From DenT at scmb.co.za Mon Jul 15 20:08:46 2002 From: DenT at scmb.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:08:46 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multi Dice Rolls Message-ID: <90C55DFA4C0AD611B4BE00D0B746FDBD038936AF@scmbjhbmsg02.scmb.co.za> Message: 8 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:09:05 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: [RQ-Rules] Die rolls congealing Y'all, One of the things I am attempting to do is to put multiple die rolls into one. Now, you may not agree with my rational for why I do this, or whether I should do this. Those desires aside, I'd like some more ideas on where I can use this. -Snip Thanks in advance. -Andrew Tony - Only getting back on this now. Andrew, have you ever played a miniatures game called Silent Death? (By ICE). They use a multi dice roll to establish whether you hit and how much damage was done, vis depending on the gunner skill and the type of weapon, certain dice are rolled. If the total is above the enemy ships defensive value, you hit and then do damage on a low/medium/high basis depending once again on what weapon is used. IE if the weapon does medium damage and of the three dice rolled, there was a 1, a 4 and a 6, the damage would be 4. (If damage was low, it would be 1). It would be a bit of an effort to convert this type of logic to RQ, but I am sure it may help a bit. Ave atque vale T?ny Den Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Investment Corporation(Stanbic) is proprietary to the company. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Stanbic does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Stanbic. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Stanbic can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 16 01:08:57 2002 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:08:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multi Dice Rolls In-Reply-To: <90C55DFA4C0AD611B4BE00D0B746FDBD038936AF@scmbjhbmsg02.scmb.co.za> References: <90C55DFA4C0AD611B4BE00D0B746FDBD038936AF@scmbjhbmsg02.scmb.co.za> Message-ID: >Tony - Only getting back on this now. Andrew, have you ever played a >miniatures game called Silent Death? (By ICE). They use a multi dice roll to >establish whether you hit and how much damage was done, vis depending on the >gunner skill and the type of weapon, certain dice are rolled. If the total >is above the enemy ships defensive value, you hit and then do damage on a >low/medium/high basis depending once again on what weapon is used. IE if the >weapon does medium damage and of the three dice rolled, there was a 1, a 4 >and a 6, the damage would be 4. (If damage was low, it would be 1). > >It would be a bit of an effort to convert this type of logic to RQ, but I am >sure it may help a bit. Hey that's a great idea! I've never played it, but I've come across a lot of different ideas in different games that would work well together. That algorithm you just list if *very* intriguing and will keep me thinking for quite a while. Thanks! Andrew -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ From johnny_ace at hotmail.com Sat Jul 20 04:20:11 2002 From: johnny_ace at hotmail.com (James Hopkins) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:20:11 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] My previous email Message-ID: Sorry, I sent my last email from my personal account instead of my hotmail account, which is what I get for clicking on a link to write email. :) I'd prefer to use the hotmail account so as to preserve the relatively unspammedness of my personal account...so to tie this in the text of my previous post is reprinted here: ------ A little intro here, along with some other news: I remember finding RQ I at a local bookstore when I was a teenager and scrimping and saving for a couple weeks to get it...then the wonder of discovery of the world of Glorantha. I'm an old-school Glorantha type...I like running games in the 'official' world, but I don't necessarily accept Greg Stafford as sole creator. I get to do some of that myself. :) I haven't played RQ in quite a while, but it's still far and away my favorite role-playing game: a lot more realistic and generally workable than D&D, a far better thought out and consistent magic system, better experience system, etc. I'm even more old-school when it comes to RQ III; I think Avalon Hill butchered the rules set, and I wouldn't touch 3rd Edition with a ten-foot pole except for background information. That said, after years without playing the game (and pretty much all my books disappearing in that time; all I have left is the Avalon Hill version of Dragon Pass) I'm interested in getting the old stuff back. If anyone has a line on any of the following I'd very much appreciate a heads-up: RQ II (the Canadian red hardcover) RQ Companion Cults of Prax Cults of Terror Snakepipe Hollow Apple Lane Griffin Mountain Pavis and the Big Rubble Generally, I prefer original editions as opposed to reprints (though I understand the reprinted Griffin Mountain and Pavis and the Big Rubble are generally unchanged from their original editions), and, yes, I already troll Ebay daily looking for things. Which brings me to the news: dunno if you're still looking for it, but there's a copy of WD 61 up for auction on Ebay...here's the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1750013760 Good luck and thanks :) Ace _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From ghoyle1 at airmail.net Sat Jul 20 04:39:21 2002 From: ghoyle1 at airmail.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:39:21 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] My previous email References: Message-ID: <00d501c22f53$98fa5990$7714960a@us.nextel.com> From: "James Hopkins" > I'm even more old-school when it comes to RQ III; I think > Avalon Hill butchered the rules set, and I wouldn't touch 3rd Edition with a > ten-foot pole except for background information. I think you'll find that Chaosium is responsible for "butchering" RQIII; Avalon Hill was the publisher, but Greg Stafford and pals provided the content. Guy From ghoyle1 at airmail.net Sat Jul 20 10:39:17 2002 From: ghoyle1 at airmail.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 19:39:17 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement Message-ID: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? Guy Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Jul 20 13:35:59 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:35:59 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement References: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> Message-ID: <3D38DA9F.36B02B3A@earthlink.net> I've considered putting together some rules that would reduce movement based on the ratio of armor encumbrance to the average of STR & DEX but never got around to it. David Guy Hoyle wrote: > > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? > > Guy > > Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From esoteric at crashbox.com Sat Jul 20 15:26:54 2002 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:26:54 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement In-Reply-To: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> Message-ID: <4D4CE761-9BA1-11D6-A5BE-0003938FA912@crashbox.com> On Friday, July 19, 2002, at 05:39 PM, Guy Hoyle wrote: > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always > fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't > really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic) > . Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement > methods? RQ4:AiG used variables. 3m/round, however, really is excellent. We try variations, but keep returning. I will explain more later. It's late tonight. Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com There are three kinds of people in the world today: those who can count and those who can't. From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Jul 20 16:18:15 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:18:15 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement References: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> Message-ID: <003901c22fb5$3c121800$6401a8c0@surfcity.net> In my Quest Rules I use the characters STR and CON divided by 2 as the number of meters moved per round. 3m/round is just plain silly. Do you mean Strike Rank? I've done away with Strike Ranks in my games. I invented them, I can discard them. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Hoyle" To: Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? Guy Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 21 06:29:23 2002 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:29:23 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement References: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> <003901c22fb5$3c121800$6401a8c0@surfcity.net> Message-ID: <3D39C823.68DD86E5@earthlink.net> Actually, good sir, I rather liked strike ranks. They came in very handy when introducing people new to RPGs in general to RQ. David Steve Perrin wrote: > > In my Quest Rules I use the characters STR and CON divided by 2 as the > number of meters moved per round. 3m/round is just plain silly. Do you mean > Strike Rank? I've done away with Strike Ranks in my games. I invented them, > I can discard them. > > Steve Perrin > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guy Hoyle" > To: > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 5:39 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement > > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed > (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow > for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing > something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? > > Guy > > Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at > http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 esoteric at crashbox.com Sun Jul 21 08:18:48 2002 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:18:48 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement In-Reply-To: <4D4CE761-9BA1-11D6-A5BE-0003938FA912@crashbox.com> Message-ID: > On Friday, July 19, 2002, at 05:39 PM, Guy Hoyle wrote: > >> In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always >> fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't >> really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via >> magic) >> . Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement >> methods? On Friday, July 19, 2002, at 10:26 PM, Brad Furst wrote: > RQ4:AiG used variables. > 3m/round, however, really is excellent. We try variations, but keep > returning. I will explain more later. It's late tonight. I meant 3m/StrikeRank. Sorry. Our local games assume 1 SR = 1 second of time, 60 SR = 1 minute. In RQ3, this may require (depending upon the campaign) six rounds per minute _or_ 12 SR per round. In RQ2, there is no discrepancy. We allow 1m/SR a free movement regardless of other declared activity. Movement of 3m/SR allows one other declared action (e.g., attack/parry/dodge). Running/sprinting disallows other combat activities, but allows a movement rate of { 3m * 3-(ENCumbrance/STR) } We use 3m/SR for all standard humanoid characters. We have deliberately dropped that to 2m/SR for: a lame (clubfoot) human SIZe 16 a SIZ = 10 [lame] human whose leg permanently lost 1 HP due to withering disease a SIZ = 5 fully functioning hobbit/halfling a SIZ = 5 fully functioning duck The key issue for movement and distance, for us, is this: At long range (bowshot range or magic range), how many attacks does a charging character risk while closing to hand-to-hand melee? Steve, how do you determine the answer to this question? We simply count down the Strike Ranks. Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com There are three kinds of people in the world today: those who can count and those who can't. From alanchambers at attbi.com Sun Jul 21 13:52:31 2002 From: alanchambers at attbi.com (Alan Chambers) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:52:31 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement References: Message-ID: <005f01c2306a$0a4732a0$54446218@attbi.com> If you want to do a variable movement for humans, you could reverse the Dex SR adjustments. DEX Rank SIZ Rank WEAPON Rank 1-9 1 meter 10-15 2 meters 16-19 3 meter 16-19 4 meters Or use the average of Size and dex. Personally I'm happy with the 3 meter rule. Alan From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jul 22 00:49:02 2002 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:49:02 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement Message-ID: <1551035.1027262942043.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> AFAIK Movement starts on the characters DEX SR, so if you have a lower DEX SR, you can move faster. Cheers, Ash > from: Guy Hoyle > date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:39:17 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Movement > > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? > > Guy > > Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon Jul 22 00:53:22 2002 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (aescleal at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:53:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bloody Foreigners! Message-ID: <4945114.1027263202720.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Is my French letting me down, or do Oriflam still produce a version of RQ? From their website it looks like they still publish it, or have they just got dead stock still in their warehouse? Anyone that can shed sone light on the matter would be revered as a linguistic god! Cheers, Ash From pontus.amberg at telia.com Mon Jul 22 00:58:12 2002 From: pontus.amberg at telia.com (Pontus Amberg) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 16:58:12 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bloody Foreigners! In-Reply-To: <4945114.1027263202720.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000501c230c7$092d3ce0$0222d1d9@v8st8> And where can the website be found? /Pontus -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of aescleal at btinternet.com Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 4:53 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bloody Foreigners! Is my French letting me down, or do Oriflam still produce a version of RQ? From their website it looks like they still publish it, or have they just got dead stock still in their warehouse? Anyone that can shed sone light on the matter would be revered as a linguistic god! Cheers, Ash _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From DenT at scmb.co.za Mon Jul 22 17:22:20 2002 From: DenT at scmb.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:22:20 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Human variation? Message-ID: <90C55DFA4C0AD611B4BE00D0B746FDBD0389375D@scmbjhbmsg02.scmb.co.za> Pete Maranci wrote asking about human variations etc. I also wonder why many games tend to ignore variations other than to the basics like SIZ, STR etc. I reckon variations can be fun to play, not only as a human character. Imagine a suspiciously tall dwarf, or and Orc with emerald eyes and blond hair and a very "elfish" look about it (Mary Gentle's - Grunts! refers). And yes, how would people react to a midget in a fantasy scenario. outcast from humans as a halfling, outcase from halflings because he is human. Also, insofar as other birth defects ect, such as a tendance towrards alcoholism, one could always opt for a Top Secret SI setup, where characters can take advantages but must also take disadvantages. These are done at levels, so One may have advantage of being able to see well in the dark at 1, but also be alcoholic 1 (disadvantage) etc. then again, one could just work it into a characters history and play it. Ave atque vale T?ny Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Investment Corporation(Stanbic) is proprietary to the company. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Stanbic does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Stanbic. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Stanbic can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. From phlnje at ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK Mon Jul 22 20:36:18 2002 From: phlnje at ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK (N.J. Effingham) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:36:18 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Researching spells In-Reply-To: <20020720062303.A3D7B4C00D@thinbits.com> Message-ID: <3D3BEE32.22608.116D744@localhost> > Has anyone come up with rules for characters > researching a new sorcery spell? I have a several > players asking me about it, but I do not remeber > seeing anything like that for RQ. I've got a system on my webpage for Sandy's rules at http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/sorc.htm Hope that helps! Nikk __________________________________ Nikk Effingham Work E-mail address: phlnje at leeds.ac.uk Permanent E-mail address: nikk at MailAndNews.com URL: http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/ From MurfNMurf at aol.com Sat Jul 27 23:59:52 2002 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:59:52 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Transfer [Characteristic] spell Message-ID: <17b.bee0b9e.2a740158@aol.com> Hi gang (assuming anyone's still out there) :) While re-working my Sorcery document (I had such a document previously, but it didn't make the jump over to our new computer very well--Hence the reworking. THIS'll sure show me to back stuff up on disc, I'll tell you), I ran across a note about a Transfer [Characteristic] spell that I'd wanted to include, but there's no description. I think it allowed both characteristic and skill transfer--anyone have the *slightest* idea about this? Am I imagining it? Help! :) -Ken Murphy- --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From jellen at ameritech.net Sun Jul 28 08:28:43 2002 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:28:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! Message-ID: <001901c235bc$f73d2ae0$2cc64942@frkt5> I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? Big thankies, J. McCrackan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jul 28 09:52:34 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 16:52:34 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! References: <001901c235bc$f73d2ae0$2cc64942@frkt5> Message-ID: <002b01c235c8$b96795a0$6401a8c0@surfcity.net> Actually, this was a conscious attempt to simplify things. One rationale is that if all these races are living in the same world, virtually cheek-by-jowl, then you learn everyone's First Aid, just like the citizens of a country like Switzerland learn French and German and Italian. That said, a system like you propose would probably work, particularly for a world in which everyone isn't quite so neighborly. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? Big thankies, J. McCrackan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Jul 29 11:09:34 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:09:34 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement References: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> Message-ID: <3D4495CE.653DFEEA@libra.seed.net.tw> Weird. I kept expecting other people to mention the system I have used for a while... Did I make it up??? Anyway, in my campaign, we use SIZ + DEX, divided by 8 for humans and trolls. We divide by 6 for elves and broo, and 10 for dwarves and ducks. This still averages at about 3 for humans and elves, slightly higher for broo (they had 4 in the monster book) and significantly lower for dwarves. However, in our party, we have people who move from 3.1 to 4.2. This accounts for longer strides and lets us say, "We need to get a message out fast - Kylei, you go." And, "Gee, our slowest guy needs a horse!" Since I dropped SR, I'm moving to a system of Move x1 free in combat, x3 walking, x5 running, ... I've also realized that this as an hourly move (in miles) works well - about 25 miles a day on an 8 1/2 hour forced march. What do you guys think? Jeremy Guy Hoyle wrote: > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? > > Guy > > Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 29 11:28:27 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:28:27 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! References: <001901c235bc$f73d2ae0$2cc64942@frkt5> Message-ID: <3D449A3B.15044E6A@libra.seed.net.tw> Hey, I've been pushing Lore skills in my campaign, so you need a [Race] Lore to be able to Heal at full effect. It started from the old 'Heal spell is only 1/2 effective on other races - use Xenohealing' from RQII. Since Xenohealing isn't in 3rd, I added "a successful Animal Lore or Racial Lore check allows you to Heal at full skill". From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 30 01:26:26 2002 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:26:26 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Movement In-Reply-To: <3D4495CE.653DFEEA@libra.seed.net.tw> References: <200207191939170133.005508D7@smtp.airmail.net> <3D4495CE.653DFEEA@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: >Weird. I kept expecting other people to mention the system I have >used for a while... Did I make it up??? This sounds like a good idea to me. And no I don't recall ever seeing this before. >Anyway, in my campaign, we use SIZ + DEX, divided by 8 for humans >and trolls. We divide by 6 for elves and broo, and 10 for dwarves >and ducks. Looks nice and straightforwrd. It looks like it would be easy to put in a STR scaling factor for encumberance. So a normal human might be divide by 8. Then with varing levels of encumberance (pribobably in terms of STR) increase by 1 or so. So a lightly encumbered human would be 9, a moderatley encumbered human would be 10, and a really encumbered human would be 11 or more. I can remember what AiG used. I think it used something similar, but was table based. -Andrew -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ From bick10 at attbi.com Tue Jul 30 10:48:45 2002 From: bick10 at attbi.com (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:48:45 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot Message-ID: <001801c23762$ddc6a120$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Bow - Too close to shootThere are a couple of players in the group I am GM'ing that have specialized on the bow, and think they can shoot arrows at their opponent after being engaged in melee. One of their favorite tactics is to fire arrows without moving and letting the enemy come to him. Then to stand there going toe to toe while shooting arrows at the opponent who is trying to hit them with a melee weapon. (sword, axe, mace, spear) I am simply saying that once engaged in melee, the bowman can not notch, draw and loose an arrow at an attacker. Especially with someone swing a weapon at them. I am currently stressing two points with them; 1. in melee the bowman can not draw and loose the arrow at the opponent. 2. the arrow must be completely free of the bow string to get momentum to cause damage. Their biggest complaint is that they have to take time to change weapons and could miss out on an attack. Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire while in melee? I just don't see it. Jim --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 30 08:02:45 2002 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:02:45 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot In-Reply-To: <001801c23762$ddc6a120$6401a8c0@attbi.com> References: <001801c23762$ddc6a120$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: >Bow - Too close to shootThere are a couple of players in the group I >am GM'ing that have specialized on the bow, and think they can shoot >arrows at their opponent after being engaged in melee. One of their >favorite tactics is to fire arrows without moving and letting the >enemy come to him. Then to stand there going toe to toe while >shooting arrows at the opponent who is trying to hit them with a >melee weapon. (sword, axe, mace, spear) >I am simply saying that once engaged in melee, the bowman can not >notch, draw and loose an arrow at an attacker. Especially with >someone swing a weapon at them. > >I am currently stressing two points with them; >1. in melee the bowman can not draw and loose the arrow at the opponent. >2. the arrow must be completely free of the bow string to get >momentum to cause damage. > >Their biggest complaint is that they have to take time to change >weapons and could miss out on an attack. > >Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire while >in melee? I just don't see it. My 2 cents. Legolas sure was cool in Lord of the rings. He pulled it off pretty well. Let's try examining the issue from some different perspectives. I am not really providing an answer here, just some other things to think about. Why not? Would it increase over all game fun? (Regardless of reality.) Does it work in reality? If not, then use those reasons. Maybe the real reason is that you can't parry with a bow without it getting destroyed. Maybe a good archer doesn't want to parry with his bow, so to save his expensive rune-magicked bow, pulls out his longsword. This sorts of reasons (when it happens to the player) will be easier to swallow them "Because I say so." *Prove* it to them. If they want speed, allow them to spend some time practicing "quickdraw" skill between their bow and primary weapon. Don't allow them to do it with just any set of weapons, but the ones they have. I find players accept limitations if there is an eventual way (but not too hard) of overcoming the problem. Maybe it takes 3 days to remove the lost attack thing per pair. Maybe there is an easy "quickdraw" skill that reduces the time. Just some thoughts. I would always keep in mind MGF. -Andrew -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ From rico at ricosweb.com Tue Jul 30 08:07:40 2002 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:07:40 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot In-Reply-To: <001801c23762$ddc6a120$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <000d01c2374c$5b101ce0$cb0a0a0a@dohealth.com> > Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire > while in melee? I just don't see it. There are many reasons for not trying to fire a bow while in melee: - To get full effect (damage and hit %), the bow must be drawn all the way back and the bowman must remain nearly motionless, which provides a large, easy target for the opponent to hit. - Bows will take one or two hits, max before becoming useless, and if the bow is drawn I'd say any hit that lands waist up on the character hits the bow as well as the body. - The bowman cannot effectively parry an incoming melee attack at all, and most bowmen simply can't absorb too much damage. If the bowman *does* parry a melle attack, the bow will almost certainly be destroyed. - The opponent isn't standing flat footed in front of the bowman. The point of the arrow is just past the bowman's arm length, which the opponent can step into very easily. Or the opponent can use a shield to deflect the leading arm. That said, I wouldn't dis-allow anyone the oppurtunity to get himself killed. Tell them "Sure, you can do that, but..." and list some or all of the above. Rich Allen From vesper at libra.seed.net.tw Tue Jul 30 10:37:55 2002 From: vesper at libra.seed.net.tw (Jeremy Martin) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:37:55 +0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot References: <000d01c2374c$5b101ce0$cb0a0a0a@dohealth.com> Message-ID: <3D45DFE3.51AE501C@libra.seed.net.tw> I like to let people figure things out on their own. If they're firing twice a round, they can't dodge, right? Then have their opponent target the bow instead. First hit and it's useless as a bow... If they want to do it, and use Legolas as an example, I'd let them: one shot per round so they can still dodge. If they have a better movement rate than their opponent. Realistically, I don't see it either. If they're standing there shooting, I'd walk up and push their bow arm out of the way and hit them wherever... My thoughts.... Jeremy Rich Allen wrote: > > Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire > > while in melee? I just don't see it. > > There are many reasons for not trying to fire a bow while in melee: > > - To get full effect (damage and hit %), the bow must be drawn all the > way back and the bowman must remain nearly motionless, which provides a > large, easy target for the opponent to hit. > - Bows will take one or two hits, max before becoming useless, and if > the bow is drawn I'd say any hit that lands waist up on the character > hits the bow as well as the body. > - The bowman cannot effectively parry an incoming melee attack at all, > and most bowmen simply can't absorb too much damage. If the bowman > *does* parry a melle attack, the bow will almost certainly be destroyed. > - The opponent isn't standing flat footed in front of the bowman. The > point of the arrow is just past the bowman's arm length, which the > opponent can step into very easily. Or the opponent can use a shield to > deflect the leading arm. > > That said, I wouldn't dis-allow anyone the oppurtunity to get himself > killed. Tell them "Sure, you can do that, but..." and list some or all > of the above. > > 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 steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 30 11:17:08 2002 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:17:08 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot References: <000d01c2374c$5b101ce0$cb0a0a0a@dohealth.com> <3D45DFE3.51AE501C@libra.seed.net.tw> Message-ID: <003d01c23766$e35cd920$6401a8c0@surfcity.net> RuneQuest is supposed to be the "realistic" combat system. For all the reasons others have cited, you can't efficiently operate a bow in melee. The important thing, I think, is that if someone is within melee range of the archer, there is no way he can shoot at his attacker. I'd let him have one last shot as the attacker closed, but then it's over. I suppose two archers could shoot at each other's opponents, but there are still penalties for standing there shooting. Essentially, you cannot parry with a bow and shoot with it. You cannot dodge and still get a shot off with bow. Actually, I suppose you could let him have a shot while dodging at an enormous penalty. And, of course, if an archer shoots into a melee, there is a good chance he'll hit his own man. Let's see what Legolas does in Two Towers before citing him as an example. You may recall that he told Gimli that his last few kills were "knife work," so even the super elf had to resort to melee eventually. RuneQuest provides Rune spells that allow one to do Legolas-style shooting. You might assume that this is what Legolas was calling on. And that's my two bolgs worth. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Martin" To: Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot > I like to let people figure things out on their own. If they're firing > twice a round, they can't dodge, right? Then have their opponent target the > bow instead. First hit and it's useless as a bow... > > If they want to do it, and use Legolas as an example, I'd let them: one > shot per round so they can still dodge. If they have a better movement rate > than their opponent. > > Realistically, I don't see it either. If they're standing there shooting, > I'd walk up and push their bow arm out of the way and hit them wherever... > > My thoughts.... > > Jeremy > > > Rich Allen wrote: > > > > Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire > > > while in melee? I just don't see it. > > > > There are many reasons for not trying to fire a bow while in melee: > > > > - To get full effect (damage and hit %), the bow must be drawn all the > > way back and the bowman must remain nearly motionless, which provides a > > large, easy target for the opponent to hit. > > - Bows will take one or two hits, max before becoming useless, and if > > the bow is drawn I'd say any hit that lands waist up on the character > > hits the bow as well as the body. > > - The bowman cannot effectively parry an incoming melee attack at all, > > and most bowmen simply can't absorb too much damage. If the bowman > > *does* parry a melle attack, the bow will almost certainly be destroyed. > > - The opponent isn't standing flat footed in front of the bowman. The > > point of the arrow is just past the bowman's arm length, which the > > opponent can step into very easily. Or the opponent can use a shield to > > deflect the leading arm. > > > > That said, I wouldn't dis-allow anyone the oppurtunity to get himself > > killed. Tell them "Sure, you can do that, but..." and list some or all > > of the above. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 optonline.net Tue Jul 30 11:33:27 2002 From: talmeta at optonline.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:33:27 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot References: <001801c23762$ddc6a120$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <3D45ECE7.14ADFCB5@optonline.net> Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > > Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire while in melee? I just don't see it. Let them attack all they want. But what are the odds that their opponent's swing won't hit the bow, and destroy it in one blow? -- talmeta at optonline.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - The best things in life are for a fee. From shannonwright_1966 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 30 13:09:46 2002 From: shannonwright_1966 at yahoo.com (shannon wright) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot Message-ID: <20020730030946.25129.qmail@web13802.mail.yahoo.com> OK Jim--Here goes, First off don't worry about your players negitive reaction. They will moan because they are PC's. @nd- show them a video reference. "Braveheart" works well. So does Spartacus,Gladiator,Kagemushai and a host of other movies. Show the scene in Braveheart where the Wlsh Longbowmen fire at the Scots. Point out just how far away the Welsh are. Why?? Because they did not want a Scot Sword or Great axe upside the head. And that flimsey longbow won't stop a 5' 2-handed sword like Wallace's. And then show them Gladiator and Maximus's speed with the Gladius. Tell me their gonna draw and fire before he slices & dices them just like the Minatour -man' s head. Then let them make their own choice. I gaar-uunn-tee the first time a Uroxi or ZZ comes at them and swings through their bow into their head they will draw a shield the next time--assuming they live., But it has to be their choice. Don't force them. Just present the facts and let them decide [seal] their own fate. Chuse, Sloth ;-) Never in the course of Human conflict has so much been owed by so many, to so few. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From DenT at scmb.co.za Tue Jul 30 15:58:33 2002 From: DenT at scmb.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:58:33 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian Message-ID: <90C55DFA4C0AD611B4BE00D0B746FDBD03893834@scmbjhbmsg02.scmb.co.za> J McCrackhan wrote about first adi per species. - I think its a good idea to apply penalties in some fields. Look at the inside of a troll (in Trollpack) and you can see a vast difference. I reckon similar secies, (I would classify Humans, halflings and orcs together for example) should have no disadvantage, but yes, why should someone versed in the arts of human first aid be able to just first aid a Slarge. Ave atque vale T?ny --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jul 30 19:16:04 2002 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:16:04 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot Message-ID: >Bow - Too close to shootThere are a couple of players in the group I am GM'ing that have specialized on the bow, >and think they can shoot arrows at their opponent after being engaged in melee. One of their favorite tactics is >to fire arrows without moving and letting the enemy come to him. Then to stand there going toe to toe while >shooting arrows at the opponent who is trying to hit them with a melee weapon. (sword, axe, mace, spear) >I am simply saying that once engaged in melee, the bowman can not notch, draw and loose an arrow at an attacker. >Especially with someone swing a weapon at them. > >I am currently stressing two points with them; >1. in melee the bowman can not draw and loose the arrow at the opponent. >2. the arrow must be completely free of the bow string to get momentum to cause damage. > >Their biggest complaint is that they have to take time to change weapons and could miss out on an attack. > >Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire while in melee? I just don't see it. No you aren't, but it does depend on the style of you game... From a realism point of view Longbows are just too unwieldy to use effectively with an opponent in melee range, cannot be parried with whilst you are drawing them and impose massive penalties on chances to evade an attack and to hit your target if you attempt both. Shorter bows, espevcialy compound recurves like the Mongol bows, are(for a bow) remarkably handy and compact, but stil have similar disadvantages. ANd bottom line, one on one, against an aware opponent, a bow (like any other missile weapon, including ingle shot fire-arms) is not very useful: if I can see you, I can read your intent to discharge your weapon and I can dodge out of tehway. Missile weapons are effective when the target can't read th eintent to discharge, or in volume. See Agincourt etc. Froma game play point of view, this is RQ we are talking about: if they want to be flash with bows, make them use small bows or battle magic and gentley remind them that even Robin Hood carried a sword... ;) Just my 2 obals From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 31 01:33:39 2002 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:33:39 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot References: <000d01c2374c$5b101ce0$cb0a0a0a@dohealth.com> <3D45DFE3.51AE501C@libra.seed.net.tw> <003d01c23766$e35cd920$6401a8c0@surfcity.net> Message-ID: <3D46B1D3.96143AE4@concentric.net> Steve Perrin wrote: > > RuneQuest is supposed to be the "realistic" combat system. > > For all the reasons others have cited, you can't efficiently operate a bow > in melee. The important thing, I think, is that if someone is within melee > range of the archer, there is no way he can shoot at his attacker. I'd let > him have one last shot as the attacker closed, but then it's over. > > I suppose two archers could shoot at each other's opponents, but there are > still penalties for standing there shooting. Essentially, you cannot parry > with a bow and shoot with it. You cannot dodge and still get a shot off with > bow. Actually, I suppose you could let him have a shot while dodging at an > enormous penalty. > > And, of course, if an archer shoots into a melee, there is a good chance > he'll hit his own man. > > Let's see what Legolas does in Two Towers before citing him as an example. > You may recall that he told Gimli that his last few kills were "knife work," > so even the super elf had to resort to melee eventually. > > RuneQuest provides Rune spells that allow one to do Legolas-style shooting. > You might assume that this is what Legolas was calling on. That would be my position on the Legolas issue: I'd say we're talking a Rune level (or, at least, high level Initiate) of the Elvish Bow "Cult" here, are any of the players in question that skilled with or dedicated to the bow? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net