix.netcom.com Wed Dec 18 04:24:00 2002 From: trentfs at ix.netcom.com (trentfs at ix.netcom.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:24:00 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: Los Angeles (Hollywood), California From gloomshark at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 04:24:38 2002 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:24:38 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: Dana Myers Ft. George G. Meade Maryland USA _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk Wed Dec 18 04:32:54 2002 From: paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk (paul) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:32:54 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: where do we live? References: <20021217151323.F1F6F4C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DFF5FC5.F4E925D6@get2net.dk> > Dowtrown central copenhagen Denmark "I can almost see G?teborg from here , not" Ciao Paul sommer > rules at crashbox.com > > Peter Johansson > G?teborg > Sweden > > This is actually my first posting, but I've been lurking for 3 years or > so. :-) > > /P > > GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: > > >Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > >we all live. > > > >It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > >when we could be playing RQ face to face. > From paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk Wed Dec 18 04:40:39 2002 From: paul.s.sommer at get2net.dk (paul) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:40:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:PDF files..... References: <20021217151323.F1F6F4C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DFF6197.EBB54265@get2net.dk> I just making some of my files available on PDF adobe acrobat format ...including a small snappy ...fill in on screen RQ3 character sheet , a Questionaire for the players so the GM can get feedback , and some basic traits sheets for the PC s so they recall where they stand .etc shout if you need some ......PDF ? why? because WYSIWYG , on any machine ,any place any time. Any other ideas or info sheets needed ? Ciao paul From MurfNMurf at aol.com Wed Dec 18 04:44:27 2002 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:44:27 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: In a message dated 12/17/2002 5:55:08 AM Central Standard Time, Rodney wonders: > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > > we all live. > > It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > when we could be playing RQ face to face. > Hi, Well, I was a resident of Orange, CA up until about 11 years ago (and never knew, until; I'd moved all the way here to Jackson, Mississippi, that Steve Perrin is, what I'd consider a 'local'. Drat! :) -Ken- --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From dahak at compuserve.com Wed Dec 18 05:09:20 2002 From: dahak at compuserve.com (dahak at compuserve.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:09:20 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <20021217151323.F1F6F4C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DFF6850.3582.32B9DD@localhost> > From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:50:50 EST > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? > Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. Reading, Berks, UK. Adam From slposey at concentric.net Wed Dec 18 05:23:57 2002 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:23:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <3DFF6BBD.5020901@concentric.net> GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where > we all live. > > It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > when we could be playing RQ face to face. > > Rodney Leary > Rochester > New Hampshire > USA > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules Stephen Posey Colorado Springs, Colorado USA From bick10 at attbi.com Wed Dec 18 05:35:32 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:35:32 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <20021217183852.8AEA74C261@thinbits.com> Well Rodney, You started this so are you keeping a 'virtual' push-pin map of were we all are? Jim Bickmeyer From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Dec 18 06:17:05 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:17:05 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: <20021217183852.8AEA74C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <00d701c2a600$e4dcc680$4dfda83f@wizard> Actually, I've seen that there are three French members, all within what Southern California folk would consider driving distance. Have you three ever gamed together? How about the two New Jersey guys? Portland and Seattle? And Ken, don't feel so bad. Up until 7 years ago I was in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I moved to Orange Country well after you moved away. And yes, I live in Orange County, California. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? > Well Rodney, You started this so are you keeping a 'virtual' push-pin map of > were we all are? > > Jim Bickmeyer > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aragan at ucla.edu Wed Dec 18 06:30:18 2002 From: aragan at ucla.edu (Anthony Ragan) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:30:18 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021217112941.4015.ARAGAN@ucla.edu> While scanning the heavens for a sign, GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote on Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:50:50 EST: > It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other > when we could be playing RQ face to face. Los Angeles, CA ************** --Anthony Ragan aragan at ucla.edu "I think that the film 'Clueless' was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness." --Alicia Silverstone From Tony.Williamson at aucklandcity.govt.nz Wed Dec 18 06:52:15 2002 From: Tony.Williamson at aucklandcity.govt.nz (Williamson, Tony) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:52:15 +1300 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <02Dec18.085713nzdt.119121@inetgate.akcity.govt.nz> -----Original Message----- From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com [mailto:GameMaster1978 at cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 00:51 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. Tony Williamson Auckland, New Zealand RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules This e-mail is confidential. If it is not intended for you please do not read, distribute or copy it or any attachments. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments. Any views expressed in this e-mail may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland City Council. From GameMaster1978 at cs.com Wed Dec 18 07:10:35 2002 From: GameMaster1978 at cs.com (GameMaster1978 at cs.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:10:35 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <189.12c65fd6.2b30debb@cs.com> In a message dated 12/17/2002 1:39:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at attbi.com writes: << Well Rodney, You started this so are you keeping a 'virtual' push-pin map of were we all are? Jim Bickmeyer >> hehe. Sort of. Right now I have just put it all on a Word Doc. It is pretty amazing looking at it though. Rod PS - Technically yah gotta blame Steve, he really started it if yah think about it. From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Dec 18 08:02:22 2002 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:02:22 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: <20021217183852.8AEA74C261@thinbits.com> <00d701c2a600$e4dcc680$4dfda83f@wizard> Message-ID: <3DFF90DE.4060301@talmeta.net> Steve Perrin wrote: > How about the two New Jersey guys? Leon and I have gamed together at cons, but his current group (IIRC) games the same night my current group does. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - If you do not think about the future, you cannot have one. -- John Galsworthy From pontus.amberg at telia.com Wed Dec 18 08:47:24 2002 From: pontus.amberg at telia.com (Pontus Amberg) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:47:24 +0100 Subject: SV: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c2a615$e2897b20$3200a8c0@brainst8> Stockholm Sweden /Pontus -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com] F?r GameMaster1978 at cs.com Skickat: den 17 december 2002 12:51 Till: rq-rules at crashbox.com ?mne: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From DevinC at aol.com Wed Dec 18 08:48:15 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:48:15 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <47FABFC7.28C24EDC.00047AF1@aol.com> Agoura Hills, California....20 miles north of LA. I am about to start up a new 3rd edition D&D campaign if anyone might be interested in attended. My 8 year 2nd edition campaign is finishing up in 4 weeks. Devin From gerall at chromebob.com Wed Dec 18 10:17:47 2002 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:17:47 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DFFB09B.6090308@chromebob.com> GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote: > Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a > world-wide group here where > we all live. Beaumont, Texas - US (on the Gulf Coast about ~25 miles from Louisiana, ~80 miles from Houston) -- (setq celestial-mechanic "Gerall Kahla") (setq gpg-key "http://chromebob.com/kahlage.gpg") (setq quote "Possunt quia posse videntur") (setq lfs-user-number 3966) From takenegi at libero.it Wed Dec 18 11:11:14 2002 From: takenegi at libero.it (Alexandre Lanciani) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:11:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #75 - 22 msgs In-Reply-To: <20021217232504.28E434C269@thinbits.com> Message-ID: >> Re: [RQ-Rules] : Where does everyone live? > > I live in Portland, Oregon, USA Pavis... I mean Rome, Italy! :) -- Regards, Alexandre. "Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana." From tmmurphy at uclink4.berkeley.edu Wed Dec 18 11:42:07 2002 From: tmmurphy at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Trevor Murphy) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:42:07 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <20021217232502.E84F54C266@thinbits.com> References: <20021217232502.E84F54C266@thinbits.com> Message-ID: I live in Berkeley, California. Just a smidgen west of the USA. -- From peter at maranci.net Wed Dec 18 12:06:45 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:06:45 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <20021217232503.34B3D4C267@thinbits.com> References: <20021217232503.34B3D4C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: Woonsocket, Rhode Island, USA. Used to be Boston, now I'm in Woonsocket. *sigh* On the plus side, the food's better here than in Boston. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From baron_greystone at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 12:13:27 2002 From: baron_greystone at hotmail.com (Baron Greystone) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:13:27 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? References: <20021217151319.98B564C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: I live in the New York City area. From DevinC at aol.com Wed Dec 18 13:23:52 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:23:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <02933B5A.10C28B3C.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/17/2002 7:42:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmmurphy at uclink4.berkeley.edu writes: > I live in Berkeley, California. Just a smidgen west of the > USA. > -- You mean "just a smidgen left of the USA" ;-) Devin From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Wed Dec 18 13:30:28 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:30:28 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E?= : Where does everyone live? References: Message-ID: <3DFFDDC4.22A3464C@libra.seed.net.tw> I live in Taiwan, but am from Portland area. And yes, Brad and I got together for a game last time I was back. Thanks again, Brad, for everything. I guess Tony in New Zealand is the closest to me now... Jeremy Martin Brad Furst wrote: > > Re: [RQ-Rules] : Where does everyone live? > > I live in Portland, Oregon, USA > > -- > > Brad Furst > esoteric at crashbox.com > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Wed Dec 18 13:33:35 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:33:35 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Where does everyone live? References: <20021217232502.E84F54C266@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3DFFDE7F.E56E1E3A@libra.seed.net.tw> Trevor Murphy wrote: > I live in Berkeley, California. Just a smidgen west of the USA. > -- Where does that put San Fancisco? Two smidgens west? Or is this one of those weird Hero-Quest-y kinda things where you go west and end up somewhere completely different? And yes, I've been to Berkeley... ;-) Jeremy From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 18 16:41:15 2002 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:41:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021218054115.24081.qmail@web41113.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Woonsocket, Rhode Island, USA. Used to be Boston, > now I'm in > Woonsocket. > > *sigh* > > On the plus side, the food's better here than in > Boston. Yeap, love them beans. ===== Leon Kirshtein (201) 785-9135 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From ericla at ultranet.com Wed Dec 18 17:41:08 2002 From: ericla at ultranet.com (Eric Leventhal Arthen) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:41:08 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[RQ-Rules]_R=E9f._:_Where_does_everyone_?= live? In-Reply-To: <3DFFDDC4.22A3464C@libra.seed.net.tw> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021218013914.009e0060@pop.rcn.com> I am in Massachusetts, USA, alternately in Worthington (near Northampton) and Medford (near Boston). ------ Eric Leventhal Arthen ericla at ultranet.com From bobathome at aqfl.com Wed Dec 18 17:39:34 2002 From: bobathome at aqfl.com (Bob Eldred) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:39:34 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BRQ-Rules=5D_R=E9f._:_Where_does_everyone_live=3F?= References: Message-ID: <015801c2a661$0b680480$287dd50c@attbi.com> Right on. Beaverton, OR, USA here. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Furst" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] R?f. : Where does everyone live? > > Re: [RQ-Rules] : Where does everyone live? > > I live in Portland, Oregon, USA > > -- > > Brad Furst > esoteric at crashbox.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ameron1 at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Dec 18 19:12:36 2002 From: ameron1 at blueyonder.co.uk (Ian 'Earl' Martin) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:where we live References: <20021217232504.28E434C269@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <000501c2a66d$3a20a820$fc7ba8c0@main> Sunderland (infact South Shields) North East of England. Ian M. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Dec 18 20:38:16 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:38:16 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: The City of York, in (or so I am told by the natives) God's Own County of Yorkshire in England; although I am a southern Yokel at heart, hailing from North Somerset originally... GameMaster1978 at cs .com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent by: cc: rq-rules-admin at cr Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? ashbox.com 17/12/2002 11:50 Please respond to rq-rules Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other when we could be playing RQ face to face. Rodney Leary Rochester New Hampshire USA _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Dec 18 20:43:27 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:43:27 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Whats the difference? Message-ID: Think others have (more authoritatively than I could!) commented on the core three GW books. I will just say that the GW Griffin Island did include some additional material translated from the original Griffin Mountain: some material on Caravans and such IIRC. Still wasn't as good as the original, and retained the generic setting, but given a choice of the AH Box or the GW Book, if the binding is OK on the book Id go for the book. I am not aware of any differences between the GW Land of Ninja and the AH Box version, but I have never seen the latter. Hope this helps! Cheers, Nick Middleton GameMaster1978 at cs .com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent by: cc: rq-rules-admin at cr Subject: [RQ-Rules] Whats the difference? ashbox.com 17/12/2002 12:00 Please respond to rq-rules I was wondering what the difference between the AH 3rd ed of RQ and the GW (UK) version is? I have seen that the GW version has both a Basic and Advanced book as well as a Monster book. Can someone compare what is in the GW version with the AH version for me? Thanks, Rod _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Dec 18 21:03:08 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:03:08 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? References: <20021217183852.8AEA74C261@thinbits.com> <00d701c2a600$e4dcc680$4dfda83f@wizard> Message-ID: <004a01c2a67c$ab943e90$8502600a@otvfrap043> Hello Steve > Actually, I've seen that there are three French members, all within what > Southern California folk would consider driving distance. Have you three > ever gamed together? No. I was aware of Alain Rameau's RQIIIbis material, which I've used for my Atrilian (non-Gloranthan) campaign two years ago (http://www.basicrps.com/atrilia/fr/jdr/index.html for anybody interested), but I had no idea we lived so close by. Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:11:14 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:11:14 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: where we live Message-ID: Rodney Leary: Bj?rn Are St?len Norway (No, not the capital of sweeden, it's allmost 100years since they let us free) Do anyone play Rune Quest and incorporate epic battles? I do, and in those cases, I use Warhammer Ancient Battles rules. But the magics of Glorantha is difficult to incorporate. Does any of you bright lot have any suggestions on how to simplify the magic rules of RQ to fit it into the fantasy battlefield. (I've tried Warhamster, and didn't like it) ------------------------------------------ Protect your PC - ------------------------------------------ Click here ------------------------------------------ for McAfee.com VirusScan Online ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Wed Dec 18 23:19:17 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:19:17 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D973F@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Well, I've just move here recently. Also I didn't know that RQ was still alive until I find that list. Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : Gianni [mailto:gianni at basicrps.com] Envoy? : mercredi 18 d?cembre 2002 11:03 ? : rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Hello Steve > Actually, I've seen that there are three French members, all within > what Southern California folk would consider driving distance. Have > you three ever gamed together? No. I was aware of Alain Rameau's RQIIIbis material, which I've used for my Atrilian (non-Gloranthan) campaign two years ago (http://www.basicrps.com/atrilia/fr/jdr/index.html for anybody interested), but I had no idea we lived so close by. Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From diadochi at bigfoot.com Thu Dec 19 00:00:20 2002 From: diadochi at bigfoot.com (David Ford) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:00:20 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: <20021217151319.98B564C267@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021218125854.00a0b390@pop.ntlworld.com> >Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where >we all live. > >It would be a shame to find out some of us could live close to each other >when we could be playing RQ face to face. > >Rodney Leary >Rochester >New Hampshire >USA Thought I'd join in. :-) Romford, Essex, UK David Ford --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- From somniaro at yahoo.com Thu Dec 19 00:19:10 2002 From: somniaro at yahoo.com (John Stephens) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:19:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021218131910.33305.qmail@web41309.mail.yahoo.com> Bonne Terre, Missouri, USA. About 60 miles south of St. Louis. John Stephens GameMaster1978 at cs.com wrote:Hey I'm just kinda courious as we seem to have a world-wide group here where we all live. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Dec 19 19:56:24 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:56:24 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: High Levels Message-ID: << I used an accumulation system: players kept a separate sheet and got a point for every successful, stressful use of a skill. Five points were awarded for specials and ten points for criticals. When they had accumulated points equal to their current skill, they got to make a standard RQ experience / skill improvement check in that skill. >> >I find this interesting as an alternative. I have experienced situations as >well where a player will use his sword once just to get the "tick" then >switch weapons to get another. Very unrealistic from a GMs prospective. >Creative players will still try to justify it in some way but I hate it just >as well. > >You don't want to penalize anyone for there are legitimate reasons to switch >in combat, melee to ranged for example, so it can be tough. > >One thing I was wondering though, if the players get to track the points as >the skill is used, each time it is used, do you find combat skills increasing >faster than non combat skills? For instance you may make one lock pick >attempt in an encounter but many weapon attempts in the next encounter. > >Anyway, I do like your idea and as it compares to some ideas I was working on >as well I may mess around with it. Rod , yes, Combat Skills did fly up a bit quicker, although as I de-emphasised combat the skew was acceptable. Plus of course, as skill increases, the points needed to make an increase check increase. What it did do was make players much more aware of "downtime" and the value of training. Plus skill matrices became quite sought after... Regards, Nick Middleton From Rjmeints at aol.com Thu Dec 19 21:40:50 2002 From: Rjmeints at aol.com (Rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 05:40:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between GW books and AH supplements Message-ID: <761F2F13.1CDD8701.00817004@aol.com> Rod and a few others have asked about the differences between the GW hardcover books and their AH equivalents. What I've written below is from my book, the Meints Index to Glorantha, or MiG, for short. It's a 120+ page book on all the Runequest/Gloranthan stuff in print, at least up to 1999, when it was last printed. I still have a few copies left for sale if anyone's interested. The book includes over 120 pictures of the covers of the books, supplements and boxed sets, with extensive descriptions like below on all the items. As for the 5 GW Hardcover books: RuneQuest - Fantasy Roleplaying Adventure, 95 pages, 1987. The weakest of the two rules books, the ?basic? rules, if used alone, prove almost worthless. They give you a taste of everything, but no usable details to make it all worth while. You get most of the Players and Creatures books from the Deluxe edition, including the Gloranthan monsters, but only about a third of the magic book. The color art helps, but often doesn?t fit. Many useful tables are also absent. You really need Advanced RuneQuest as well to make this work. Advanced RuneQuest, 159 pages, 1987. You get the rest of the Deluxe boxed set in this book, in particular the GM?s book and the rest of the magic system. The only thing missing is the Gloranthan book (5), which didn?t end up in either of the two rule books. A shame, since it doomed sales once word was out that the GW books weren?t going to be Gloranthan. Monsters, 112 pages, 1987. This ?Monster Manual? for RQ continues to be a popular reference book for those lucky enough to have a copy. It goes beyond what is found in the Deluxe set by throwing in all the monsters from Monster Coliseum as well. Many of the major monsters also have a fully detailed background containing everything needed for play. The Human section of the book is veastly expanded to include all manner of NPC?s, especially the ones from Monster Coliseum, but it doesn?t end there. There is also an interesting groups of human NPC?s that can be thrown in as interesting encounters, including a trade caravan and Earth temple residents. All of the Gloranthan monsters are here in full detail too, including all of the dragonewt background information found in the Glorantha book. Broos, centaurs, ducks, dwarves, elves, halflings (not a good idea), ogres, orcs, and trolls all have information on how to create an adventurer out of someone from that race. Overall the book has a D&D feel which is unmistakable and a little regretable, but forgivable. Land of Ninja, 144 pages, 1987. This hardcover is hardly distinguishable from the Avalon Hill boxed version if you don?t count the art. Avalon?s Hill?s only real input into the project was their insistence that it have Ninja in the title. Ironic, when you consider that they didn?t bother to notice that Ninja are hardly mentioned on the inside. Production quality slipped a little on this one. Some of the internal pages almost look photocopied. Griffin Island, 144 pages, 1987. The last book in the series, much akin to what was done for Land of Ninja. They redrew the maps and added supplemental NPC information for personalities such as Bluebird, Cracktwig, Eagle Eye G?jorni, Errap Barbacon, and Joh Mith. They also beefed up the encounters with a party of Broos, some Citadel warriors, and a group of Dwarves. I?m not a fan of having cut-apart play aids bound into the book, especially when the binding is as tenuous as it is. Not to sound too mercenary, but I do have a number of these GW books for sale in used condition. Email me if you're interested. Thanks, Rick From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Dec 19 21:54:35 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:54:35 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between GW books and AH supplements References: <761F2F13.1CDD8701.00817004@aol.com> Message-ID: <002301c2a74d$050ccac0$8502600a@otvfrap043> Hello Rick > What I've written below is from my book, the Meints > Index to Glorantha, or MiG, for short. It's a 120+ > page book on all the Runequest/Gloranthan stuff in > print Does it include reference on French-published material? (BTW I also recommend the GW Monsters book) Cheers Gianni From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Thu Dec 19 22:19:30 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:19:30 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Training Strength and Constitution (and Size) Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979CB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >In my campaign I ignore the STR, CON, SIZ limit and allow STR to be >trained up to double its starting value (i.e. +100%), and CON up to >1.5 its the starting value (i.e. +50%). Can they be trained beyond 21? One thing that I was never sure about in RQ3 is whether to allow DEX to be trained above 21. Philip Hibbs ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Thu Dec 19 23:11:00 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:11:00 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Training Strength and Constitution (and Size) Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D97C5@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> As I remember the RQ3 rules, there is a "natural limit" for all carateristics that is calculated as Max dice draw + 1 per Dice (6 fixed points count 1), but the only place it is specifically applied is for POW increases. As a House rule, we increase the natural limit to 1.5 of the starting value for all caracteristics exept SIZ which can never change (except with magic), and for POW beyond 21, we allow a 5% chance of increasing it by 1. Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : Hibbs, Phil [mailto:phil.hibbs at cgey.com] Envoy? : jeudi 19 d?cembre 2002 12:20 ? : 'rq-rules at crashbox.com' Objet : [RQ-Rules] Re: Training Strength and Constitution (and Size) >In my campaign I ignore the STR, CON, SIZ limit and allow STR to be >trained up to double its starting value (i.e. +100%), and CON up to >1.5 its the starting value (i.e. +50%). Can they be trained beyond 21? One thing that I was never sure about in RQ3 is whether to allow DEX to be trained above 21. Philip Hibbs **************************************************************************** **************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". **************************************************************************** **************** _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Dec 20 00:27:16 2002 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:27:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Training Strength and Constitution (and Size) References: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D97C5@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Message-ID: <3E01C934.3070001@padrigu.gu.se> Hi! I've always felt that the 1.5 rule is problematic since it punish characters with a low original stat twice. For example: Original Max Increase 6 9 3 8 12 4 10 15 5 12 18 6 14 21 7 16 21 8 (unless you enforce the 21 is the limit rule) Since there is a maximum limit for how much it is physically human (or troll or whatever) to develop it seems reasonble that it is easier to reach that limit if you have the physical background for it (original stat). However, it seems more likely that an originally weak person can raise his or her stat more points. That means that the 1.5 rule have the opposite effect than what I percieve as reasonable. Instead the equivalence of the table above ought to be something like this: Original Max Increase 6 14 8 8 15 7 10 16 6 12 17 5 14 18 4 16 19 3 although the numbers could be changed (the table above is only to illustrate my point). I have never used a system like this though, because we've always been content with the RQ2 rules of rasing CON and STR to the max of SIZ, CON and STR. :-) Another way of doing it is to either role twice for every stat making the first roll the original stat and the second the maximum for that stat (if it is higher). Yet another way of doing it is the RoleMaster way, where you cross reference your original value with a new roll in a table getting the maximum that way. However, this is not Runequest to me, so I've stuck to the original RQ2 rules although the rules suck when you have three straight twelves in your first three stats. :-). Cheers, /Peter Dury, Pascal wrote: >As a House rule, we increase the natural limit to 1.5 of the >starting value for all caracteristics exept SIZ which can never >change (except with magic), and for POW beyond 21, we allow a 5% >chance of increasing it by 1. > >Pascal > From peter at maranci.net Fri Dec 20 00:59:42 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:59:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Enchantments, Training Message-ID: <4306.216.118.190.11.1040306382.squirrel@webmail> *Tony Den - Tony, I missed your post a few weeks ago about Enchantments. I'm reasonably sure you've probably already seen it, but maybe the Imbuement system on my site might work for you? It certainly allows for a much greater range of permanent magical effects than the standard enchantment spells. (http://www.maranci.net/imbue.htm) I haven't read the Winter World books, by the way. *David Ford - Thanks VERY much for bringing up the issue of realism when it comes to characteristic training! Although your method requires a customized table, rather than relying on a common mechanic, and I usually try to avoid unnecessary tables, I think yours is both suitable and a real improvement on the original rule. STR *is* a lot easier to train than CON, and can certainly be improved far more - as far as I can tell, anyway. Of course it's not really possible to measure CON improvement in the same way as STR. This brings up the issue of DEX improvement. How is it done? For STR I assume one lifts weights, for CON one could eat healthier foods and do cardiovascular/aerobic exercise, and for APP better grooming, skin creams, regular massage, and weight loss (or gain, as needed) might help. But DEX? I seem to recall reading something about practicing juggling and such, but wouldn't that fall under Sleight training rather than DEX as a whole? I remember doing fast-twitch muscle training for high school football and running through tires, but it didn't really seem to do much - and I don't see how it would increase the DEX of the upper body, in any case. Hmm, maybe we could steal a page from the original Kung Fu show? "When you can snatch this pebble from my hand, Grasshopper, you may roll 1d3-1..." ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Fri Dec 20 01:01:22 2002 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:01:22 +0000 Subject: Memo: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: Folks, I'm in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex, England. Just for extra info, I'm currently running two separate bi-weekly RQ 'campaigns' - one in Pavis with 6 players, the other in Dorastor for 5 players. Cheers, Craig Sorry about the guff below! The HSBC Group's website is at http://www.hsbc.com _____________________________________________________ HSBC Bank Plc, which is regulated in the UK by FSA, has issued the information contained in this message (including any attached documents) for its institutional and professional customers only. It is not intended for private customers. This message and any attachments are not an invitation to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments, are confidential to the named recipient and may also be privileged. The information should not be reproduced and / or distributed to any other person. Internet communications are not secure and HSBC Bank Plc makes no representation and accepts no responsibility or liability as to the completeness and accuracy of the information contained in this message. Each page attached hereto must be read in conjunction with any disclosure which forms part of it. From nikk at cyber-rights.net Fri Dec 20 01:26:48 2002 From: nikk at cyber-rights.net (nikk at cyber-rights.net) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 06:26:48 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question Message-ID: <200212191426.gBJEQnni069300@mailserver1.hushmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, I live in Leeds, Yorkshire, England. On the battles side of thing, I did write some basic mass battle rules based on Nils Weinander's YAHQS system. It's on my webpage at http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/yfb.htm and there might be concepts you want to scupper - although I do not recommend using it as written (there's lots of fundamental mechanical flaws I always intended to fix and never got around to doing). Lastly, does anyone have a copy of the points conversions for other races for my character generation system? It was called chargen2.htm, but seems to not have survived the travels across the internet, and isn't on my hard drive. A copy would be very much appreicated. Cheers, Nikk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.2 (Java) Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wl0EARECAB0FAj4B1ycWHG5pa2tAY3liZXItcmlnaHRzLm5ldAAKCRCzzg9aP/unzYC4 AKCJeHMg9xFYpjB1VZBC1pg0EiA6XwCfZXDjRzSmD6f0WET490DZyxbaWpc= =DGw0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net From peter at maranci.net Fri Dec 20 01:45:50 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:45:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] More Characteristic Training Message-ID: <2005.216.118.190.11.1040309150.squirrel@webmail> Okay, while we're on the subject there are two more things I want to say about characteristic training and improvement: 1. I HATE THE STR/CON/SIZ LIMITATION. It's totally, utterly unrealistic, and that alone justifies its elimination from RQ. Think about it: imagine someone whose STR and CON are equal, and whose SIZ is either equal to or less than STR/CON. For example, let's say someone has a 12 in each of those stats. Now, you're telling me that no matter HOW MUCH they work out, they cannot possibly increase their STR? They can weight-lift until the cows come home, but they cannot increase their lifting power even by an iota because of that rule and the quirk of their stats? Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. I understand that the concern is a certain level of balance, but this rule is simply not the way to do it. I don't know if anyone has access to real research on human strength training; that would be nice to have. Logically, I agree that a smaller person cannot match the strength potential of a large person, even if only because of the lack of leverage. But how should that be reflected? Perhaps STR and CON should be limited to no higher than 1.5 or 2 times SIZ, as I think someone suggested earlier? Personally I'd push for 2x, because even though I recognize that a STR of 16 would be extreme for someone with a SIZ of 8, please note that it would also require an extreme amount of training. We know that monomania can produce some pretty extreme body modifications - look at professional weightlifters, for example. (Parenthetically, has anyone worked out any sort of RQ system to reflect extremes of SIZ, i.e. dwarfism, midgetism, and giantism? I once worked up a way to include the GURPS Advantages/Disadvantages system in an RQ character design system, but I've lost that file.) 2. INT gain. I know this will be controversial, but I am really convinced that for humans, INT increases with age - at least to a point. My memory, mental speed, and ability to learn and figure things out have much increased since I was 18, and that's a process that has continued steadily, as far as I can tell. Of course that's only anecdotal evidence, and subjective at that; although I do have the results of some IQ tests I've taken which seem to support my conclusions. Eventually age can cause a *loss* of intelligence, I know, but I assume that comes later (I'm 38). But INT loss is already included in the RQ3 aging rules. What mechanic might be appropriate to reflect an increase of INT earlier in life? Any ideas? ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Fri Dec 20 02:06:46 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:06:46 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D97D2@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Thats odd, I was in leeds 3 weeks ago :-) Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : nikk at cyber-rights.net [mailto:nikk at cyber-rights.net] Envoy? : jeudi 19 d?cembre 2002 15:27 ? : rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet : [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, I live in Leeds, Yorkshire, England. On the battles side of thing, I did write some basic mass battle rules based on Nils Weinander's YAHQS system. It's on my webpage at http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/yfb.htm and there might be concepts you want to scupper - although I do not recommend using it as written (there's lots of fundamental mechanical flaws I always intended to fix and never got around to doing). Lastly, does anyone have a copy of the points conversions for other races for my character generation system? It was called chargen2.htm, but seems to not have survived the travels across the internet, and isn't on my hard drive. A copy would be very much appreicated. Cheers, Nikk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.2 (Java) Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wl0EARECAB0FAj4B1ycWHG5pa2tAY3liZXItcmlnaHRzLm5ldAAKCRCzzg9aP/unzYC4 AKCJeHMg9xFYpjB1VZBC1pg0EiA6XwCfZXDjRzSmD6f0WET490DZyxbaWpc= =DGw0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Dec 20 02:45:03 2002 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:45:03 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question References: <200212191426.gBJEQnni069300@mailserver1.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <001701c2a775$992842c0$8502600a@otvfrap043> > Lastly, does anyone have a copy of the points conversions for other races for my character generation system? It was called chargen2.htm, but seems to not have survived the travels across the internet, and isn't on my hard drive. A copy would be very much appreicated. Did you try archive.org? It works miracles. G. From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Fri Dec 20 02:51:44 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:51:44 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D97DC@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> Nick, If I remember correctly, that part was already missing before you move to crashbox Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : Gianni [mailto:gianni at basicrps.com] Envoy? : jeudi 19 d?cembre 2002 16:45 ? : rq-rules at crashbox.com Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: A lot of things and one question > Lastly, does anyone have a copy of the points conversions for other > races for my character generation system? It was called chargen2.htm, but seems to not have survived the travels across the internet, and isn't on my hard drive. A copy would be very much appreicated. Did you try archive.org? It works miracles. G. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Dec 20 12:40:08 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:40:08 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules digest, Vol 1 #75 - 22 msgs References: Message-ID: <3E0274F8.50705@earthlink.net> Alexandre Lanciani wrote: >>>Re: [RQ-Rules] : Where does everyone live? >> >>I live in Portland, Oregon, USA > > > Pavis... I mean Rome, Italy! :) Now THERE is one beautiful city! Loved the Appian Way. Just north of Dallas, TX, USA myself. David Smart From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Dec 20 17:05:22 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:05:22 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Enchantments, Training References: <4306.216.118.190.11.1040306382.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <003801c2a7ed$c824d520$3410fea9@frkt5> > From: "Peter Maranci" > This brings up the issue of DEX improvement. How is it done? For STR I > assume one lifts weights, for CON one could eat healthier foods and do > cardiovascular/aerobic exercise, and for APP better grooming, skin creams, > regular massage.... As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality that will improve a person's appearance; if anything, oil in the hair can produce some pretty entertaining results. Yes, it can certainly improve one's mood, but such an effect is temporary only. I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more treatments than most multimillionaires, so I can testify as to massage's maximum effects. From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Dec 20 17:11:38 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:11:38 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More Characteristic Training References: <2005.216.118.190.11.1040309150.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <003d01c2a7ee$a82e0b00$3410fea9@frkt5> > From: "Peter Maranci" > 2. INT gain. I know this will be controversial, but I am really convinced > that for humans, INT increases with age - at least to a point. My memory, > mental speed, and ability to learn and figure things out have much > increased since I was 18, and that's a process that has continued > steadily, as far as I can tell. Of course that's only anecdotal evidence, > and subjective at that; although I do have the results of some IQ tests > I've taken which seem to support my conclusions. I second that. My hormones aren't raging nearly as wildly as they were when I was younger (I'm Peter's age), making it much easier for me to concentrate. From Rjmeints at aol.com Fri Dec 20 22:05:37 2002 From: Rjmeints at aol.com (Rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:05:37 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Repost of message on GW books Message-ID: <100AC264.48A879B5.00817004@aol.com> It seems that my post got scrambled so here it is again. Sorry for the repost. Rod and a few others have asked about the differences between the GW hardcover books and their AH equivalents. What I've written below is from my book, the Meints Index to Glorantha, or MiG, for short. It's a 120+ page book on all the Runequest/Gloranthan stuff in print, at least up to 1999, when it was last printed. I still have a few copies left for sale if anyone's interested. The book includes over 120 pictures of the covers of the books, supplements and boxed sets, with extensive descriptions like below on all the items. As for the 5 GW Hardcover books: RuneQuest - Fantasy Roleplaying Adventure, 95 pages, 1987. The weakest of the two rules books, the ?basic? rules, if used alone, prove almost worthless. They give you a taste of everything, but no usable details to make it all worth while. You get most of the Players and Creatures books from the Deluxe edition, including the Gloranthan monsters, but only about a third of the magic book. The color art helps, but often doesn?t fit. Many useful tables are also absent. You really need Advanced RuneQuest as well to make this work. Advanced RuneQuest, 159 pages, 1987. You get the rest of the Deluxe boxed set in this book, in particular the GM?s book and the rest of the magic system. The only thing missing is the Gloranthan book (5), which didn?t end up in either of the two rule books. A shame, since it doomed sales once word was out that the GW books weren?t going to be Gloranthan. Monsters, 112 pages, 1987. This ?Monster Manual? for RQ continues to be a popular reference book for those lucky enough to have a copy. It goes beyond what is found in the Deluxe set by throwing in all the monsters from Monster Coliseum as well. Many of the major monsters also have a fully detailed background containing everything needed for play. The Human section of the book is veastly expanded to include all manner of NPC?s, especially the ones from Monster Coliseum, but it doesn?t end there. There is also an interesting groups of human NPC?s that can be thrown in as interesting encounters, including a trade caravan and Earth temple residents. All of the Gloranthan monsters are here in full detail too, including all of the dragonewt background information found in the Glorantha book. Broos, centaurs, ducks, dwarves, elves, halflings (not a good idea), ogres, orcs, and trolls all have information on how to create an adventurer out of someone from that race. Overall the book has a D&D feel which is unmistakable and a little regretable, but forgivable. Land of Ninja, 144 pages, 1987. This hardcover is hardly distinguishable from the Avalon Hill boxed version if you don?t count the art. Avalon?s Hill?s only real input into the project was their insistence that it have Ninja in the title. Ironic, when you consider that they didn?t bother to notice that Ninja are hardly mentioned on the inside. Production quality slipped a little on this one. Some of the internal pages almost look photocopied. Griffin Island, 144 pages, 1987. The last book in the series, much akin to what was done for Land of Ninja. They redrew the maps and added supplemental NPC information for personalities such as Bluebird, Cracktwig, Eagle Eye G?jorni, Errap Barbacon, and Joh Mith. They also beefed up the encounters with a party of Broos, some Citadel warriors, and a group of Dwarves. I?m not a fan of having cut-apart play aids bound into the book, especially when the binding is as tenuous as it is. Not to sound too mercenary, but I do have a number of these GW books for sale in used condition. Email me if you're interested. Thanks, Rick From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 23:38:16 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:38:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Species Maxima In-Reply-To: <20021219160109.DD3ED4C265@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021220123816.94422.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > >In my campaign I ignore the STR, CON, SIZ limit and allow STR to be > >trained up to double its starting value (i.e. +100%), and CON up to > >1.5 its the starting value (i.e. +50%). > > Can they be trained beyond 21? One thing that I was never sure about in RQ3 > is whether to allow DEX to be trained above 21. Pascal Dury: > As I remember the RQ3 rules, there is a "natural limit" for all=20 > carateristics that is calculated as Max dice draw + 1 per Dice=20 > (6 fixed points count 1), but the only place it is specifically=20 > applied is for POW increases. Since most RQ2 stats were rolled on D6s, the rule was: 7 per D6 plus (if any extra adds then any extra adds + 1) So, 3D6 becomes 3 x 7 = 21 2D6 + 6 becomes 2 x 7 + 6 + 1 = 21 3D6 + 3 becomes 3 x 7 + 3 + 1 = 25 In RQ3, they did away with Species Max for all stats except POW. POW was given a species max of Mimimum rollable + Maximum rollable, so: 3D6 becomes 3 + 18 = 21 2D6 + 6 becomes 8 + 18 = 26 3D6 + 3 becomes 6 + 21 = 27 I once asked Chaosium about Characteristic trainign and they said that there was no Species Maximum for any stat except POW and that Personal Maximum = Original Rolled Characteristic x 1.5. I don't like this idea, as I like the idea of characteristics being in set ranges for humans, elves, trolls and so on. I suppose that having maximum human values of 18 x 1.5 = 27 still works, but they seem very high to me. I decided on a compromise, but only after we played RQ3 for a couple of years or so which meant that I couldn't back-date and reduce stats. The compromise was using the RQ3 system for POW max across the board, all Species Maxes are Minimum Rollable + Maximum Rollable. This gives a good range and a fair species max for most things. Peter Maranci: > Okay, while we're on the subject there are two more things I want to say > about characteristic training and improvement: > > 1. I HATE THE STR/CON/SIZ LIMITATION. It's totally, utterly unrealistic, > and that alone justifies its elimination from RQ. Think about it: imagine > someone whose STR and CON are equal, and whose SIZ is either equal to or > less than STR/CON. For example, let's say someone has a 12 in each of > those stats. My second favourite character was a centaur which we rolled up using a slightly enhanced method (which we used for all our PCs) of rolling an extra D6 and taking the best values, so instead of 3D6 we rolled 4D6 and took the best 3, this gave enhanced stats but not excessive stats. However, Shergar rolled up with STR 24, CON 17, SIZ 34 and DEX 23 (or something along those lines, I forget exactly). Using our prior experience rules, he had STR, CON and DEX training and later spent time and money to train DEX, CON and STR to species max (25, 21 and 28). In RQ3, however, his species maxes would be vastly different: System STR CON DEX RQ2 28 21 25 RQ3 34 31 38 Mod RQ3 33 21 27 If you take STR/CON/SIZ max as maximum of STR/CON/SIZ with no idea of species max: Mod RQ3 34 34 38 If you take STR/CON/SIZ as 1.5 x MAx STR/CON/SIZ is becomes even sillier: Ext RQ3 51 51 38 Now, Shergar was in Yelmalio and recieved a gift of Increase Characteristic, so he grew to SIZ 40. That would give him incredible personal maxes, far more than any other PC. This is why I tend to use the Modified RQ3 stats that set a Species Max. Shergar had gained a HeroQuest ability (for leaping into a Chaos Void to destroy it, even though he knew he would be permanently destroyed, in the event he weasn't but he, and I, didn't know that at the time) which gave him + 1D3 (+ 4 species max) to all Characteristics for 5 minutes. This cost him 10MPs, because he gained the ability on a reusable basis. This meant that his Species Maxes would all have increased by 4 for the duration of the spell, which only really affected how Stength, Vigour and Co-ordination spells affected him. He also had gained the Rage of the Bull HeroQuest ability which doubled STR and CON, past species max values, for 2D3 melee rounds, once per week. When all these were combined in RQ2, it made him quite powerful in combat (STR 64, CON 50, SIZ 41, DEX 29 with Coordination - loads of HPs, loads of damage) but not incredibly so. If he used it in RQ3 he would gave got STR 76 CON 70 SIZ 41 DEX 38+ with coordination) which is silly. With the extended rules, it becomes even sillier. Now I know that Shergar is a special case, being big and fast, rolled up well and with special abilities that enhance his already superior capabilities, but rules should reflect special cases as the extremes - if rules break down at the extremes they should be looked at again. > (Parenthetically, has anyone worked out any sort of RQ system to reflect > extremes of SIZ, i.e. dwarfism, midgetism, and giantism? I once worked up > a way to include the GURPS Advantages/Disadvantages system in an RQ > character design system, but I've lost that file.) We used the Sacred Time rules for "Lawful Abilities" and these could give pluses and minuses to characteristics. In RQ2, minimum STR, CON and SIZ are 3, which is as god as it gets for those with midgetism and dwarfism. Giantism is extended SIZ, maybe to 21, maybe above. Chatoic Features also give extended SIZ. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 21 00:33:25 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:33:25 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979D9@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Simon Phipp: >if rules break down at the extremes they should be looked at again Sure, if you push any game system to breaking point, then you need to fix it again. Maybe the RQ3 stat training rules should have been written more flexibly, but they would also have been more complex with higher word count - and anyone playing that style of game has to adjust the game system anyway. Personally speaking, I don't know where anyone gets the time for stat training anyway - how long does it take to increase a stat by training? Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From gerall at chromebob.com Sat Dec 21 00:33:45 2002 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:33:45 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- Message-ID: <3E031C39.3080606@chromebob.com> I'm putting together a RQ2/RQ3 game for some people who have never experienced the system before. Which system should I use for personal defense? RQ2's Defense score (a small percentage that subtracts from the target opponent's chance to hit), or RQ3's Dodge skill? I have heard of a "Dodge rule variant" while ghosting the list, but don't know where to find it. Any suggestions? Are there house rules out there that people are using to good effect? Thanks for any feedback -- -- Gerall Kahla - Celestial Mechanic Jander Blackfeathers - windchild shaman of Firshalla "Possunt quia posse videntur" - They can because they think they can... From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 21 00:37:46 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:37:46 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: More Characteristic Training Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979DA@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >has anyone worked out any sort of RQ system to reflect >extremes of SIZ, i.e. dwarfism, midgetism, and giantism? Yes, they're on the Chaos Features table in the Glorantha Book, and the Curse of Thed table in Lords of Terror. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From bick10 at attbi.com Sat Dec 21 00:56:46 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (bick10 at attbi.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:56:46 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima Message-ID: <20021220140030.3F89F4C1FC@thinbits.com> > Phil Hibbs. > Personally speaking, I don't know where anyone gets the time for stat > training anyway - how long does it take to increase a stat by training? I have had a few players to stat training and research. And yes, it took a lot of in-game time. Being the kind benevolent GM that I am, I let them do the training in blocks and bank the time. But after a while, they gave up on training as too time consuming and looked for magic enhancements. As a side - the best training was when the PC's were arrested and sentenced to hard manual labor. Everyone gained a STR training check. Only the urban scout Duck succeeded in raising his STR. Still, 15 years latter, we hear that story from the player. oops, now you've had to hear it too. Jim Bickmeyer From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Dec 21 01:12:49 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:12:49 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima Message-ID: Bizarrely, I brought my copy of the 1993 printing of RQ3 into work toady, for some light reading (it,s last Friday before Christmas, so its a ghost town in here) and on page 14 it says: "Original SIZE cannot be altered except by magic - your adventurer will never need to (or be able to) diet." Which is of course neither here nor there in terms of what anyone does in their games; I'm just startled by the implication that the issue of dieting etc affecting SIZ, CON and STR had been considered and ruled unimportant. I really must re-read the whole book a bit more carefully... Merry Christmas all, Nick Middleton bick10 at attbi.com Sent by: To: rq-rules at crashbox.com rq-rules-admin at cr cc: ashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima 20/12/2002 13:56 Please respond to rq-rules > Phil Hibbs. > Personally speaking, I don't know where anyone gets the time for stat > training anyway - how long does it take to increase a stat by training? I have had a few players to stat training and research. And yes, it took a lot of in-game time. Being the kind benevolent GM that I am, I let them do the training in blocks and bank the time. But after a while, they gave up on training as too time consuming and looked for magic enhancements. As a side - the best training was when the PC's were arrested and sentenced to hard manual labor. Everyone gained a STR training check. Only the urban scout Duck succeeded in raising his STR. Still, 15 years latter, we hear that story from the player. oops, now you've had to hear it too. Jim Bickmeyer _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 21 01:13:56 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:13:56 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979DB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Gerall Kahla: >I have heard of a "Dodge rule variant" while ghosting the >list, but don't know where to find it. Any suggestions? This is usually the rule that a normal dodge reduces the 'level' of attacking success by one level (Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Normal, Normal becomes Failure), that a Special Dodge reduces it by two levels, and a Critical will, as per RQ3, avoid any attack. An attack is never downgraded to a Fumble. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From peter at maranci.net Sat Dec 21 01:23:23 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:23:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training Message-ID: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> * J and/or Ellen wrote: >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality that will improve a person's appearance... Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you think? Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more treatments than most multimillionaires... I am seething with jealousy. :D ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Sat Dec 21 01:40:25 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:40:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima Message-ID: <3682.216.118.190.11.1040395225.squirrel@webmail> *Phil Hibbs wrote: >Personally speaking, I don't know where anyone gets the time for stat training anyway - how long does it take to increase a stat by training? 25 hours times the number of points in the characteristic. So someone with a 10 STR, working out full time, would get an increase roll after 5 weeks of training - or a little less if the GM was generous and decided to allow, say, 60 hours per week of training instead of only 50. I've certainly been in campaigns where characteristic training was practical - all it takes is for the GM to say "You get 12 weeks of down time for training", for example. Or the characters can choose to take some training time, if they have the money for it. Of course, the GM could always throw something unexpected at them. >>extremes of SIZ, i.e. dwarfism, midgetism, and giantism? >Yes, they're on the Chaos Features table in the Glorantha Book But then we assume that all extremes are chaotic in nature - which I'm not willing to accept. Particularly since many of my campaigns don't include Glorantha OR Chaos. *Jim Bickmeyer wrote: >Being the kind benevolent GM that I am, I let them do the training in blocks and bank the time. I've done that too, but I suspect that there should be some requirement that not too much time be taken off in the middle of a training regimen. After a certain point there should be an increasing penalty, and the trainee/researcher should have to make up time with a refresher course, so to speak. >As a side - the best training was when the PC's were arrested and sentenced to hard manual labor. Everyone gained a STR training check. That's something I've often thought was a good idea - and not just for STR. If an appropriate characteristic is being used steadily over time it should have a chance to increase. For example, I'd argue that being a smith should allow a STR check once per year. Perhaps a DEX check for being a circus acrobat. That sort of thing. Which should apply both to previous experience and to in-game play. And it should apply to skills, too. Ride already allows a check for extended use (not requiring a roll) in non-crisis situations; for many skills, that logic should also apply. For example, Speak Own Language. I never "trained" nor consciously researched English, but I have nonetheless managed to improve my skill with it above the minimum level of fluency, I hope. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Sat Dec 21 01:52:52 2002 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:52:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense Message-ID: <4760.216.118.190.11.1040395972.squirrel@webmail> *Gerall Kahla wrote: >I have heard of a "Dodge rule variant" while ghosting the list, but don't know where to find it. I recently wrote it up as part of my ongoing "RuneQuest for D&D Players" article. Go to http://www.maranci.net/rqtext.htm and search for "Dodge" (without the quotes, of course). The writeup includes a table for extra clarity, but the concept can be explained in a few sentences: Dodge as it is is suicidal, because a special or critical hit by an attacker means that the dodger is hit for special or critical damage, even if they've successfully Dodged - UNLESS they happen to have had the incredible luck to also have rolled a special or critical at the same time as their attacker. The odds against this are prohibitive. So when a dodger gets hit, it is far more likely that they will be crippled or killed. And it doesn't help that dodgers are less likely to wear heavy armor. The variant is simple: each level of success with a Dodge reduces the level of success of the opposing attack by one. A normal Dodge changes a normal hit to a miss, a special hit to a normal hit, and a critical hit to a special hit. A special Dodge reduces a critical hit to a normal success, and evades a special or normal attack. A critical Dodge negates any attack. Does that make sense? It at least makes Dodge a little more survivable. ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Sat Dec 21 02:47:50 2002 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:47:50 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Species Maxima and Characterisitcs training Message-ID: <5FA5BB3B120AD3119D5C00105A16403D070D984E@FR-DEF-EXCH-1> [That's something I've often thought was a good idea - and not just for STR. If an appropriate characteristic is being used steadily over time it should have a chance to increase. For example, I'd argue that being a smith should allow a STR check once per year. Perhaps a DEX check for being a circus acrobat. That sort of thing. Which should apply both to previous experience and to in-game play...] I would also add that some skill training can have an indirect effect on your characteristic(s) and that on the contrary, training a characteristic could increase some related skills because to train your characteristic you use these skills. i.e training to improve your juggle skill will increase your DEX at some point Concerning APP, if I always allowed the APP training (because of the rules say you can), I made the training long twice (so 50 hours times your APP level). I feel that even if you could improve APP in a Fantasy world like glorantha or the young kindoms (by better clothing, hair cuts and so on), the way to increase it are more limited than in our world (with estetic surgeon). Of course, one can argue that you can ehance with magic but I will consider that as a temporary increase. The fact is that I've always been easier to remove some temporary APP (for having been prisonner or being to long in adventure without taking a bath) than to increase it. Pascal ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Sat Dec 21 03:51:06 2002 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:51:06 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- References: <3E031C39.3080606@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <3E034A7A.6000303@padrigu.gu.se> Gerall Kahla wrote: > Which system should I use for personal defense? RQ2's Defense score > (a small percentage that subtracts from the target opponent's chance > to hit), or RQ3's Dodge skill? I use both in my version of "RQ two-and-a-half". Frankly, I was quite annoyed when the Defense Bonus disappeared in RQ3 and sort of replaced by the Dodge skill. I see Defense Bonus more of a battle awareness which you use to position yourself in a way that makes it harder for the opponent to hit you rather than a way of dodging an attack. This is very well illustrated by the way you can use your defense against a second attacker while dealing with your primary opponent. The dodge skill however, has its own merits in the way that you can use it if your shield breaks or if you fight unarmed etc. /Peter J From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Sat Dec 21 04:14:57 2002 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:14:57 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Enc and Armour Penalties Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979DE@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Who applies what penalties for Enc and armour? The only skills that I can find penalties to are Dodge, Swim, Sneak, Spirit magic, and Divine magic. I can't find any mention of a penalty to Sorcery magic! Philip Hibbs ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From kruch7 at cox.net Sat Dec 21 04:21:24 2002 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:21:24 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Enc and Armour Penalties References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E979DE@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <00ca01c2a84c$39504d20$6f7ba8c0@kenneith93j41k> did I receive this message in error? So that I need to destroy it? my copy did say who it was addressed to :0 ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hibbs, Phil" **************************************************************************** **************** > " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and > is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for > the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use > this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please > notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". > **************************************************************************** **************** > From DevinC at aol.com Sat Dec 21 05:55:47 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:55:47 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- Message-ID: <3AAEAE09.08460CF6.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/20/2002 11:51:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > I use both in my version of "RQ two-and-a-half". Frankly, I was quite > annoyed when the Defense Bonus disappeared in RQ3 and sort of replaced > by the Dodge skill. I see Defense Bonus more of a battle awareness which > you use to position yourself in a way that makes it harder for the > opponent to hit you rather than a way of dodging an attack. This is very > well illustrated by the way you can use your defense against a second > attacker while dealing with your primary opponent. The dodge skill > however, has its own merits in the way that you can use it > if your > shield breaks or if you fight unarmed etc. I much despised the defense skill in RQ2. First, it was not penalized by armour, which meant a guy in Platemail with a 75% defense dodged as well as a guy in nothing with a 75% defense. Second, the way defense checks were done, the skill was actually easier to get at higher levels than at lower levels. That meant that once the ball got rolling, it never stopped. I felt RQ3's dodge skill was perfect. It advanced like any other skill, it was affected by armour, and it took special dodges to negate special hits. This made people with massive dodge skills still hit-able. Devin From gerall at chromebob.com Sat Dec 21 09:41:08 2002 From: gerall at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:41:08 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- In-Reply-To: <3AAEAE09.08460CF6.00047AF1@aol.com> References: <3AAEAE09.08460CF6.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E039C84.5040300@chromebob.com> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/20/2002 11:51:06 AM Eastern Standard > Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > > > >I use both in my version of "RQ two-and-a-half". [snip] Wow! This is a variant I hadn't thought of... It's a little confusing for new character to be exposed to the two, unique concepts though. Hmmm... [snip] > Second, the way defense checks were done, the skill was > actually easier to get at higher levels than at lower > levels. That meant that once the ball got rolling, it > never stopped. This is the effect that really wore on my nerves about it, but only when it was an opponent who could get out of the way of my blows! > I felt RQ3's dodge skill was perfect. It advanced like any > other skill, it was affected by armour, and it took > special dodges to negate special hits. This made people > with massive dodge skills still hit-able. [snip] How do you feel about the variant rule that your degree of success with Dodge affects the incoming attack? Thanks for your feedback -- -- (setq celestial-mechanic "Gerall Kahla") (setq gpg-key "http://chromebob.com/kahlage.gpg") (setq quote "Possunt quia posse videntur") (setq lfs-user-number 3966) From DevinC at aol.com Sat Dec 21 10:44:12 2002 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:44:12 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- Message-ID: <58A0CD1C.0055E6D6.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 12/20/2002 5:41:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, gerall at chromebob.com writes: > > I felt RQ3's dodge skill was perfect. It advanced like > any > > other skill, it was affected by armour, and it took > > special dodges to negate special hits. This made people > > with massive dodge skills still hit-able. > > [snip] > > How do you feel about the variant rule that your degree of > success with Dodge affects the incoming attack? > > Thanks for your feedback -- I LOVE the idea that a dodge lowers the attacker's success by one, though for rules completeness, it should never convert a miss to a fumble. Devin From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Dec 21 14:14:01 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:14:01 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- References: <58A0CD1C.0055E6D6.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E03DC79.8000408@earthlink.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > I LOVE the idea that a dodge lowers the attacker's success by one, > though for rules completeness, it should never convert a miss to > a fumble. > > Devin Fumble, no, but I'm thinking conversion "below" a miss should give the artful dodger (pun!) some kind of benefit. Say, a free "riposte" attack? David From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Dec 21 15:18:37 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 22:18:37 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> Message-ID: <017901c2a8a8$08fa7900$3410fea9@frkt5> After discussing the matter with my wife, I've changed my mind somewhat. I understand that massage can relax a person very much, and people usually look less attractive when they're stressed. But these benefits last only as long as the relaxation, so I initially thought that massage would be useless for improving one's APP. However, massage can be part of an overall stress-management regimen, which *can* lead to lasting improvements in one's APP (and possibly CON). In addition, increasing circulation can lead to healthier skin. And then there are the benefits of improving one's posture--it makes a *huge* difference to one's self-confidence. So I was way off base in my initial skeptism. Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training * J and/or Ellen wrote: >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality that will improve a person's appearance... Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you think? Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more treatments than most multimillionaires... I am seething with jealousy. :D ->Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Dec 21 18:08:22 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:08:22 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> <017901c2a8a8$08fa7900$3410fea9@frkt5> Message-ID: <004101c2a8bf$c08385a0$4dfda83f@wizard> Well, APP was originally tacked on because we decided to eliminate CHA and felt we still needed a seventh characteristic (for reasons that escape me at the moment). I think that other systems since that have Appearance as a special effect that one can get are probably closer to the mark, with a caveat that a healthy person (high CON) is probably a better looking person in general. Effects of Chaos on appearance is something else again. Given its nature, I could see a Chaos orientation making beautiful people as well as twisted ones. Steve Perrin, who might have to redo SPQR again... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:18 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) > After discussing the matter with my wife, I've changed my mind somewhat. I > understand that massage can relax a person very much, and people usually > look less attractive when they're stressed. But these benefits last only as > long as the relaxation, so I initially thought that massage would be useless > for improving one's APP. However, massage can be part of an overall > stress-management regimen, which *can* lead to lasting improvements in one's > APP (and possibly CON). In addition, increasing circulation can lead to > healthier skin. And then there are the benefits of improving one's > posture--it makes a *huge* difference to one's self-confidence. So I was way > off base in my initial skeptism. > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Maranci" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training > > > * J and/or Ellen wrote: > >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality > that will improve a person's appearance... > > Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at > what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall > levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't > it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you > think? > > Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected > themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting > them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to > justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it > would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible > posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them > out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might > fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. > > "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" > > >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more > treatments than most multimillionaires... > > I am seething with jealousy. :D > > ->Peter > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI > Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From diadochi at bigfoot.com Sat Dec 21 21:37:35 2002 From: diadochi at bigfoot.com (David Ford) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:37:35 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP, Beauty In-Reply-To: <20021221071704.0DFF44C1DC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021221102507.00a02cd0@pop.ntlworld.com> Hi, In my game APP has been dropped, and CON used as a guide to beauty following the health defines appearance paradigm. Also have traits for extremes for beauty and ugliness; Hideous; -40% to Seduce, -20% to other communications skills Ugly; -20% to Seduce, -10% to communications skills Handsome; CON + 10 or CON x 2 whatever is higher, +20% to Seduce, +10% to communications skills Very Handsome; CON + 20 or CON x 3 whatever is higher, +40% to Seduce, +20% to communications skills David --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- From bick10 at attbi.com Sun Dec 22 02:29:12 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 07:29:12 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs. RQ2 Defense -- opinions please -- References: <58A0CD1C.0055E6D6.00047AF1@aol.com> <3E03DC79.8000408@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003b01c2a906$0f94c0a0$6401a8c0@attbi.com> > Fumble, no, but I'm thinking conversion "below" a miss should give > the artful dodger (pun!) some kind of benefit. Say, a free "riposte" > attack? > > David Or a chance for a swashbuckling trip? Free move away? Also what about the guy using a faithful shield? Crit or special success parry with shield (or even secondary weapon) might lift the attacking weapon away, preventing it from being used to parry the next attack. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Dec 22 02:48:45 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:48:45 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> <017901c2a8a8$08fa7900$3410fea9@frkt5> Message-ID: <3E048D5D.1010301@earthlink.net> J and/or Ellen wrote: > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? Actually APP is affected by CON, STR, SIZ, and the viewer's gender. Keep in mind the standard for an attractive appearance can change across cultures. Ancient Egyptians considered overweight people very attractive because it showed such people were wealthy enough to have an excess of food while not having to labor physically for it. In the USA, women who are thin, small-breasted "supermodels" are generally marketed as the epitome of beauty while men in the UK, in general, prefer a bit more robustness in the female form. There was a special on satellite TV last month that researched "what is beauty?". It postulated that beauty in any society is based on visual symmetry. A lack of symmetry could be indicative of a lack of health. The more symmetry, the greater the perceived beauty and attractiveness. David Smart From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Dec 23 02:02:24 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:02:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Defence/Dodge In-Reply-To: <20021221071704.0DFF44C1DC@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021222150224.1083.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > >>extremes of SIZ, i.e. dwarfism, midgetism, and giantism? > >Yes, they're on the Chaos Features table in the Glorantha Book > > But then we assume that all extremes are chaotic in nature - which I'm not > willing to accept. Particularly since many of my campaigns don't include > Glorantha OR Chaos. For people born during Sacred Time there are "Lawful Features" that are basically rolled on the Chaos Features Table but are not chaotic, chance of recieving them are POW%. These could give pluses or minuses to characteristics including SIZ. Also, there are pigmy and giant races in Glorantha (and the real world) so they could have varied stats as part of their heritage. Pascal Drury: > Concerning APP, if I always allowed the APP training (because of the rules > say you can), I made the training long twice (so 50 hours times your APP > level). > I feel that even if you could improve APP in a Fantasy world like glorantha > or the young kindoms (by better clothing, hair cuts and so on), the way to > increase it are more limited than in our world (with estetic surgeon). Of > course, one can argue that you can ehance with magic but I will consider > that as a temporary increase. > > The fact is that I've always been easier to remove some temporary APP (for > having been prisonner or being to long in adventure without taking a bath) > than to increase it. We never really considered APP as important, because it only affected Communication skills and was the only characteristic that was relative (Other races used a -10 modifier for APP). We used it when looking at members of the opposite sex to judge attractiveness, or for working out a Lamia's attack but that's about all. It is the most irrelevant characteristic in my opinion. CHA became irrelevant as well because it increased with the best skill level and with flashy magical items, so everyone eventually reaches CHA 21, making it irrelevant except as a measure of the number of spirits that could be bound. Peter Johansson: > > Which system should I use for personal defense? RQ2's Defense score > > (a small percentage that subtracts from the target opponent's chance > > to hit), or RQ3's Dodge skill? > > I use both in my version of "RQ two-and-a-half". Frankly, I was quite > annoyed when the Defense Bonus disappeared in RQ3 and sort of replaced > by the Dodge skill. I see Defense Bonus more of a battle awareness which > you use to position yourself in a way that makes it harder for the > opponent to hit you rather than a way of dodging an attack. This is very > well illustrated by the way you can use your defense against a second > attacker while dealing with your primary opponent. The dodge skill > however, has its own merits in the way that you can use it if your > shield breaks or if you fight unarmed etc. I preferred the RQ2 Defence to the RQ3 Dodge as it was more useful. We used to use a good Defence to counter a single opponent when fighting multiple foes (Defend out the Cave Troll, parry the Great Troll's maul and kick, attack the troll and ignore the trollkin). It had flaws (not affected by ENC, increased only using INT as a percentage) but was better than the Dodge skill. When combined with RQ2 antiparry it was very useful as it meant that you could parry an attack from a very skilled opponent by bringing his attack down to near or below 100%. (I have 120% Parry and 60% Defence, my foe has 190% Bastard Sword Attack, he attacks at 190 - 60 = 130% and my Parry becomes 120 - 30 = 90% rather than the 120 - 90 = 30% parry without defence). Devin: > I much despised the defense skill in RQ2. First, it was not penalized by armour, which meant a > guy in Platemail with a 75% defense dodged as well as a guy in nothing with a 75% defense. True, it should have received a penalty, but no other skill did on RQ2. > Second, the way defense checks were done, the skill was actually easier to get at higher levels > than at lower levels. That meant that once the ball got rolling, it never stopped. But, it was restricted to INT% to increase, so it increased slowly in any case. You got a defence tick if defence stopped an attack, so you always got a tick at higher levels, but you often got a tick at lower levels, so it didn't matter that much. Phil Hibbs: > Who applies what penalties for Enc and armour? The only skills that I can > find penalties to are Dodge, Swim, Sneak, Spirit magic, and Divine magic. > > I can't find any mention of a penalty to Sorcery magic! We applied ENC penalties to Agility some Stealth skills and any skill involving Swimming or Flying. We didn't apply it to any magic skills as we didn't roll for Spirit or Divine Magic and Sorcery didn't seem to be afected by ENC. We used the unenchanted Iron rule of an ENCx10% penalty to magic casting. We also used the negative fatigue penalties across the board to all skills. In any case, the ENC rules didn't really work when simply carrying things - if I carry someone of SIZ 8 (ENC 24) and I am wearing armour then I am guaranteed to have skill penalties, so I can fight at a penalty (probably OK), but have a penalty to my Speak skills and Perception skills (not so realistic), but if I put the person down then I have no penalties. Joseph Elric Smith Mormon minion of Arioch: > did I receive this message in error? So that I need to destroy it? my copy > did say who it was addressed to :0 > ken Fortunately, I know that any email sent to me was obviously not sent in error and I was the intended recipient, so I only destroy rubbish emails. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From tiberius at runequest.za.org Mon Dec 23 19:13:26 2002 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (Tony Den) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:13:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Where does everyone live? Message-ID: <62638.196.8.104.31.1040631206.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Pretoria South Africa -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Mon Dec 23 19:25:23 2002 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (Tony Den) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:25:23 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Training Message-ID: <5280.196.8.104.31.1040631923.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Peter Maranci wrote: This brings up the issue of DEX improvement. How is it done? For STR I assume one lifts weights, for CON one could eat healthier foods and do cardiovascular/aerobic exercise, and for APP better grooming, skin creams, regular massage, and weight loss (or gain, as needed) might help. But DEX? I seem to recall reading something about practicing juggling and such, but wouldn't that fall under Sleight training rather than DEX as a whole? I remember doing fast-twitch muscle training for high school football and running through tires, but it didn't really seem to do much - and I don't see how it would increase the DEX of the upper body, in any case Actually, I would assume DEX training would go much like the training boxers do. Skipping rope, special ways of moving so that you can move fast and light on your feet etc. -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! From Alain.RAMEAU at totalfinaelf.com Mon Dec 23 19:32:56 2002 From: Alain.RAMEAU at totalfinaelf.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:32:56 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge vs Defense Message-ID: Three little thoughts about hte currrent thread on the list : * Defense in RQ2 looked like the Armor Class in D&D, in particular with regard to the Armor Class bonus of the Monk due to its combat awarness. * The RQ3 optionnal rule which lowers the level of succes of the attack in case of a succesful parry has a drawback : it favors too much the defender over the attacker. * I have sometimes envisaged to simply get rid of this Dodge skill in my games, and use the following alternate system : a DEX x5 (or 3 or less depending on the difficulty) for reflex like roll outside of combat scene. And in combat situations, the use of the appropriate combat skill to defend. A Combat [Weapon] skill now includes all parry, attack and dodge roll with that particular weapon. Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Dec 24 14:44:29 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:44:29 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> <017901c2a8a8$08fa7900$3410fea9@frkt5> <004101c2a8bf$c08385a0$4dfda83f@wizard> Message-ID: <002801c2aafe$c41d39e0$3410fea9@frkt5> Now I'm wondering whether APP should simply be determined by averaging current POW & CON. It could be argued that POW includes aspects of CHA. This would fit in with deities wanting to keep their servants humble by making them sacrifice POW for their spells. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Perrin" To: Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) Well, APP was originally tacked on because we decided to eliminate CHA and felt we still needed a seventh characteristic (for reasons that escape me at the moment). I think that other systems since that have Appearance as a special effect that one can get are probably closer to the mark, with a caveat that a healthy person (high CON) is probably a better looking person in general. Effects of Chaos on appearance is something else again. Given its nature, I could see a Chaos orientation making beautiful people as well as twisted ones. Steve Perrin, who might have to redo SPQR again... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:18 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) > After discussing the matter with my wife, I've changed my mind somewhat. I > understand that massage can relax a person very much, and people usually > look less attractive when they're stressed. But these benefits last only as > long as the relaxation, so I initially thought that massage would be useless > for improving one's APP. However, massage can be part of an overall > stress-management regimen, which *can* lead to lasting improvements in one's > APP (and possibly CON). In addition, increasing circulation can lead to > healthier skin. And then there are the benefits of improving one's > posture--it makes a *huge* difference to one's self-confidence. So I was way > off base in my initial skeptism. > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Maranci" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training > > > * J and/or Ellen wrote: > >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality > that will improve a person's appearance... > > Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at > what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall > levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't > it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you > think? > > Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected > themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting > them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to > justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it > would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible > posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them > out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might > fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. > > "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" > > >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more > treatments than most multimillionaires... > > I am seething with jealousy. :D > > ->Peter > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI > Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From michaelch at corbis.com Wed Dec 25 04:09:32 2002 From: michaelch at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:09:32 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC97CB@SEAMAIL1> I think that deriving APP from either POW or CON is a bit of a stretch. Appearance in the real world is not necessarily linked to either. There are plenty of real world cases of someone who is healthy as a horse but ugly as a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who smoke, are anorexic and have drug habits. -----Original Message----- From: J and/or Ellen [mailto:jellen at ameritech.net] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:44 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) Now I'm wondering whether APP should simply be determined by averaging current POW & CON. It could be argued that POW includes aspects of CHA. This would fit in with deities wanting to keep their servants humble by making them sacrifice POW for their spells. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Perrin" To: Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) Well, APP was originally tacked on because we decided to eliminate CHA and felt we still needed a seventh characteristic (for reasons that escape me at the moment). I think that other systems since that have Appearance as a special effect that one can get are probably closer to the mark, with a caveat that a healthy person (high CON) is probably a better looking person in general. Effects of Chaos on appearance is something else again. Given its nature, I could see a Chaos orientation making beautiful people as well as twisted ones. Steve Perrin, who might have to redo SPQR again... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:18 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) > After discussing the matter with my wife, I've changed my mind somewhat. I > understand that massage can relax a person very much, and people usually > look less attractive when they're stressed. But these benefits last only as > long as the relaxation, so I initially thought that massage would be useless > for improving one's APP. However, massage can be part of an overall > stress-management regimen, which *can* lead to lasting improvements in one's > APP (and possibly CON). In addition, increasing circulation can lead to > healthier skin. And then there are the benefits of improving one's > posture--it makes a *huge* difference to one's self-confidence. So I was way > off base in my initial skeptism. > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Maranci" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training > > > * J and/or Ellen wrote: > >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality > that will improve a person's appearance... > > Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at > what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall > levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't > it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you > think? > > Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected > themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting > them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to > justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it > would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible > posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them > out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might > fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. > > "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" > > >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more > treatments than most multimillionaires... > > I am seething with jealousy. :D > > ->Peter > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI > Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 25 05:15:43 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:15:43 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:09:32 -0800 Michael Christian wrote: > > I think that deriving APP from either POW or > CON is a bit of a stretch. > Appearance in the real world is not necessarily > linked to either. There are > plenty of real world cases of someone who is > healthy as a horse but ugly as > a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who > smoke, are anorexic and have > drug habits. How about generating initial APP as 2d6 plus the average of (STR+CON+POW)/6, dropping all fractions? David From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 25 06:39:52 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:39:52 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC97CB@SEAMAIL1> Message-ID: <00d601c2ab84$3a725780$3410fea9@frkt5> In the latter case, I'd argue that the person had a low POW. But yeah, you got me on the ugly horse. It could still work, though, if we switched APP back to CHA. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christian" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 11:09 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) I think that deriving APP from either POW or CON is a bit of a stretch. Appearance in the real world is not necessarily linked to either. There are plenty of real world cases of someone who is healthy as a horse but ugly as a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who smoke, are anorexic and have drug habits. -----Original Message----- From: J and/or Ellen [mailto:jellen at ameritech.net] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:44 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) Now I'm wondering whether APP should simply be determined by averaging current POW & CON. It could be argued that POW includes aspects of CHA. This would fit in with deities wanting to keep their servants humble by making them sacrifice POW for their spells. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Perrin" To: Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) Well, APP was originally tacked on because we decided to eliminate CHA and felt we still needed a seventh characteristic (for reasons that escape me at the moment). I think that other systems since that have Appearance as a special effect that one can get are probably closer to the mark, with a caveat that a healthy person (high CON) is probably a better looking person in general. Effects of Chaos on appearance is something else again. Given its nature, I could see a Chaos orientation making beautiful people as well as twisted ones. Steve Perrin, who might have to redo SPQR again... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:18 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) > After discussing the matter with my wife, I've changed my mind somewhat. I > understand that massage can relax a person very much, and people usually > look less attractive when they're stressed. But these benefits last only as > long as the relaxation, so I initially thought that massage would be useless > for improving one's APP. However, massage can be part of an overall > stress-management regimen, which *can* lead to lasting improvements in one's > APP (and possibly CON). In addition, increasing circulation can lead to > healthier skin. And then there are the benefits of improving one's > posture--it makes a *huge* difference to one's self-confidence. So I was way > off base in my initial skeptism. > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Maranci" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Enchantments, Training > > > * J and/or Ellen wrote: > >As a certified massage therapist, I've never heard of any massage modality > that will improve a person's appearance... > > Well you'd know better than me, obviously. I was just trying to guess at > what might help APP, and it seemed that since massage increases overall > levels of relaxation (in me, anyway), and improves muscle tone (doesn't > it?), it might contribute slightly to a better appearance. What do you > think? > > Realistically, you can improve the APP of a person who has neglected > themselves by getting them cleaned up, their hair groomed, and getting > them well-tailored and stylish clothes. But it's virtually impossible to > justify spending (25 x APP) hours on such a project. I don't imagine it > would take more than a couple of days. Well, if someone had terrible > posture or something I suppose it could take a bit longer to train them > out of it. Likewise if they have a terrible accent, although that might > fall under Speak Own Language training rather than APP. > > "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggens, just you wait!" > > >I'm also married to a massage therapist and therefore receive far more > treatments than most multimillionaires... > > I am seething with jealousy. :D > > ->Peter > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Woonsocket, RI > Come to Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From michaelch at corbis.com Wed Dec 25 06:43:10 2002 From: michaelch at corbis.com (Michael Christian) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 11:43:10 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404AC97CD@SEAMAIL1> I'm of the opinion that it isn't broke, so there really isn't a need to fix it. It is somewhat questionable how much appearance could be trained, but as a game mechanic I'm willing to accept that it can. Training appearance makes more sense to me than correlating it to CON, STR or POW. Particularly because they figure together towards skill modifiers. -----Original Message----- From: David Smart [mailto:jurrubin at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:16 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:09:32 -0800 Michael Christian wrote: > > I think that deriving APP from either POW or > CON is a bit of a stretch. > Appearance in the real world is not necessarily > linked to either. There are > plenty of real world cases of someone who is > healthy as a horse but ugly as > a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who > smoke, are anorexic and have > drug habits. How about generating initial APP as 2d6 plus the average of (STR+CON+POW)/6, dropping all fractions? David _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Dec 25 10:31:12 2002 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:31:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP In-Reply-To: <20021224182310.2327B4C261@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <20021224233112.75899.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Michael Christian: > I think that deriving APP from either POW or > CON is a bit of a stretch. > Appearance in the real world is not necessarily > linked to either. There are > plenty of real world cases of someone who is > healthy as a horse but ugly as > a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who > smoke, are anorexic and have > drug habits. David Smart: > How about generating initial APP as 2d6 plus the average of (STR+CON+POW)/6, > dropping all fractions? How about dropping APP entirely, except for an absolute idea of cultural attractiveness? Do we need APP? I never liked the idea of APP (as opposed to CHA) being used for the Communication Bonus. There are many people who would have a bloew avergae APP but have high Orate, Persuade, Fast Talk skills and people who are beautiful or handsome and could not string two words together. Since APP is linked to culture and species, how can it be used in skill bonuses? It is the only subjective characteristic. A Troll views a human at -10 APP, so do we lose a few percent when dealing with trolls? A better rule is to allow blanket inter-species modifiers to skills. APP is important when dealing with seduction and physical attractiveness, but again it is subjective. It is useful for an APP vs APP or to determine how attractive someone is, but aside from that it is a waste of time. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 25 18:54:14 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 01:54:14 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) References: <4085.216.118.190.11.1040394203.squirrel@webmail> <017901c2a8a8$08fa7900$3410fea9@frkt5> <3E048D5D.1010301@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <012201c2abea$d1b65680$3410fea9@frkt5> It's that symmetry that makes me believe that Chaos doesn't lend itself to beauty, at least insofar as APP is concerned. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training) J and/or Ellen wrote: > > Which brings me to another subject: how can APP not be derived (at least in > part) from CON? Normally (I understand there are exceptions), healthier > organisms are more attractive than unhealthy ones, regardless of species. > Running with that train of thought, devotees of Chaos are defying the will > of Natural Law, so there should be CON-related (and maybe APP-related) > penalties to reflect this unhealthy attitude. Thoughts? Actually APP is affected by CON, STR, SIZ, and the viewer's gender. Keep in mind the standard for an attractive appearance can change across cultures. Ancient Egyptians considered overweight people very attractive because it showed such people were wealthy enough to have an excess of food while not having to labor physically for it. In the USA, women who are thin, small-breasted "supermodels" are generally marketed as the epitome of beauty while men in the UK, in general, prefer a bit more robustness in the female form. There was a special on satellite TV last month that researched "what is beauty?". It postulated that beauty in any society is based on visual symmetry. A lack of symmetry could be indicative of a lack of health. The more symmetry, the greater the perceived beauty and attractiveness. David Smart _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 25 19:00:20 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 02:00:20 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) References: Message-ID: <013c01c2abeb$ab968d70$3410fea9@frkt5> Speaking for myself and quite a few other gents, I find women with a high STR to be generally less attractive than softer women. And my wife has often mentioned her disgust with guys who go nuts with bodybuilding. But I like the rest of the formula. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:15 PM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:09:32 -0800 Michael Christian wrote: > > I think that deriving APP from either POW or > CON is a bit of a stretch. > Appearance in the real world is not necessarily > linked to either. There are > plenty of real world cases of someone who is > healthy as a horse but ugly as > a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who > smoke, are anorexic and have > drug habits. How about generating initial APP as 2d6 plus the average of (STR+CON+POW)/6, dropping all fractions? David _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Dec 25 19:23:19 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 02:23:19 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP References: <20021224233112.75899.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <014301c2abee$e17d8120$3410fea9@frkt5> APP matters more for some forms of Comm skills, less for others. Compare a stereotypical centerfold model (beautiful but not very "bright") with a stereotypical preacher (not beautiful but pretty "bright"). The model could Fast Talk most gents waaaaaay better than the preacher, but the latter would be better at Oratory, Debate, and other Comm skills that would work just as well on radio as on telly. I suppose there's no clean solution here (which is probably why the issue's lingered for so many years). I like SPQR's approach of dividing Comm skills into subcategories, such as Present and Persuade, which could properly account for APP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP Michael Christian: > I think that deriving APP from either POW or > CON is a bit of a stretch. > Appearance in the real world is not necessarily > linked to either. There are > plenty of real world cases of someone who is > healthy as a horse but ugly as > a stump, as well as cases of supermodels who > smoke, are anorexic and have > drug habits. David Smart: > How about generating initial APP as 2d6 plus the average of (STR+CON+POW)/6, > dropping all fractions? How about dropping APP entirely, except for an absolute idea of cultural attractiveness? Do we need APP? I never liked the idea of APP (as opposed to CHA) being used for the Communication Bonus. There are many people who would have a bloew avergae APP but have high Orate, Persuade, Fast Talk skills and people who are beautiful or handsome and could not string two words together. Since APP is linked to culture and species, how can it be used in skill bonuses? It is the only subjective characteristic. A Troll views a human at -10 APP, so do we lose a few percent when dealing with trolls? A better rule is to allow blanket inter-species modifiers to skills. APP is important when dealing with seduction and physical attractiveness, but again it is subjective. It is useful for an APP vs APP or to determine how attractive someone is, but aside from that it is a waste of time. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 25 23:29:58 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:29:58 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Joyeux =?ISO-8859-1?Q?No=EBl_!?= References: <20021224233112.75899.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> <014301c2abee$e17d8120$3410fea9@frkt5> Message-ID: <3E09A4C6.4020508@earthlink.net> Merry Christmas, everyone, from Dallas, Texas! May you and your friends and family have the most wonderful of days. David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 25 23:31:43 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:31:43 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP References: <20021224233112.75899.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> <014301c2abee$e17d8120$3410fea9@frkt5> Message-ID: <3E09A52F.9090204@earthlink.net> Works for me. I've found any RPG works best when its rules emulate, rather than simulate, reality. David Smart J and/or Ellen wrote: >APP matters more for some forms of Comm skills, less for others. Compare a >stereotypical centerfold model (beautiful but not very "bright") with a >stereotypical preacher (not beautiful but pretty "bright"). The model could >Fast Talk most gents waaaaaay better than the preacher, but the latter would >be better at Oratory, Debate, and other Comm skills that would work just as >well on radio as on telly. > >I suppose there's no clean solution here (which is probably why the issue's >lingered for so many years). I like SPQR's approach of dividing Comm skills >into subcategories, such as Present and Persuade, which could properly >account for APP. > > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 25 23:47:03 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 06:47:03 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Massage & APP Boosting (was Enchantments, Training ) References: <013c01c2abeb$ab968d70$3410fea9@frkt5> Message-ID: <3E09A8C7.8050808@earthlink.net> APP is very subjective. The phrases "appearances can be deceiving" and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" may be trite but are still accurate. APP changes with the viewer's standards. Even body language affected by the person being viewed can have a big impact based on the viewer's beliefs and even current mood. There are some very basic standards of physical attractiveness within any culture and that's what I use APP for. For everything else, I use skills and the player's stated actions/words to modify APP as necessary. David Smart J and/or Ellen wrote: >Speaking for myself and quite a few other gents, I find women with a high >STR to be generally less attractive than softer women. And my wife has often >mentioned her disgust with guys who go nuts with bodybuilding. But I like >the rest of the formula. > > From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri Dec 27 18:06:44 2002 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (Tony Den) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:06:44 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] APP, Beauty Message-ID: <43119.196.8.104.31.1040972804.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> David Ford wrote: In my game APP has been dropped, and CON used as a guide to beauty following the health defines appearance paradigm. Also have traits for extremes for beauty and ugliness; Hideous; -40% to Seduce, -20% to other communications skills Ugly; -20% to Seduce, -10% to communications skills Handsome; CON + 10 or CON x 2 whatever is higher, +20% to Seduce, +10% to communications skills Very Handsome; CON + 20 or CON x 3 whatever is higher, +40% to Seduce, +20% to communications skills * * Some good suggestions there although personally I like to play APP. When I first started with my current group, they had supplanted APP with the old basic D&D definition of Charisma, but I found that to detract from Role Playing. When I started GMing, I ensured that we went back to APP in my campaign and when one bloke tried for a munchkin character and forced his worse stat into APP, I made him aware of how really ugly his character must surely be. As a result he took it in stride and called his character Quasimodo, who wore rags wrapped around his more grotesque body parts, including his head. Made for some nice playing, what with this human who was practically stoned as inter Alia a leper, in certain towns by fearful locals. -- Orcs are great, but the empire is eternal! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Dec 27 21:05:41 2002 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:05:41 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] About Fighting rules DEX improvement and APP Message-ID: Fighting rules:   > > Fumble, no, but I'm thinking conversion "below" a miss should give > > the artful dodger (pun!) some kind of benefit. Say, a free "riposte" > > attack? > > David >Or a chance for a swashbuckling trip? Free move away? >Also what about the guy using a faithful shield? Crit or special success >parry with shield (or even secondary weapon) might lift the attacking weapon >away, preventing it from being used to parry the next attack. I think tinkering with the RQ rules is a laboursome and so some extent unnessecary path. Yes, there are some flaws, and yes, I think it's possible to improve them, but not without unbalancing the gameflow. (Have I been writing about this before?) Fightingrules have two axes; complexity (detail) versus game speed (flow if you like). Some on this E-ring have complained about finding the RQ rules too laboursome allready, therefore switching to D&D rules. Others like the example above is exploring some interesting angles to fighting, in my oppinion approaching the rules used in "Aria" or "Fading Suns" beginning to konsidder where the weapons go where someone steps, etc. The danger about this is that you might end up with player who knows somthing about martial arts starting to advocate special moves causing bonuses, etc. Me myself have been training Medevial Longsword for two years, and i'm beginning to learn about different fencingstyles emphatizing different sides of fencing. ("The safe fight" By Silva opposed by "When you strike, ignore your opponents response" by someone I can't remember.) For the time beeing, I chose to not wander into these paths, as I fear it could lead to a never ending change of the system, and a 78% chance for the combat scene turning into a discussion about combat phillosophy. What I did when I considered "overhauling" the fightingrules, I read the combatchapter once more, and realized that the rules were as they were not because those writing them didn't know jack shit about combat, but because of game flow. >This brings up the issue of DEX improvement. How is it done? >Actually, I would assume DEX training would go much like the training >boxers do. Skipping rope, special ways of moving so that you can move fast >and light on your feet etc. Yes. (I like people who asks questions and answers them.) I would add martial arts acrobat and balleytraining to your list of things to do to rais DEX. Children exersise DEX training everyday when they learn to turn around, to crawl, to walk, to ride bike, etc. It gets tuffer to improve it when you get older, but it's far from impossible. (It's just like the kids stopping to draw when they're 10 opposed to those simply kontinueng. They continue to improve their coordination between brain and the drawing hand (DEX), and is therefore better. Of course someone have talent and someone don't, but DEX increase is just as easy as strength increase. Me, for instance have never been doing anything more sophisticating with my body than playing soccer and raving in the 90's before I started training longsword two years ago, and boy have I improved my DEX! APP: >Well, APP was originally tacked on because we decided to eliminate CHA and >felt we still needed a seventh characteristic (for reasons that escape me at >the moment). I think that other systems since that have Appearance as a >special effect that one can get are probably closer to the mark, with a >caveat that a healthy person (high CON) is probably a better looking person >in general. When we play, we let all races have 3d6 APP. I think it's silly that a troll's APP should be evaluated from a human's perspective. For a human, the troll's app is irrelevant, and vice versa. (Bad for the handsomen connman when trying to use his app to talk his way out of a Duck ambush) APP is an important characteristic for the GM, because THE character's APP is the first impression every NPC gets, and should affect the way the dude is treated. (In Call of Cthulhu, the Deep one hybrids have app from 4 to 8, and they're not very nice to look at; in my oppinion fare more hidious than the deep ones themselves). So in one way a Character with 4 in APP should cause more terror in a NPCpeassen's mind than a Jelmre (-he couldn't tell one from theother) -because he could end up with 4 in app himself. SO, to summarize: all APP is 3d6, and it works only inbetween races. ------------------------------------------ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and ------------------------------------------ 3 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) ---