From knightsky at juno.com Thu Jan 1 09:40:44 2004 From: knightsky at juno.com (knightsky at juno.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:40:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] OT: Dragon Warriors Message-ID: <20031231.174050.-646271.0.Knightsky@juno.com> [de-lurk] > There is a classic (and out of print) 80's RPG. Called Dragon Warriors > (DW) sold in six books. For various reasons the Sixth (and best) book > was not marketed as widely and lots of fans never got hold of a copy. > The author (and copyright holder) gave permission for a PDF document > to be uploaded to the Yahoo group for DW. Was it just the sixth book, or were the preceeding five also made available? I've just ran across a review of DW recently, and it look like something I wouldn't mind tracking down. [re-lurk] - Perry "Honor thy error as hidden intention" ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jan 6 19:54:01 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:54:01 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] OT: Dragon Warriors Message-ID: >> There is a classic (and out of print) 80's RPG. Called Dragon Warriors >> (DW) sold in six books. For various reasons the Sixth (and best) book >> was not marketed as widely and lots of fans never got hold of a copy. >> The author (and copyright holder) gave permission for a PDF document >> to be uploaded to the Yahoo group for DW. > >Was it just the sixth book, or were the preceeding five also made >available? I've just ran across a review of DW recently, and it look >like something I wouldn't mind tracking down. It wasn't me who mentioned this, but unless things have changed since the last time I checked the DW group, it is just Book 6: Lands of Legend, which was the most rules-light and setting heavy of the books. Who knows, maybe with the revival of Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, someone will approach Dave Morris (the author, and also an early White Dwarf RQ stalwart) about re-publishing it? But I wouldn't hold your breath :-( Cheers, Nick Middleton From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jan 8 02:12:51 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:12:51 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] List update Message-ID: Everyone, I've updated the server mailing list software (Mailman) to the latest version. This new version is a bit different and handles things differently. If you experience any problems, please email me directly. -Andrew From tiberius at runequest.za.org Wed Jan 14 16:31:29 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:31:29 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Module on runequest,za.org Message-ID: <20047.196.8.104.31.1074058289.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Greetings and best wishes for MMIV. Did anyone check out that module I posted on my site? I would really liek some feedback if anyone has had a looksee. To facilitate feedback, I posted a poll at www.runequest.za.org Ciao Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Wed Jan 14 17:06:12 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:06:12 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic Message-ID: <45955.196.8.104.31.1074060372.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for RQ. Books like The Belgeriad's (Eddings) will and word concept, Lyndon Hardy's Master of the five magics and Watt Evan's Unwilling Warlord's warlockry concept have influenced out thought, but what got me thinking was a review I recently read regarding the talislanta game (4th ed) which I have never played (or had sight of. The review mentioned a kind of open-ended system where the wizard/enchanter/magic user or whatever you want to call it discusses what he wants to do with the GM. The GM decides how difficult the feat must be and then the player rolls accordingly. We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training are only way to improve the skill. Once trained, its simply a case of saying what they want to do E.G.: The classic fireball to wipe out a cave full of trolls would be "I want to conjure up a ball of fire (1) which I want to fling (2) into the cave. When it enters the cave, it must explode (3) with such force that it does at least 2d6 damage per hit location (4)" So: 1 - Create ball of fire - Difficulty = Not So Easy 2 - Move ball into cave via telekinesis (no real weight) - Difficulty = Easy 3 - Explode ball (Ball already exists so prodding it to explode) - Difficulty = Basic 4 - Damage (Serious intensity, needs powerful ball) - Difficulty = Hard So the spell has a total difficulty of Not so Easy (Hard counters the Easy and Basic). GM (consulting a table) says how many MP must be expended - say 3 for ball, 2 for telekinesis, 1 for exploding and 8 for Damage (4 for difficulty hard and 2 per D6 damage), so total MP would be 14. Maybe the character and player could debate this make some adjustments and then player can either decide to go ahead and spend the MP or try something else. And of course the player will have to make his actual roll vs. his skill. In the above example, the total difficulty was considered Not so Easy, which would (consult table) mean that roll is made at skill x3. Finally other penalties could be added to ensure this type of magic does not make the character too powerful. Maybe a special consequence of failure would be to loose a MP permanently, or fumbles could have life threatening results. (Can't remember if RQ has a spell fumble table and if it does, what the results are). Or the GM could simply put a modified limit on how much research and/or training in the skill a character may do, or maybe make the character pay dearly for the training. Pleas let me know what you think. Ciao Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Jan 14 20:17:09 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:17:09 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic Message-ID: Tony, A few off the cuff thoughts. >My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for >RQ... If you have a chance, might I suggest a look at Unknown East (the Elric Supplement), and Ars Magica? Both contain magic systems that involve "on the fly" creation of affects and from a play point of view I do think that both GM and players need a greater degree of confidence in the underlying rules than if you were say adding a new spells to the existing systems. This is purely a note of caution however! >We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw >magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to >use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character >wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a >decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a >skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as >base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be >able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit >it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training >are only way to improve the skill. Purely for colour, I'd seriously consider allowing for the possibility of both a) naturally incredibly powerful untrained warlocks and b) spontaneous use of magic under stress. Both have lots of literary forebears (Ged from UKLG's Earthsea, Dorilys from MZB's Stormqueen are the two that sprang to mind). Whilst they certainly shouldn't be common, it would be a shame if the system precluded them IMO. >Once trained, its simply a case of saying what they want to do E.G.: The >classic fireball to wipe out a cave full of trolls would be "I want to >conjure up a ball of fire (1) which I want to fling (2) into the cave. >When it enters the cave, it must explode (3) with such force that it does >at least 2d6 damage per hit location (4)" >So: >1 - Create ball of fire - Difficulty = Not So Easy >2 - Move ball into cave via telekinesis (no real weight) - Difficulty = Easy >3 - Explode ball (Ball already exists so prodding it to explode) - >Difficulty = Basic >4 - Damage (Serious intensity, needs powerful ball) - Difficulty = Hard > >So the spell has a total difficulty of Not so Easy (Hard counters the Easy >and Basic). > >GM (consulting a table) says how many MP must be expended - say 3 for >ball, 2 for telekinesis, 1 for exploding and 8 for Damage (4 for >difficulty hard and 2 per D6 damage), so total MP would be 14. Maybe the >character and player could debate this make some adjustments and then >player can either decide to go ahead and spend the MP or try something >else. Now here is the meat of the thing and my personal preference would be to try and codify things reasonably tightly so that it is relatively quick for a player to stitch together a concept and avoid prolonged debates with the GM. I have grave doubts about how a playing group would react to system that led to a ten minute debate every time the mage wanted to do something! But, using especially Sorcery as a model for the scaling of spell attributes (like damage, range etc) this should just be a matter of a clearly defined table of difficulties for typical tasks that is sufficiently rich... >And of course the player will have to make his actual roll vs. his skill. >In the above example, the total difficulty was considered Not so Easy, >which would (consult table) mean that roll is made at skill x3. Sounds fine. You would obviously need to think about minor details like casting time. I'm sure we are all assuming 1SR per MP, but this should be explicit and what about effects the character does on a regular basis - do they get easier, or quicker to cast? It seems counter intuitive that going for a similarly proportioned Fireball after previously casting it say fifty times should be the same proposition as a completely novel 14MP Not So Easy effect. My instinct would be to allow such 'formulaic' (to pinch an Ars Magica term) constructions to be a bit easier (say one step?) but to leave the MP total alone. >Finally other penalties could be added to ensure this type of magic does >not make the character too powerful. Maybe a special consequence of >failure would be to loose a MP permanently, or fumbles could have life >threatening results. (Can't remember if RQ has a spell fumble table and if >it does, what the results are). Or the GM could simply put a modified >limit on how much research and/or training in the skill a character may >do, or maybe make the character pay dearly for the training. Or how about the following (RQIII) unless the character expends fatigue points equal to the MP, the difficulty is increased two steps (again, borrowing from Ars Magic), encouraging such characters to develop a few formulae and only to risk fully spontaneous effect when the chips are really down. As a neat alternative, how about failed effects deal damage to the caster (say one HP for every 5MP), with fumbles causing considerably more? Hmm, could get a bit Python-esque "Oh look, Drax the Crimson just exploded..." Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Jan 14 22:59:25 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson (Padrigu)) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:59:25 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Module on runequest,za.org In-Reply-To: <20047.196.8.104.31.1074058289.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <20047.196.8.104.31.1074058289.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <40052F1D.7000909@padrigu.gu.se> Checked, read and commented. /Peter - Sweden tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: >Greetings and best wishes for MMIV. > >Did anyone check out that module I posted on my site? I would really liek >some feedback if anyone has had a looksee. To facilitate feedback, I >posted a poll at www.runequest.za.org >Ciao >Tony > -- Peter Johansson Doktorand / Ph. D. Candidate 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-(0)31-773 1335 fax: +46-(0)31-773 4910 From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu Jan 15 00:17:03 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:17:03 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question Message-ID: <16688.196.8.104.31.1074086223.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule for partial armour. What I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh type of plate breast holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in conanesque fiction etc. Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the plate cupps are only covering a small (or large) part of said area and possibly nothing from the back. I was thinking of something simple like if the area of partial coverage is struck, you have a XXX % chance of the armour taking it, the skimpier the coverage the less the %. So say In a bit of swordplay Danukz the orc slashes at Fand the Voluptious's chest and she only has a size 36C plate brazier on she may only have a 35% chance of the orcs bastard sword landing on skimpy plate armour. Any thoughts? Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu Jan 15 00:19:13 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:19:13 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Language Spells Message-ID: <18965.196.8.104.31.1074086353.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Is there a standard Speak Language (specify) spell in RQ? IF not, has anyone designed such a spell? Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From esoteric at crashbox.com Thu Jan 15 02:37:29 2004 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:37:29 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic In-Reply-To: <45955.196.8.104.31.1074060372.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <45955.196.8.104.31.1074060372.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: Please examine _Authentic_Thaumaturgy_ http://www.sjgames.com/thaumaturgy/ published by Steve Jackson Games and written by professional occultist Isaac Bonewits, the only person ever to earn a degree in Magic from the University of California, for gaming parameters formulated by an "authentic" magician. Really, this is a valuable game resource. >My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for >RQ. Books like The Belgeriad's (Eddings) will and word concept, Lyndon >Hardy's Master of the five magics and Watt Evan's Unwilling Warlord's >warlockry concept have influenced out thought, but what got me thinking >was a review I recently read regarding the talislanta game (4th ed) which >I have never played (or had sight of. The review mentioned a kind of >open-ended system where the wizard/enchanter/magic user or whatever you >want to call it discusses what he wants to do with the GM. The GM decides >how difficult the feat must be and then the player rolls accordingly. > >We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw >magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to >use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character >wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a >decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a >skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as >base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be >able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit >it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training >are only way to improve the skill. > >Please let me know what you think. -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 03:59:01 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:59:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> --- Brad Furst wrote: > Please examine _Authentic_Thaumaturgy_ > http://www.sjgames.com/thaumaturgy/ published by > Steve Jackson Games > and written by professional occultist Isaac > Bonewits, the only person > ever to earn a degree in Magic from the University > of California, for > gaming parameters formulated by an "authentic" > magician. Really, this > is a valuable game resource. Bonewits did not get a degree in Magic! That was a lie spread by then-governor Ronald Reagan in his largely successful attempt to destroy the California educational system. At the time, one could go from kindergarten to PhD at state expense if the grades so indicated. California had more Nobel Prize winners than any other political subdivision in the world. Now it ranks around the middle in indicators nationally and fewer Nobel winners are from that state than in the past. Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject was approved on his argument that no one denies Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult religions are entitled to the same treatment. Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big lies. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 04:07:38 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:07:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question In-Reply-To: <16688.196.8.104.31.1074086223.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <20040114170738.36046.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> --- tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: > Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > for partial armour. What > I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh > type of plate breast > holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in > conanesque fiction etc. > Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the > plate cupps are only > covering a small (or large) part of said area and > possibly nothing from > the back. > > I was thinking of something simple like if the area > of partial coverage is > struck, you have a XXX % chance of the armour taking > it, the skimpier the > coverage the less the %. So say In a bit of > swordplay Danukz the orc > slashes at Fand the Voluptious's chest and she only > has a size 36C plate > brazier on she may only have a 35% chance of the > orcs bastard sword > landing on skimpy plate armour. > > Any thoughts? > Tony As anyone who has participated in SCA, kendo, etc. can tell you, the proper answer is to treat as no armor. Double-mounded armor would tend to deflect the blow to the sternum and even if the slash is absorbed, the crush would do neither the sternum (not well supported because of the need for the ribs to move) or the heart any good! This applies to a lesser extent to the classic Valkyrie plate over the breasts and scale over the rest of the chest and back - which should be treated as scale overall. Besides, Valkyrie were immortal and didn't need to care. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From mercuri at tdcadsl.dk Thu Jan 15 08:09:14 2004 From: mercuri at tdcadsl.dk (Marco) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:09:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] SV: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 1, Issue 229 In-Reply-To: <20040114171028.662362226DF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: Dear Mailman, please do not send me more mails. Thank You. Yours sincerely, Marco Mercuri. -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]Pa vegne af rq-rules-request at crashbox.com Sendt: 14. januar 2004 18:10 Til: rq-rules at crashbox.com Emne: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 1, Issue 229 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.cgi/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-owner 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. [ADMIN] List update (Andrew Mellinger) 2. Module on runequest,za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) 3. Raw Magic (tiberius at runequest.za.org) 4. Re: Raw Magic (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) 5. Re: Module on runequest,za.org (Peter Johansson (Padrigu)) 6. Another arbitary rule of thumb question (tiberius at runequest.za.org) 7. Language Spells (tiberius at runequest.za.org) 8. Re: Raw Magic (Brad Furst) 9. Re: Raw Magic (Paul Cardwell) 10. Re: Another arbitary rule of thumb question (Paul Cardwell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:12:51 -0800 From: Andrew Mellinger Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] List update To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Everyone, I've updated the server mailing list software (Mailman) to the latest version. This new version is a bit different and handles things differently. If you experience any problems, please email me directly. -Andrew ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:31:29 +0200 (SAST) From: tiberius at runequest.za.org Subject: [RQ-Rules] Module on runequest,za.org To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <20047.196.8.104.31.1074058289.squirrel at mail.wack.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Greetings and best wishes for MMIV. Did anyone check out that module I posted on my site? I would really liek some feedback if anyone has had a looksee. To facilitate feedback, I posted a poll at www.runequest.za.org Ciao Tony -- Vacca Foeda! ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:06:12 +0200 (SAST) From: tiberius at runequest.za.org Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic To: preatorianguard at runequest.za.org, rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <45955.196.8.104.31.1074060372.squirrel at mail.wack.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for RQ. Books like The Belgeriad's (Eddings) will and word concept, Lyndon Hardy's Master of the five magics and Watt Evan's Unwilling Warlord's warlockry concept have influenced out thought, but what got me thinking was a review I recently read regarding the talislanta game (4th ed) which I have never played (or had sight of. The review mentioned a kind of open-ended system where the wizard/enchanter/magic user or whatever you want to call it discusses what he wants to do with the GM. The GM decides how difficult the feat must be and then the player rolls accordingly. We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training are only way to improve the skill. Once trained, its simply a case of saying what they want to do E.G.: The classic fireball to wipe out a cave full of trolls would be "I want to conjure up a ball of fire (1) which I want to fling (2) into the cave. When it enters the cave, it must explode (3) with such force that it does at least 2d6 damage per hit location (4)" So: 1 - Create ball of fire - Difficulty = Not So Easy 2 - Move ball into cave via telekinesis (no real weight) - Difficulty = Easy 3 - Explode ball (Ball already exists so prodding it to explode) - Difficulty = Basic 4 - Damage (Serious intensity, needs powerful ball) - Difficulty = Hard So the spell has a total difficulty of Not so Easy (Hard counters the Easy and Basic). GM (consulting a table) says how many MP must be expended - say 3 for ball, 2 for telekinesis, 1 for exploding and 8 for Damage (4 for difficulty hard and 2 per D6 damage), so total MP would be 14. Maybe the character and player could debate this make some adjustments and then player can either decide to go ahead and spend the MP or try something else. And of course the player will have to make his actual roll vs. his skill. In the above example, the total difficulty was considered Not so Easy, which would (consult table) mean that roll is made at skill x3. Finally other penalties could be added to ensure this type of magic does not make the character too powerful. Maybe a special consequence of failure would be to loose a MP permanently, or fumbles could have life threatening results. (Can't remember if RQ has a spell fumble table and if it does, what the results are). Or the GM could simply put a modified limit on how much research and/or training in the skill a character may do, or maybe make the character pay dearly for the training. Pleas let me know what you think. Ciao Tony -- Vacca Foeda! ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:17:09 +0000 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Tony, A few off the cuff thoughts. >My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for >RQ... If you have a chance, might I suggest a look at Unknown East (the Elric Supplement), and Ars Magica? Both contain magic systems that involve "on the fly" creation of affects and from a play point of view I do think that both GM and players need a greater degree of confidence in the underlying rules than if you were say adding a new spells to the existing systems. This is purely a note of caution however! >We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw >magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to >use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character >wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a >decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a >skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as >base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be >able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit >it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training >are only way to improve the skill. Purely for colour, I'd seriously consider allowing for the possibility of both a) naturally incredibly powerful untrained warlocks and b) spontaneous use of magic under stress. Both have lots of literary forebears (Ged from UKLG's Earthsea, Dorilys from MZB's Stormqueen are the two that sprang to mind). Whilst they certainly shouldn't be common, it would be a shame if the system precluded them IMO. >Once trained, its simply a case of saying what they want to do E.G.: The >classic fireball to wipe out a cave full of trolls would be "I want to >conjure up a ball of fire (1) which I want to fling (2) into the cave. >When it enters the cave, it must explode (3) with such force that it does >at least 2d6 damage per hit location (4)" >So: >1 - Create ball of fire - Difficulty = Not So Easy >2 - Move ball into cave via telekinesis (no real weight) - Difficulty = Easy >3 - Explode ball (Ball already exists so prodding it to explode) - >Difficulty = Basic >4 - Damage (Serious intensity, needs powerful ball) - Difficulty = Hard > >So the spell has a total difficulty of Not so Easy (Hard counters the Easy >and Basic). > >GM (consulting a table) says how many MP must be expended - say 3 for >ball, 2 for telekinesis, 1 for exploding and 8 for Damage (4 for >difficulty hard and 2 per D6 damage), so total MP would be 14. Maybe the >character and player could debate this make some adjustments and then >player can either decide to go ahead and spend the MP or try something >else. Now here is the meat of the thing and my personal preference would be to try and codify things reasonably tightly so that it is relatively quick for a player to stitch together a concept and avoid prolonged debates with the GM. I have grave doubts about how a playing group would react to system that led to a ten minute debate every time the mage wanted to do something! But, using especially Sorcery as a model for the scaling of spell attributes (like damage, range etc) this should just be a matter of a clearly defined table of difficulties for typical tasks that is sufficiently rich... >And of course the player will have to make his actual roll vs. his skill. >In the above example, the total difficulty was considered Not so Easy, >which would (consult table) mean that roll is made at skill x3. Sounds fine. You would obviously need to think about minor details like casting time. I'm sure we are all assuming 1SR per MP, but this should be explicit and what about effects the character does on a regular basis - do they get easier, or quicker to cast? It seems counter intuitive that going for a similarly proportioned Fireball after previously casting it say fifty times should be the same proposition as a completely novel 14MP Not So Easy effect. My instinct would be to allow such 'formulaic' (to pinch an Ars Magica term) constructions to be a bit easier (say one step?) but to leave the MP total alone. >Finally other penalties could be added to ensure this type of magic does >not make the character too powerful. Maybe a special consequence of >failure would be to loose a MP permanently, or fumbles could have life >threatening results. (Can't remember if RQ has a spell fumble table and if >it does, what the results are). Or the GM could simply put a modified >limit on how much research and/or training in the skill a character may >do, or maybe make the character pay dearly for the training. Or how about the following (RQIII) unless the character expends fatigue points equal to the MP, the difficulty is increased two steps (again, borrowing from Ars Magic), encouraging such characters to develop a few formulae and only to risk fully spontaneous effect when the chips are really down. As a neat alternative, how about failed effects deal damage to the caster (say one HP for every 5MP), with fumbles causing considerably more? Hmm, could get a bit Python-esque "Oh look, Drax the Crimson just exploded..." Cheers, Nick Middleton ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:59:25 +0100 From: "Peter Johansson (Padrigu)" Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Module on runequest,za.org To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Message-ID: <40052F1D.7000909 at padrigu.gu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Checked, read and commented. /Peter - Sweden tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: >Greetings and best wishes for MMIV. > >Did anyone check out that module I posted on my site? I would really liek >some feedback if anyone has had a looksee. To facilitate feedback, I >posted a poll at www.runequest.za.org >Ciao >Tony > -- Peter Johansson Doktorand / Ph. D. Candidate Institutionen fvr freds- och utvecklingsforskning / Department of Peace and Development Research Gvteborgs universitet / Gvteborg University Postal address: Box 700, SE-405 30 Gvteborg, SWEDEN tel: +46-(0)31-773 1335 fax: +46-(0)31-773 4910 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:17:03 +0200 (SAST) From: tiberius at runequest.za.org Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <16688.196.8.104.31.1074086223.squirrel at mail.wack.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule for partial armour. What I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh type of plate breast holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in conanesque fiction etc. Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the plate cupps are only covering a small (or large) part of said area and possibly nothing from the back. I was thinking of something simple like if the area of partial coverage is struck, you have a XXX % chance of the armour taking it, the skimpier the coverage the less the %. So say In a bit of swordplay Danukz the orc slashes at Fand the Voluptious's chest and she only has a size 36C plate brazier on she may only have a 35% chance of the orcs bastard sword landing on skimpy plate armour. Any thoughts? Tony -- Vacca Foeda! ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:19:13 +0200 (SAST) From: tiberius at runequest.za.org Subject: [RQ-Rules] Language Spells To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <18965.196.8.104.31.1074086353.squirrel at mail.wack.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Is there a standard Speak Language (specify) spell in RQ? IF not, has anyone designed such a spell? Tony -- Vacca Foeda! ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:37:29 -0800 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Please examine _Authentic_Thaumaturgy_ http://www.sjgames.com/thaumaturgy/ published by Steve Jackson Games and written by professional occultist Isaac Bonewits, the only person ever to earn a degree in Magic from the University of California, for gaming parameters formulated by an "authentic" magician. Really, this is a valuable game resource. >My group and I have been thinking of the idea of a "new" type of magic for >RQ. Books like The Belgeriad's (Eddings) will and word concept, Lyndon >Hardy's Master of the five magics and Watt Evan's Unwilling Warlord's >warlockry concept have influenced out thought, but what got me thinking >was a review I recently read regarding the talislanta game (4th ed) which >I have never played (or had sight of. The review mentioned a kind of >open-ended system where the wizard/enchanter/magic user or whatever you >want to call it discusses what he wants to do with the GM. The GM decides >how difficult the feat must be and then the player rolls accordingly. > >We reckon a similar concept may work well in RQ. Call it raw >magic/warlockry, whatever. Everyone has a chance of an innate ability to >use it but the ability must be specifically trained. So if a character >wants to try use it, they must first find someone to train them and then a >decision on the level of their innate ability must be made (Expressed as a >skill). The GM can decide or roll what the base chance is, maybe same as >base magic, maybe reduce or enhance it. Still, the character will not be >able to perform magic this way until he has received training and to limit >it further, may not improve the skill via EXP. Thus research and training >are only way to improve the skill. > >Please let me know what you think. -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:59:01 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Cardwell Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Message-ID: <20040114165901.53359.qmail at web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brad Furst wrote: > Please examine _Authentic_Thaumaturgy_ > http://www.sjgames.com/thaumaturgy/ published by > Steve Jackson Games > and written by professional occultist Isaac > Bonewits, the only person > ever to earn a degree in Magic from the University > of California, for > gaming parameters formulated by an "authentic" > magician. Really, this > is a valuable game resource. Bonewits did not get a degree in Magic! That was a lie spread by then-governor Ronald Reagan in his largely successful attempt to destroy the California educational system. At the time, one could go from kindergarten to PhD at state expense if the grades so indicated. California had more Nobel Prize winners than any other political subdivision in the world. Now it ranks around the middle in indicators nationally and fewer Nobel winners are from that state than in the past. Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject was approved on his argument that no one denies Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult religions are entitled to the same treatment. Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big lies. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:07:38 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Cardwell Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Message-ID: <20040114170738.36046.qmail at web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: > Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > for partial armour. What > I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh > type of plate breast > holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in > conanesque fiction etc. > Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the > plate cupps are only > covering a small (or large) part of said area and > possibly nothing from > the back. > > I was thinking of something simple like if the area > of partial coverage is > struck, you have a XXX % chance of the armour taking > it, the skimpier the > coverage the less the %. So say In a bit of > swordplay Danukz the orc > slashes at Fand the Voluptious's chest and she only > has a size 36C plate > brazier on she may only have a 35% chance of the > orcs bastard sword > landing on skimpy plate armour. > > Any thoughts? > Tony As anyone who has participated in SCA, kendo, etc. can tell you, the proper answer is to treat as no armor. Double-mounded armor would tend to deflect the blow to the sternum and even if the slash is absorbed, the crush would do neither the sternum (not well supported because of the need for the ribs to move) or the heart any good! This applies to a lesser extent to the classic Valkyrie plate over the breasts and scale over the rest of the chest and back - which should be treated as scale overall. Besides, Valkyrie were immortal and didn't need to care. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules End of RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 1, Issue 229 **************************************** From MurfNMurf at aol.com Thu Jan 15 10:10:26 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:10:26 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question Message-ID: <99.41f23422.2d372662@aol.com> Well, there's a rule in *Elfquest* that might be apropos---where if the character is wearing ornaments on a hit location (and if you've ever seen the comic, just about everyone is loaded down with armbands, headbands, etc.) that takes damage, roll POW x3 to see if the ornament is hit first. If damage exceeds the ornament's AP, then it is destroyed, and any damage remaining wounds that location, If the damage done is equal to, or less than the ornament's AP, it instead loses 1 AP. Ornaments have 1D6-1 AP. Best, -Ken- "Monkeys! Why must it always be monkeys? Why can't I be attacked by trained Supermodels?" --Ron Stoppable, Kim Possible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040114/d2431852/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Jan 15 10:54:37 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:54:37 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic In-Reply-To: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4005D6BD.2060302@inetnebr.com> Paul Cardwell wrote: >Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His >dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was >drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject >was approved on his argument that no one denies >Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult >religions are entitled to the same treatment. > >Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big >lies. > >Paul Cardwell > > Bonewitz is the one who made the lie.. if others quote him are they to blame? -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Jan 15 11:32:15 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:32:15 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic References: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> <4005D6BD.2060302@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <00cd01c3daff$1942a6e0$f4407442@wizard> I know Isaac. I always heard the degree was in Anthropology - primitive religions. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "lance dyas" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic > Paul Cardwell wrote: > > >Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His > >dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was > >drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject > >was approved on his argument that no one denies > >Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult > >religions are entitled to the same treatment. > > > >Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big > >lies. > > > >Paul Cardwell > > > > > Bonewitz is the one who made the lie.. if others quote him are they to > blame? > > -- > Lance Dyas > > Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying > > -- Lance Dyas > Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center > http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Jan 15 14:04:26 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:04:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic In-Reply-To: <00cd01c3daff$1942a6e0$f4407442@wizard> References: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> <4005D6BD.2060302@inetnebr.com> <00cd01c3daff$1942a6e0$f4407442@wizard> Message-ID: <4006033A.5050002@inetnebr.com> I have AT, there is nothing abiguous in his own writing about his qualifation to write the book nothing at all. Course maybe someone else wrote it.. Steve Perrin wrote: >I know Isaac. > >I always heard the degree was in Anthropology - primitive religions. > >Steve Perrin > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "lance dyas" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:54 PM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic > > > > >>Paul Cardwell wrote: >> >> >> >>>Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His >>>dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was >>>drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject >>>was approved on his argument that no one denies >>>Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult >>>religions are entitled to the same treatment. >>> >>>Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big >>>lies. >>> >>>Paul Cardwell >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Bonewitz is the one who made the lie.. if others quote him are they to >>blame? >> >>-- >>Lance Dyas >> From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Jan 15 16:06:44 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:06:44 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Raw Magic In-Reply-To: <4006033A.5050002@inetnebr.com> References: <20040114165901.53359.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> <4005D6BD.2060302@inetnebr.com> <00cd01c3daff$1942a6e0$f4407442@wizard> <4006033A.5050002@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <40061FE4.6060909@inetnebr.com> Guess My statement was uniformative... He says I am a professional in the magic field. I have spent many years doing research, writing books (the best known of which is my first Real Magic, still in print from Samuel Weiser Publications) andd articles, giving lectures and running classes in minority belief systems including magic, Witchcraft, Druidism psychicism, Voodoo etc. Guess that synchronizes rather well with Anthropology of primitive religions ... We may have to forgive the cover blurb quoted earlier. lance dyas wrote: > I have AT, there is nothing abiguous in his own writing about his > qualifation to write the book nothing at all. Course maybe someone > else wrote it.. > > Steve Perrin wrote: > >> I know Isaac. >> >> I always heard the degree was in Anthropology - primitive religions. >> >> Steve Perrin >> > -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu Jan 15 16:40:25 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:40:25 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Module on runequest,za.org Message-ID: <26695.196.8.104.31.1074145225.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Peter from Sweden wrote: Checked, read and commented. Thanks mate, your comments are most welcome, I really appreciate the pointers you gave me. Cheers Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 15 18:49:35 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:49:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Bonewits' Degree In-Reply-To: <20040114171028.10AD02226DE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040115074935.65260.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> If it is a lie, it originated in the author description on Authentic Thaumaturgy itself where it says he got a B.A. from the University of California in Magic. Bonewits probably wrote that description himself, so if it is not true the lie didn't start with Reagan (or if Reagan authored it pre-1978, Bonewits himself used it). All that aside, I've also been noodling on a system based on AT, and will share if I can ever get enough time to finish the draft. Steve --- Paul Cardwell wrote: >Bonewits did not get a degree in Magic! That was a >lie spread by then-governor Ronald Reagan in his >largely successful attempt to destroy the California >educational system... > >...Bonewits' degree was in English literature. His >dissertation (from which Authentic Thaumaturgy was >drawn in part) was on magic literature. The subject >was approved on his argument that no one denies >Judiatica nor Christian literature, therefore occult >religions are entitled to the same treatment. > >Let's do keep things accurate and stop spreading big >lies. > >Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 15 19:35:09 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:35:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Partial armor coverage Message-ID: You could use the Elric!/Stormbringer armor system, i.e. the armor don't have fixed armor points, but rolleable one. In the exemple you mention, the chest could have a 1D8-1 armor point. If 0 is rolled, you hit the no protected part. If you roll 8, your blow hit the full plate part. All other rolls are up to your interpretation. The Elric regular system do not call for hit location roll (but the armor roll may give you some guides as to the hit location if partial armor is worn, as above), but as you can see it can be easily adpated to hit location. Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040115/84249b9f/attachment.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 15 19:38:21 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:38:21 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Language spell Message-ID: I use the following divine spell : Polyglot (2 POU, non stackable). The character on which the spell is cast can use his higher Speak Language skill to speak any language he knows (01% or more). The effect of the spell stops when the charater switch to another language. Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040115/c1969e6c/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 15 22:10:36 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:10:36 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question Message-ID: >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule for partial armour. I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that is based on my own experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) In my system the body is divided into 28 sections. I've allso split damage between cutting, piercing and bashing damage, so armour and armourlocations makes up an entire A4 page of itself! If anybody is as fanatically interested in theese aspects of roleplaying as me, I could try to write somthing about it here. I think I've presented it on Runequest.za.org before (search the discussion forum on that site) _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 01:24:58 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115142458.59484.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> It soundes interesting, I would like to see more details. Greg --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > for partial armour. > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > is based on my own > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) > > In my system the body is divided into 28 sections. > I've allso split damage > between cutting, piercing and bashing damage, so > armour and armourlocations > makes up an entire A4 page of itself! > > If anybody is as fanatically interested in theese > aspects of roleplaying as > me, I could try to write somthing about it here. I > think I've presented it > on Runequest.za.org before (search the discussion > forum on that site) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp > - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 03:13:53 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:13:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Bonewits' Degree In-Reply-To: <20040115074935.65260.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040115161353.37965.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> --- Steve Davies wrote: > If it is a lie, it originated in the author > description on Authentic Thaumaturgy itself where it > says he got a B.A. from the University of California > in Magic. Bonewits probably wrote that description > himself, so if it is not true the lie didn't start > with Reagan (or if Reagan authored it pre-1978, > Bonewits himself used it). > > All that aside, I've also been noodling on a system > based on AT, and will share if I can ever get enough > time to finish the draft. > > Steve Bonewitz may well have authored the description. I never met the man and don't know. However, I do know that the official major was English Literature, and that Reagan used it, along with the destruction of People's Park, and other things, in his campaign against the California idea of public school all the way, rather than his preferred "advantages only for the wealthy" system now in place. As for the status of California education today, I can only refer you to standard statistics such as per capatia expense on education, per student expense, school library books per student, percentage of teachers with masters degrees, percentage of teachers certified, etc. Of course, I have enough to deal with at home, as Texas is even worse than California's ranking in the thirties, as 35th is as high as Texas gets, and most are in the forties. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From alanchambers at comcast.net Fri Jan 16 07:39:02 2004 From: alanchambers at comcast.net (Alan Chambers) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:39:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question In-Reply-To: <16688.196.8.104.31.1074086223.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of > tiberius at runequest.za.org > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:17 AM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question > > > Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule for partial armour. What > I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh type of plate breast > holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in conanesque fiction etc. > Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the plate cupps are only > covering a small (or large) part of said area and possibly nothing from > the back. > > I was thinking of something simple like if the area of partial coverage is > struck, you have a XXX % chance of the armour taking it, the skimpier the > coverage the less the %. So say In a bit of swordplay Danukz the orc > slashes at Fand the Voluptious's chest and she only has a size 36C plate > brazier on she may only have a 35% chance of the orcs bastard sword > landing on skimpy plate armour. > > Any thoughts? > Tony > I have a down and dirt system for partial armor. Roll a d6 , even the armor applies, odd it doesn't. It may not be realistic but it keeps the game rolling. Alan From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 10:55:15 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:55:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115235515.59829.qmail@web41104.mail.yahoo.com> Just decrease the AP and enc of the armor. Plate (Cheesecake of Protection) AP3, Enc4 Leon > > Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > for partial armour. What > > I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh > type of plate breast > > holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in > conanesque fiction etc. > > Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the > plate cupps are only > > covering a small (or large) part of said area and > possibly nothing from > > the back. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From floor13 at bayarea.net Fri Jan 16 12:16:11 2004 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:16:11 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Bonewits' degree References: <20040115235809.61E712226DF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <001801c3dbce$54936e80$7442dbcd@perfect> It's legit. The early editions of his book "Real Magic" had a photograph of the actual document on the back cover. From comogatas at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 18:42:46 2004 From: comogatas at yahoo.com (Eddy) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:42:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Partial Armor Message-ID: <20040116074246.28165.qmail@web40507.mail.yahoo.com> I have not seen a detailed partial armor system to the extent that detailed critical hit (hit location) systems exist. The Riddle of Steel RPG is supposed to be very detailed and the site allows you to download a sample of their rules but I don't know how extensive the armor rules are. I was tinkering with giving armor pieces a "coverage rating" from 1 (Wonder Woman's bracers) to 20 (hermetically sealed super science armor) and using a d20 roll to see if the attack hit the armor or not. The system would have to play along with and essentially be part of the hit location system (RQ or whatever you choose) in order to minimize disruption of game flow. I don't have a play group so if someone could run with it, please do. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040115/fc4aa872/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jan 16 19:37:15 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:37:15 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question Message-ID: > > Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > for partial armour. What > > I am referring to (although not exclusivly) is teh > type of plate breast > > holders and chain girdle worn by amazons in > conanesque fiction etc. > > Clearly one cannot get an 8 in the chest as the > plate cupps are only > > covering a small (or large) part of said area and > possibly nothing from > > the back. > >Just decrease the AP and enc of the armor. > >Plate (Cheesecake of Protection) AP3, Enc4 > >Leon I think the benefits of simplicity and clarity in combat would put my vote behind Leon's suggestion. Elric/Stormbringer I'd possibly give the armour a lower rating than half plate (say d6-1) but the basic premise of that armour system is that the variability of the rating represents lack of total coverage. In RQ however, coverage above a total level has always been assumed to be comprehensive for the most part, and RQ combat is intricate enough as it is. Alternatively one could argue of course that from the typical description one could allow them the benefits of a cuirass (chest only rigid armour) against blows striking the front, but nothing against blows striking from the rear and effectively no armour on the abdomen... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Wed Jan 21 01:01:26 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:01:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] Archives Message-ID: I tried to acces the 2004 archives, and I noticed that the archived messages end on January 16. The latest digest I received contained a mix of messages earlier than 16 and later than 16, but they don't appear in the archived message list ? Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040120/5bf2e812/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Jan 21 00:50:58 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (gianni at basicrps.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:50:58 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <1074606658.400d32423ef9a@imp.webhuset.no> Hi Has anybody ever tried using sorcery within a RQ2 campaign? How'd it work? Cheers Gianni From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jan 21 02:24:51 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:24:51 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508385@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> I've never tried to use sorcery in RQ2 and never really liked the sorcery rules. It seemed to take away from the simplicity of the system. As the current game I run is unlikely to go anywhere near the West I'm not too concerned but I would like to give the Lunars something a bit different.... -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of gianni at basicrps.com Sent: Tue 20/01/2004 13:50 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Cc: Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Hi Has anybody ever tried using sorcery within a RQ2 campaign? How'd it work? Cheers Gianni _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040120/762e592c/attachment.bin From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Jan 21 02:57:53 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:57:53 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: >I've never tried to use sorcery in RQ2 and never really liked the sorcery rules. It seemed to take away from >the simplicity of the system. > >As the current game I run is unlikely to go anywhere near the West I'm not too concerned but I would like to >give the Lunars something a bit different.... > >>Has anybody ever tried using sorcery within a RQ2 campaign? How'd it work? >> It's been a while, but IIRC all my RQ at Uni ('86 - '89) was RQII with a few house rules, using bits from RQIII (espcially Griffin Island, as my brother (git) wouldn't give me his copy of Griffin Mountain...). At the time I didn't much like the RQIII rules in general, and thought Sorcery awfully fiddly, so I left it as an NPC power and let the PC's play with RQII magic (plus adaptations of Magic World and Stormbringer magic down powered a bit). Given the resources to cast highly manipulated spells, RQIII Sorcery is gob-smackingly powerful and unless Divine and Spirit Magic are seriously up-rated, it could well over-power a campaign (that's one of the reasons it is the least ubiquitous system in RQIII). Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 02:52:25 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules Message-ID: >From: grogthing >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0800 (PST) > >It soundes interesting, I would like to see more >details. > >Greg > >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > > for partial armour. > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > > is based on my own > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) OK, here it comes (the short version:) (When I refer to the original system, I mean RQ3) I divide the humanoid body into 28 sections. I keep the original hit locations and total hit points, though, and any damage hitting in the four Right arm hit locations will all do damage to the original Right arm hit points. The 28 hit locations are only used for determining how much damage that was stopped, and for giving the GM some directions as to where the hit strikes, and what the consiquenses are conserning describingpurposes. The 28 locations are: Original: "Head" Scull Eyes/nose region Chins Mouth region Original:"Chest" (Front/back is logic; it depends on wether you have the back or the front exposed) Throat/neck Torso front/back (This is a large zone, i decided to not split this location up more than nessecary) Original: "R/L Arm" Shoulder Overarm Elbow Underarm Hand Original: "Abdomen" Upper abdomen (from ribcage to navel) Lower abdomen (from navel to groin) L/R upper thigh (hip area) Original: "R/L Leg" Lower thigh Knee Leg Foot The "TO HIT ROLL" is increased from a d20 to a d100 roll, and the %to hit which of theese 28 parts is outlined acording to my own experiences when sparring in WMA The ratio is altered a bit from the original d20 system, I haven't just multiplied with 5 and divided to each main/original hit location. I've allso had to work on the armor encumbrance to make it fit the smaller and more detailed hit locations table of mine. I cannot remember the exact propotions, but here I was more true to the original RQ rules conserning armor: (F.instance head armor is 1/10 = 10% of total suit enc. (In my system i state that covering scull counts as 6% Eyes/nose as 1% Mouth as 1% and chins as 2%) I've allso altered the armor points -rules for RQ-3 (Dividing between piercing/bashing and cuttingdamage, and introducing two importaint armortypes; gambersons and Linothoraxes(textile paddings), damage done by weapons, and the fatigue system, but I don't want to troubble you with that! _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From grogthing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 04:54:51 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:54:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040121175451.66396.qmail@web41509.mail.yahoo.com> Wow, that is cool, thanks for the info - good ideas from that. Greg --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > > >From: grogthing > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > >Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of > thumb question > >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0800 (PST) > > > >It soundes interesting, I would like to see more > >details. > > > >Greg > > > >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or > houserule > > > for partial armour. > > > > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem > that > > > is based on my own > > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) > > OK, here it comes (the short version:) > > (When I refer to the original system, I mean RQ3) > > I divide the humanoid body into 28 sections. I keep > the original hit > locations and total hit points, though, and any > damage hitting in the four > Right arm hit locations will all do damage to the > original Right arm hit > points. The 28 hit locations are only used for > determining how much damage > that was stopped, and for giving the GM some > directions as to where the hit > strikes, and what the consiquenses are conserning > describingpurposes. > The 28 locations are: > > Original: "Head" > Scull > Eyes/nose region > Chins > Mouth region > > Original:"Chest" (Front/back is logic; it depends on > wether you have the > back or the front exposed) > Throat/neck > Torso front/back (This is a large zone, i decided to > not split this location > up more than nessecary) > > Original: "R/L Arm" > Shoulder > Overarm > Elbow > Underarm > Hand > > Original: "Abdomen" > Upper abdomen (from ribcage to navel) > Lower abdomen (from navel to groin) > L/R upper thigh (hip area) > > Original: "R/L Leg" > Lower thigh > Knee > Leg > Foot > > The "TO HIT ROLL" is increased from a d20 to a d100 > roll, and the %to hit > which of theese 28 parts is outlined acording to my > own experiences when > sparring in WMA The ratio is altered a bit from the > original d20 system, I > haven't just multiplied with 5 and divided to each > main/original hit > location. > > I've allso had to work on the armor encumbrance to > make it fit the smaller > and more detailed hit locations table of mine. I > cannot remember the exact > propotions, but here I was more true to the original > RQ rules conserning > armor: (F.instance head armor is 1/10 = 10% of total > suit enc. (In my system > i state that covering scull counts as 6% Eyes/nose > as 1% Mouth as 1% and > chins as 2%) > > I've allso altered the armor points -rules for RQ-3 > (Dividing between > piercing/bashing and cuttingdamage, and introducing > two importaint > armortypes; gambersons and Linothoraxes(textile > paddings), damage done by > weapons, and the fatigue system, but I don't want to > troubble you with that! > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp > - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From ulo at metrocast.net Thu Jan 22 05:28:02 2004 From: ulo at metrocast.net (Christopher E. Fasulo) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:28:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules References: Message-ID: <000c01c3e04c$4e1b3c90$0100a8c0@Beowulf> Almost like Harnmaster.I always thought of combining those locations with RQ and adding the aiming zones of TROS because if you look at the TROS locaions they almost the same as Harnmaster, and Harnmasters locations are just a more detailed version of RQ, but I could never figure out how to make the RQ location hit points work with all those locations. I am trying to convert the Harnmaster different damage aspects of Blunt/Edge/Point of each weapon to RQ as well with the Harnmaster armor. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules > > > > >From: grogthing > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question > >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0800 (PST) > > > >It soundes interesting, I would like to see more > >details. > > > >Greg > > > >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > > > for partial armour. > > > > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > > > is based on my own > > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) > > OK, here it comes (the short version:) > > (When I refer to the original system, I mean RQ3) > > I divide the humanoid body into 28 sections. I keep the original hit > locations and total hit points, though, and any damage hitting in the four > Right arm hit locations will all do damage to the original Right arm hit > points. The 28 hit locations are only used for determining how much damage > that was stopped, and for giving the GM some directions as to where the hit > strikes, and what the consiquenses are conserning describingpurposes. > The 28 locations are: > > Original: "Head" > Scull > Eyes/nose region > Chins > Mouth region > > Original:"Chest" (Front/back is logic; it depends on wether you have the > back or the front exposed) > Throat/neck > Torso front/back (This is a large zone, i decided to not split this location > up more than nessecary) > > Original: "R/L Arm" > Shoulder > Overarm > Elbow > Underarm > Hand > > Original: "Abdomen" > Upper abdomen (from ribcage to navel) > Lower abdomen (from navel to groin) > L/R upper thigh (hip area) > > Original: "R/L Leg" > Lower thigh > Knee > Leg > Foot > > The "TO HIT ROLL" is increased from a d20 to a d100 roll, and the %to hit > which of theese 28 parts is outlined acording to my own experiences when > sparring in WMA The ratio is altered a bit from the original d20 system, I > haven't just multiplied with 5 and divided to each main/original hit > location. > > I've allso had to work on the armor encumbrance to make it fit the smaller > and more detailed hit locations table of mine. I cannot remember the exact > propotions, but here I was more true to the original RQ rules conserning > armor: (F.instance head armor is 1/10 = 10% of total suit enc. (In my system > i state that covering scull counts as 6% Eyes/nose as 1% Mouth as 1% and > chins as 2%) > > I've allso altered the armor points -rules for RQ-3 (Dividing between > piercing/bashing and cuttingdamage, and introducing two importaint > armortypes; gambersons and Linothoraxes(textile paddings), damage done by > weapons, and the fatigue system, but I don't want to troubble you with that! > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 22 05:48:18 2004 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (Alan Richards) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:48:18 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Detailed Hit LOactions In-Reply-To: <20040121175814.0709A2226FB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> I once (read 14 years ago) ran a long campaign using a bastadised RQ/DragonWarriors/ Arcanum/fevered imagination ruleset. Which had a very detailed d100 hit location system. (To avoid another roll I just used the digits on the d100 'hit' roll). Unfortunately over the couple of years it ran a silly statistical anomaly was thrown up. It seemed that everyone was hit in the thigh! Because that had the numerical value (I can't remember the range OFTTOMH) that corresponded wit the average d100 roll! (i.e. '50') Alan From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 22 07:51:57 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:51:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Detailed Hit LOactions In-Reply-To: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <20040121205157.22552.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> Since a D100, unlike say 3D6, is a straight line rather than bell curve distribution, no number should come up any more often than another. In a bell curve distribution, naturally the middle would occur more than the extremes. Off hand, I would say this was either inaccurate dice (more likely to roll one number than another), or else there were a lot of rolls atypically giving the same narrow range and this was remembered when other results would not be, or more likely a combination of both. Paul Cardwell --- Alan Richards wrote: > I once (read 14 years ago) ran a long campaign using > a bastadised > RQ/DragonWarriors/ Arcanum/fevered imagination > ruleset. Which had a > very detailed d100 hit location system. (To avoid > another roll I just > used the digits on the d100 'hit' roll). > > Unfortunately over the couple of years it ran a > silly statistical > anomaly was thrown up. It seemed that everyone was > hit in the thigh! > Because that had the numerical value (I can't > remember the range > OFTTOMH) that corresponded wit the average d100 > roll! (i.e. '50') > > Alan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 22 19:56:27 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:56:27 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > > for partial armour. > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > > is based on my own > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) >OK, here it comes (the short version:) Yes indeed, it's quite complex. Do you take into account other relevant elements such as whether it is hand to hand or missile attack, whether the attacker is right or left handed, whether the attacker has two weapons or multiple attacks, whether the attak comes from above or behind (a scorpionman dart attack ?), ... and so on ? And do you do same for all hit location table in RQ (for all monsters ?). Just kidding... :-) I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric or Stormbringer). Alain http://www. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040122/99676e7c/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Jan 22 20:07:54 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:07:54 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. >Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric or Stormbringer). I'm a big fan of SB/Elric, and the only drawbacks I have found in play are 1) It can be difficulty to interpret what the compound abstractions in combat represent: ones description should surely reflect the to hit roll, the damage roll AND the armour roll, but doing so in the midst of running a combat can be a nit of a pain at times. 2) Variable armour increases the variability of the game, making thoughtful strategic combat styles less optimal (they can always be scuppered by a dodgy armour roll) - this is only a drawback in that it is a subtlety of the combat system that can trip one up when adapting the rules to a different setting. Cheers, Nick Middleton. From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 22 22:07:29 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:07:29 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] Still incomplete Archives. Message-ID: Nick's answer on my message "Hit Location/Elric system" is already available of the Archived sites, while my own post (obviously sent prior his answer, unless some time gap occured), is not yet there ! How that can be ? My previous messages of 16 January (two of them) are still not listed in the Archives ! Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040122/cae958b7/attachment.html From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Jan 23 02:53:49 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:53:49 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <400FF20D.6010308@padrigu.gu.se> Hi! I?d say that the extra die roll in itself is a drawback, in addition to the ones Nick mentions below. Although I sympatize with your problem. We have had several different discussios on armor coverage, hit locations, critical hits etc, but in the end reverted back to the good ol' RQ2 rules, simple but yet effective and semi-realistic. :-) Cheers, /Peter J Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. >> >> >>Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric or Stormbringer). >> >>I'm a big fan of SB/Elric, and the only drawbacks I have found in play are >>1) It can be difficulty to interpret what the compound abstractions in combat represent: ones description should surely reflect the to hit roll, the damage roll AND the armour roll, but doing so in the midst of running a combat can be a nit of a pain at times. >> >> >> 2) Variable armour increases the variability of the game, making thoughtful strategic combat styles less optimal (they can always be scuppered by a dodgy armour roll) - this is only a drawback in that it is a subtlety of the combat system that can trip one up when adapting the rules to a different setting. >> From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jan 23 03:33:40 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:33:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 In-Reply-To: <20040121175814.0709A2226FB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040122163340.40472.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Gianni: > Has anybody ever tried using sorcery within a RQ2 campaign? How'd it work? One of our GMs tried to use sorcery spells in RQ2 but there were issues. The spellcasting was fine, spells and skills had increments of 5% and went up too quickly by experience so you could get master mages very quickly. The main problem was that RQ2 Battle Magic was limited to 4 points of variable magic for almost everything, except Countermagic, Dispel Magic and perhaps Spirit Shield, I think, and RQ2 Rune Magic was limited to 4 stackable points, except for Divine Intervention. This meant that, for rules compatibility, Sorcery should be limited to Intensity 4, Range 4, Duration 4 and Multispell 4. Not a lot of use, really. We tried to have sorcery limited only by Free INT, but that meant that a sorcerer could have Damage Boosting 16 for 10 minutes and cleaved through the opposition. In the end, we used sorcery for NPCs only and limited their INT. stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk: > I've never tried to use sorcery in RQ2 and never really liked the sorcery > rules. It seemed to take away from the simplicity of the system. > > As the current game I run is unlikely to go anywhere near the West I'm not > too concerned but I would like to give the Lunars something a bit > different.... Using the Lunar manipulates is a bit better for RQ2, but you still get the Bladesharp 16 equivalent using Amplify, which is very powerful. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Jan 23 11:29:58 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:29:58 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system In-Reply-To: <400FF20D.6010308@padrigu.gu.se> References: <400FF20D.6010308@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <40106B06.9050408@inetnebr.com> In stormbringer.. unless I am mistaken the armor roll... kind of replaced the hitlocations. ( you only really knew you hit location on a critical) Peter Johansson wrote: > Hi! > > I?d say that the extra die roll in itself is a drawback, in addition > to the ones Nick mentions below. Although I sympatize with your > problem. We have had several different discussios on armor coverage, > hit locations, critical hits etc, but in the end reverted back to the > good ol' RQ2 rules, simple but yet effective and semi-realistic. :-) > > Cheers, > > /Peter J > > > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>> I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll >>> instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. >>> >>> Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric or >>> Stormbringer). >>> >>> I'm a big fan of SB/Elric, and the only drawbacks I have found in >>> play are >>> 1) It can be difficulty to interpret what the compound abstractions >>> in combat represent: ones description should surely reflect the to >>> hit roll, the damage roll AND the armour roll, but doing so in the >>> midst of running a combat can be a nit of a pain at times. >>> >>> 2) Variable armour increases the variability of the game, making >>> thoughtful strategic combat styles less optimal (they can always be >>> scuppered by a dodgy armour roll) - this is only a drawback in that >>> it is a subtlety of the combat system that can trip one up when >>> adapting the rules to a different setting. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > . > -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From dragonslance63 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 23 13:15:29 2004 From: dragonslance63 at earthlink.net (Dragons Lance) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:15:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home> Hi, I guess this may be a stupid question, but I cannot seem to find any information on Rune Spells. Can someone help me with this, in particular, which spells are rune spells, and how they affect the game and the spells.. I got the rule book a few weeks ago... Also, I am in the process of converting an old AD&D World I made up a few years back to RQ... If you are interested, I can send the link later.. Thanks Dragons Lance From talmeta at talmeta.net Fri Jan 23 13:49:52 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:49:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> <000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home> Message-ID: <40108BD0.4040301@talmeta.net> Dragons Lance wrote: > Hi, I guess this may be a stupid question, but I cannot seem to find any > information on Rune Spells. Can someone help me with this, in particular, > which spells are rune spells, and how they affect the game and the spells.. > I got the rule book a few weeks ago... > Also, I am in the process of converting an old AD&D World I made up a few > years back to RQ... If you are interested, I can send the link later.. Well, which rule set are you working with? In RQ2, Rune magic was... rune magic. In RQ3, Divine magic was Rune Magic. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - i take you where you want to go From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Jan 23 19:14:24 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:14:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system In-Reply-To: <40106B06.9050408@inetnebr.com> References: <400FF20D.6010308@padrigu.gu.se> <40106B06.9050408@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <4010D7E0.8080002@padrigu.gu.se> You're probably right, it's been almost 20 years since I played Stormbringer. However, I was thinking about what would happen if you added the die roll to the ordinary RQ armour rules. Come to think of it though, some of my players seem to have a hard time finding their armour value on the Char sheet even though they played for 20 years so an extra die roll just might make it easier for them. (I hope none of my players reads this digest.) :-) Cheers, /Peter J lance dyas wrote: > In stormbringer.. unless I am mistaken the armor roll... kind of > replaced the hitlocations. ( you only really knew you hit location on > a critical) > > Peter Johansson wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I?d say that the extra die roll in itself is a drawback, in addition >> to the ones Nick mentions below. Although I sympatize with your >> problem. We have had several different discussios on armor coverage, >> hit locations, critical hits etc, but in the end reverted back to the >> good ol' RQ2 rules, simple but yet effective and semi-realistic. :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> /Peter J >> >> >> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> >>>> I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll >>>> instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. >>>> Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric >>>> or Stormbringer). >>>> >>>> I'm a big fan of SB/Elric, and the only drawbacks I have found in >>>> play are >>>> 1) It can be difficulty to interpret what the compound abstractions >>>> in combat represent: ones description should surely reflect the to >>>> hit roll, the damage roll AND the armour roll, but doing so in the >>>> midst of running a combat can be a nit of a pain at times. >>>> 2) Variable armour increases the variability of the game, making >>>> thoughtful strategic combat styles less optimal (they can always be >>>> scuppered by a dodgy armour roll) - this is only a drawback in that >>>> it is a subtlety of the combat system that can trip one up when >>>> adapting the rules to a different setting. >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> . >> > > -- Peter Johansson Doktorand / Ph. D. Candidate 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-(0)31-773 1335 fax: +46-(0)31-773 4910 From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 20:27:13 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:27:13 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >Yes indeed, it's quite complex. Do you take into account other relevant >elements such as whether it is hand to hand or missile attack, whether the >attacker is right or left handed, whether the attacker has two weapons or >multiple attacks, whether the attak comes from above or behind (a >scorpionman dart attack ?), ... and so on ? And do you do same for all hit >location table in RQ (for all monsters ?). >Just kidding... :-) Well, I was asked to share it, I'm not trying to enforce the system on you or suggestin that it is perfect.... And I do have different tables between hand to hand or missile attack, just as in the RQ3 standard rules, as probable hit locations will differ greatly between those two. My experience with the d20 hit location for melee combat is that you get hit far to often in the legs compared to when we do sparring. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jan 23 21:09:16 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:09:16 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >My experience with the d20 hit location for melee combat is that you get hit >far to often in the legs compared to when we do sparring. That may be an artefact of the original model - in ten years of steel weapon re-enactment fighting, ALL the injuries from fighting in units armed with a bill-hook were on my leading leg or arm, and most on the leg. And that includes when we were dealing with swordsmen or pike units. In one on one fights there still seemed to be a bias towards the lower part of the body, as the low parries seemed more awkward (and overhead blows are a risky proposition). But I was never more than average with a sword (and we only fought to cut with swords, no thrusting...): give me a battle of stout Englishman will bill hooks and longbows any day. Personally, I always found the RQ location system as about as far as I wanted to go in terms of detail (as opposed to say Aftermath!) and have grown increasingly comfortable with BRP's lack of locations and major wounds, but if one wanted more detail I think Bjorn's system sounds like a good option. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 00:01:53 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:01:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: Bjorn Stolen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 01:27:13 PST 2004 >Well, I was asked to share it, I'm not trying to enforce the system on you >or suggestin that it is perfect.... Bjorn, sorry for my remarks and examples, but I just couldn't resist to mention plenty other elements that could be taken into account to further improve the realism. But this would be too complicated for my game. >And I do have different tables between hand to hand or missile attack, just >as in the RQ3 standard rules, as probable hit locations will differ greatly >between those two. > >My experience with the d20 hit location for melee combat is that you get hit >far to often in the legs compared to when we do sparring. Maybe the D20 RQ tables for melee and missile could be simply improved to better reflect reality ? Any suggestion, based on real world fencing experience ? http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/5dc7bbbb/attachment.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 00:06:53 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:06:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] major wounds ? Message-ID: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jan 23 02:09:16 PST 2004 >Personally, I always found the RQ location system as about as far as I >wanted to go in terms of detail (as opposed to say Aftermath!) and have >grown increasingly comfortable with BRP's lack of locations and major >wounds, but if one wanted more detail I think Bjorn's system sounds like a >good option. I am not sure to remember what that "major wounds" system is in the BRP rules ? http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/727a2e7e/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Jan 24 00:24:14 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:24:14 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] major wounds ? Message-ID: >>Personally, I always found the RQ location system as about as far as I >>wanted to go in terms of detail (as opposed to say Aftermath!) and have >>grown increasingly comfortable with BRP's lack of locations and major >>wounds, but if one wanted more detail I think Bjorn's system sounds like a >>good option. > >I am not sure to remember what that "major wounds" system is in the BRP rules ? > In Stormbringer (and other BRP games I have played) if a character has received a Major Wound (more than half their total hit points as a single blow), they are likely to drop immediately (CON rolls required, the details escape me at present, apart from the original CoC rule of d20 vs CON or drop) and can only continue fighting for a limited time. In Stormbringer there was also a gruesome Major Wound effects table reminiscent of the Rolemaster Crits table, but rather than additional hit points damage it specified loss to characteristics. Possibly a little OTT outside of Stormbringer, but the basic Major Wound threshold does a nice job of compensating for the lack of hit locations IMO. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 00:48:54 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:48:54 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >That may be an artefact of the original model - in ten years of steel >weapon re-enactment fighting, ALL the injuries from fighting in units armed >with a bill-hook were on my leading leg or arm, and most on the leg. And >that includes when we were dealing with swordsmen or pike units. In one on >one fights there still seemed to be a bias towards the lower part of the >body, as the low parries seemed more awkward (and overhead blows are a >risky proposition). But I was never more than average with a sword (and we >only fought to cut with swords, no thrusting...): give me a battle of stout >Englishman will bill hooks and longbows any day. With all due respect (I've only done WMA for 3 years) I think your experience with hit locations is a bit biazed with the fact that you're not allowed to hit the opponents head/hands? (many reenactmentsystems I know of exclude hands and head) In the teachings of Fiore del Libere and other manuals from medieval europe, all attacks towards the legs is countered by stabbing or cutting towards the attacker's head or harnds; no parry is required... This is the result of the fact that it is generally a longer distance from shoulder to opponents leg than from shoulder to opponents head/hands. (We've experimented with this, and found that the system even works if the countering dude only use a dagger vs. sword or sword vs. spear.!) I will allso have on the record that I'm by and large a great fan of the RQ3 system; this is just an experiment from my part to emphatize them a bit i a field where I've got a large interest! _________________________________________________________________ Last ned nye MSN Messenger 6.1 gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 00:55:15 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:55:15 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: >Bjorn, sorry for my remarks and examples, but I just couldn't resist to >mention plenty other elements that could be taken into account to further >improve the realism. But this would be too complicated for my game. No hard feelings; I am-after one year of using this system- only too aware of the weaknesses you point out... It's primarily the consept of making a very detailed set of armour that protects only what you "pay for" in ENC, that drove me to making theese houserules. >Maybe the D20 RQ tables for melee and missile could be simply improved to >better reflect reality ? Any suggestion, based on real world fencing >experience ? Well, there seems to be a bit of a discussion on wether I'm "right" or not here. I'd definately make it easier to be hit in the arms than the system shows today, perhaps on expence of the legs. This is only a problem if you think it is a broblem. When we used the original system we were cursed with rolling hits on the left leg all the time, to such an extent that we started joking about having heroues totally unarmoured exept from plated left legs.... _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From dragonslance63 at earthlink.net Sat Jan 24 01:09:34 2004 From: dragonslance63 at earthlink.net (Dragons Lance) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:09:34 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com><000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home> <40108BD0.4040301@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <000801c3e1ba$88b9a3e0$a0294bab@home> Thanks I know that was a stupid question, but it was not clear to us... We have RQ 3 and 3, but RQ2 was never opened. It has been sitting on my shelf for years. I guess I should read that also, or does it really matter. A friend (PRG Collector) said 2 was worth money, especially in Mint condition, so I am not sure I want to open it... Also have the cults of Prax (unopened). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tal Meta" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World > Dragons Lance wrote: > > Hi, I guess this may be a stupid question, but I cannot seem to find any > > information on Rune Spells. Can someone help me with this, in particular, > > which spells are rune spells, and how they affect the game and the spells.. > > I got the rule book a few weeks ago... > > Also, I am in the process of converting an old AD&D World I made up a few > > years back to RQ... If you are interested, I can send the link later.. > > Well, which rule set are you working with? In RQ2, Rune magic was... > rune magic. In RQ3, Divine magic was Rune Magic. > > -- > talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine > AIM - talmeta > ICQ - 12594453 > Homepage - > > i take you where you want to go > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From bobathome at aqfl.com Sat Jan 24 01:10:04 2004 From: bobathome at aqfl.com (Bob Eldred) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 06:10:04 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com><000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home><40108BD0.4040301@talmeta.net> <000801c3e1ba$88b9a3e0$a0294bab@home> Message-ID: <032801c3e1ba$99efc4a0$1a02a8c0@attbi.com> I'll happily take Cults of Prax off your hands. 'Cause I'm a swell guy and all. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dragons Lance" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World > Thanks > I know that was a stupid question, but it was not clear to us... > We have RQ 3 and 3, but RQ2 was never opened. > It has been sitting on my shelf for years. > I guess I should read that also, or does it really matter. A friend (PRG > Collector) said 2 was worth money, especially in Mint condition, so I am not > sure I want to open it... > Also have the cults of Prax (unopened). From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 01:14:48 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:48 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] plated legs Message-ID: Bjorn Stolen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 05:55:15 PST 2004 Well, there seems to be a bit of a discussion on wether I'm "right" or not here. I'd definately make it easier to be hit in the arms than the system shows today, perhaps on expence of the legs. This is only a problem if you think it is a broblem. When we used the original system we were cursed with rolling hits on the left leg all the time, to such an extent that we started joking about having heroues totally unarmoured exept from plated left legs.... I guess there is indeed a 'flaw' in the table to that regard, as I faced the same concerns in my games : many players envisaged also for melee combat to wear plate in both legs (and linen cloth in the chest to compensate for the cost and weight) ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/aa583292/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Jan 24 01:38:37 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:38:37 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: >Well, there seems to be a bit of a discussion on wether I'm "right" or not >here. I'd definately make it easier to be hit in the arms than the system >shows today, perhaps on expence of the legs. This is only a problem if you >think it is a broblem. When we used the original system we were cursed with >rolling hits on the left leg all the time, to such an extent that we started >joking about having heroues totally unarmoured exept from plated left >legs.... Which was IIRC not uncommon on the battlefields of the Wars of the Roses: as a Billman, why bother with the effort and expense of armour for my right arm and leg when in formations I'll hardly ever be hit there? But I wasn't commenting on degree's of correctness Bjorn, merely pointing out that my experience was considerably different. The only 'right' would be found by an exhaustive examination of the battlefield dead of Europe pre-firearms, which to my knowledge no one has done (although there is a fair amount on certain specific sites). What might be worth considering for those people who don't care for the level of detail in Bjorns system would be a reworking the d20 table such that a simple adjustment could be applied (like the old +10 for attacking characters below you) to reflect the relative positions of attacker and defender. So if the combat is a classical fencing duel (with both combatants leading with their right hips), it would be exceptionally unlikely that either would be hit on the left side... A friend is planning on running RQIII in a few weeks and I may suggest we look at this before starting. Or possibly one could just make a guideline to modify hit locations in line with common sense reading of peoples positions, using the d20 roll as a guide? So if one has hit, but rolled a left leg (which is not plausible), then common sense would dictate it's the right leg (or left arm, if it's the vertical distinction that is the problem, not the horizontal). Cheers, Nick Middleton From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 02:03:01 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:01 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Why my messages are not archived ? Message-ID: I am still complaining that my messages are NOT archived ! What is (technically) wrong with my posts ? They are part of the digests I receive, but they are not individually archived ? Any clue how to fix that ? Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/72aeb309/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Jan 24 02:09:29 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:09:29 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] How to send admin messages... Message-ID: Y'all, I'm pretty busy right now (moving my house across country to Pittsburgh) so won't have a chance to monitor the list. If anyone has any problem please make sure you email them directly to me andrew at crashbox.com or to the general list owner rq-rules-owner at crashbox.com Thanks. -Andrew From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Jan 24 02:16:34 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:16:34 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? References: Message-ID: <018f01c3e1c3$f4d66730$f4407442@wizard> This actually comes out of the SCA experience that created the original rules. The first piece of armor anyone built was the hip and thigh protection for the left leg. This reflected our bias towards man to man sword and shield combat, of course. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR/html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 5:55 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? > >Bjorn, sorry for my remarks and examples, but I just couldn't resist to > >mention plenty other elements that could be taken into account to further > >improve the realism. But this would be too complicated for my game. > > No hard feelings; I am-after one year of using this system- only too aware > of the weaknesses you point out... It's primarily the consept of making a > very detailed set of armour that protects only what you "pay for" in ENC, > that drove me to making theese houserules. > > >Maybe the D20 RQ tables for melee and missile could be simply improved to > >better reflect reality ? Any suggestion, based on real world fencing > >experience ? > > Well, there seems to be a bit of a discussion on wether I'm "right" or not > here. I'd definately make it easier to be hit in the arms than the system > shows today, perhaps on expence of the legs. This is only a problem if you > think it is a broblem. When we used the original system we were cursed with > rolling hits on the left leg all the time, to such an extent that we started > joking about having heroues totally unarmoured exept from plated left > legs.... > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Jan 24 02:27:33 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:27:33 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com><000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home> <40108BD0.4040301@talmeta.net> <000801c3e1ba$88b9a3e0$a0294bab@home> Message-ID: <40113D65.6000608@talmeta.net> Dragons Lance wrote: > Thanks > I know that was a stupid question, but it was not clear to us... > We have RQ 3 and 3, but RQ2 was never opened. > It has been sitting on my shelf for years. > I guess I should read that also, or does it really matter. A friend (PRG > Collector) said 2 was worth money, especially in Mint condition, so I am not > sure I want to open it... > Also have the cults of Prax (unopened). Anything old and in mint condition can sell for a pretty penny on ebay; I'm hardly the only person guilty of buying two of something and keeping the second for later resale.... :) Probably more for CoP than the ruleset, though, IMO. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - "My boss spent the entire weekend retyping a 25-page proposal that only needed corrections. She claims the disk I gave her was damaged and she couldn't edit it. The disk I gave her was write-protected." (CIO of Dell Computers) From kruch7 at cox.net Sat Jan 24 03:00:49 2004 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:49 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World References: <61365AE6-4C42-11D8-ABFA-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com><000c01c3e156$c77163c0$2e304bab@home> <40108BD0.4040301@talmeta.net><000801c3e1ba$88b9a3e0$a0294bab@home> <40113D65.6000608@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <008801c3e1ca$13d5adc0$1208a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Well I often buy two but that is so I have one for my collection and one to actually use :) ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tal Meta" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Rune Spells + World > Dragons Lance wrote: > > Thanks > > I know that was a stupid question, but it was not clear to us... > > We have RQ 3 and 3, but RQ2 was never opened. > > It has been sitting on my shelf for years. > > I guess I should read that also, or does it really matter. A friend (PRG > > Collector) said 2 was worth money, especially in Mint condition, so I am not > > sure I want to open it... > > Also have the cults of Prax (unopened). > > Anything old and in mint condition can sell for a pretty penny on ebay; > I'm hardly the only person guilty of buying two of something and keeping > the second for later resale.... :) > > Probably more for CoP than the ruleset, though, IMO. > > -- > talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine > AIM - talmeta > ICQ - 12594453 > Homepage - > > "My boss spent the entire weekend retyping a 25-page proposal that > only needed corrections. She claims the disk I gave her was damaged > and she couldn't edit it. The disk I gave her was write-protected." > (CIO of Dell Computers) > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 03:03:31 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:03:31 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [TEST No archiving] Text Message-ID: My former mailer format options were "HTML and Text" I set the format option as "Text" for this message From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Sat Jan 24 12:44:42 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:44:42 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <50.2753b9f4.2d43280a@wmconnect.com> We managed a type of fix for the Damage Boosting. It takes 5 Intensity for a 1d6 damage bonus. You can still do a lot of damage but its variable. If that is too much for you you could make it 6 Intensity for 1d3 damage add. From dragonslance63 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 25 02:57:15 2004 From: dragonslance63 at earthlink.net (Dragons Lance) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:57:15 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion References: <50.2753b9f4.2d43280a@wmconnect.com> Message-ID: <001001c3e292$be15ace0$45304bab@home> Hi I have played AD&D but never got into 3rd edition (too power player for me). ANy way, does anyone have a way of converting monsters to RQ, or has anyone attempted this... Thanks John From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 07:58:05 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion In-Reply-To: <001001c3e292$be15ace0$45304bab@home> Message-ID: <20040124205805.64450.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> I have done some convertions from D&D3 to RQ/BFR. It is rather easy now. The hardest part is converting stats from the D&D3 3d6 system to the RQ multi d6 system. The skills are now rather easy, just multiply the D&D3 skill by x5% to get a RQ value and add it to base skill. Same for attack percentage and add to 35% for main skill, 15% to secondary skill and actual base for additional weapon skill. Feats are bit different I use the following: D&D Feats to RQ Alertness - +10% to Listen and Scan checks. Ambidexterity - Off-handed weapon skills are at 2/3 skill from the primary hand. Armor Proficiencies - Allows a character to rest even if wearing armor at a penalty ( -10% from all skills per night of rest in armor) Blind-Fight - You suffer only -50% to hit and parry for being unable to see your opponent. Brew Potion - +20% to Alchemy skill. Cleave - Allows an additional attack at 1/2 attack skill against another opponent, if the first opponent is incapacitated the same round. Combat Casting - +20% to Concentration checks. Combat Reflexes - character does not incur 3SR penalty in between attacks. Craft Skills - +20% to Enchant (or Ceremony) skill. Deflect Arrows - 20% base Arrow Cutting skill. Dodge - +20% Dodge (or +5% Defense) skill. Empower Spell - 10% base in Empower skill. (allows to cast spells with 1.5 time the Intensity for purposes of resistance rolls for x2 mp cost) Endurance - +4 to Con for resistance checks (poisons, disease, fear shock, etc) Enlarge Spell - 10% base in Intensity skill. Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Base weapon attack at 25%. Expertise - You may convert up to 25% from your Weapon Attack into Parry or Dodge. Extend Spell - 10% base in Range skill. Extra Turning - +50% to Lore skill. Far Shot - Choose a missile weapon. When you use this weapon, such as a bow, its range increment increases by one-half. If it is a thrown weapon, its increment is doubled. Forge Ring - +20% to Enchant (or Ceremony) skill. Great Cleave - Allows an additional attack at full attack skill against another opponent, if the first opponent is incapacitated the same round. Great Fortitude - +2 bonus to Con based checks (stackable with Endurance) Heighten Spell - 10% base in Heighten skill. (allows to cast spells at 1.5 time the effect for x2 mp cost) Improved Bull Rush - A weapons can not be set against you then executing a charge. Improved Critical - Choose a weapon. With that weapon your chance to critical is 1/10th of your skill. Improved Disarm - You do not have to wait till SR 10 to strike a weapon. Improved Initiative - You get -1 to you Dex and Melee SR. Improved Trip - +20% Maneuver skill. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting - Same as Two-Weapon Fighting by allows the use of a Buckler and Two handed weapon at no penalty. Improved Unarmed Strike - 20% base Martial Arts skill. Iron Will - +2 Pow for defending vs. spells and in spirit combat. Leadership - x2 Chr during combat situations Lightning Reflexes - x1.5 Dex for purposes of calculating Dex SR. Martial Weapon Proficiency - Base weapon attack at 25%. Maximize Spell - 10% base in Maximize skill. (allows to cast spells at maximum effect for x2 mp cost) Mobility - Use (Dex * 2) / 5 to determine movement rate. Mounted Archery - 20% base skill at Kushile archery. Mounted Combat - Weapon attacks and spell casting is not limited by the ride skill. Point Blank Shot - +5% to hit +1 damage with a particular missile weapon at range of 30 feet or less. Power Attack - You may convert up to 25% of your Weapon Attack into Damage on a 5% for +1damage basis. Precise Shot - Allows one to fire into melee with out a chance to hit an unintended target. Quick Draw - Allows a character to ready a weapon with out taking 3SR penalty. Quicken Spell - 10% base in Speed skill. Rapid Shot - An additional attack may be taken with an 1/SR missile weapon at -10% to all missile attacks that round. Or, the reload rate can be decreased at a cost of doubling the chance to fumble for that shot. Ride-By Attack - Allows full movement in the same round as engaged in combat if mounted. Run - Allows a character to move at x2 normal rate without making Con rolls. Scribe Scroll - +20% to Enchant (or Ceremony) skill. Shield Proficiency - Base shield parry at 25%. Shot on the Run - Allows full movement in the same round as engaged in missile combat. Silent Spell - 10% base in Silent skill. (allows to cast spells without making a sound for x2 mp cost) Simple Weapon Proficiency - Base weapon attack at 25%. Skill Focus - +20% with a skill Spell Focus - A particular spell can be intensified to skill/5 Spell Mastery - A particular spell's difficulty is reduced ( an easy spell will be treated as per Spell Focus) Spell Penetration - A particular spell's intensity is considered to be doubled for purposes of resistance rolls. Spirited Charge - Allows to use mounts damage bonus with any weapon (not just lance) Spring Attack - Allows full movement in the same round as engaged in combat. Still Spell - 10% base in Still skill. (allows to cast spells without making gestures for x2 mp cost) Stunning Fist - Subdue damage delivered by Fist or Kick attack ignores physical armor. Sunder - You do not suffer a 50% penalty for aiming an attack at the opponents weapon. Toughness - x2 Con for purposes of calculating hit points. Track - +20% to Tracking skill. Trample - May attempt to knock an opponent down. If successful then the mount may attempt a trample attack. Two-Weapon Fighting - Off-handed weapon skills are at 2/3 skill (100% if Ambidextrous) from the primary hand. Or allows the use of Buckler Shield at 2/3 skill and a two handed weapon at 2/3 skill at the same time. Weapon Finesse - use Dex instead of Str to calculate Attack skill modifier. Weapon Focus - Get a skill bonus of +5% to Attack, Parry, and +1 Damage with a selected weapon. Weapon Specialization - Get an additional skill bonus of +10% to Attack, Parry, and +2 Damage with a selected weapon. Whirlwind Attack - Allows a master to use full attack/defense skill then splitting a skill. Leon --- Dragons Lance wrote: > Hi > I have played AD&D but never got into 3rd edition > (too power player for me). > ANy way, does anyone have a way of converting > monsters to RQ, or has anyone > attempted this... > Thanks > John __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From dragonslance63 at earthlink.net Sun Jan 25 09:57:02 2004 From: dragonslance63 at earthlink.net (Dragons Lance) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:57:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion References: <20040124205805.64450.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001301c3e2cd$628da950$6d204bab@home> Damn!! That was great! Thanks a lot. I see what you are trying to do with the conversions. I guess I just made it more difficult than it really is... RQ does have a lot of monsters, but there are times when an old one will rock the boat a bit.. I have found there version of Dragon is definately lacking. So, I have to do some work on that particular monster type. But your ideas below have really been helpful... Also, a lot of the typical D&D monsters are not covered in the book, such as Gnolls, Flinds, and even Ogres, Hobgoblins, and Goblins. But these are just adaptations of monsters that are already in there.. I want to do the more "Dangerous" and "Rare" ones. Like the Giants, Demons, Devils, and even drow... Thanks again John From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun Jan 25 10:59:25 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:59:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion In-Reply-To: <001301c3e2cd$628da950$6d204bab@home> Message-ID: <20040124235925.81022.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> There are giants in RQ. I remeber seeing drow somewhere on the web. Demons and such are unique so I would just give them abilities as I see fit. Good luck, Leon --- Dragons Lance wrote: > I want to do the more "Dangerous" and "Rare" ones. > Like the Giants, Demons, > Devils, and even drow... > > Thanks again > John __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From gkahla at chromebob.com Sun Jan 25 11:07:37 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:07:37 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion In-Reply-To: <20040124235925.81022.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040124235925.81022.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <401308C9.8060904@chromebob.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > There are giants in RQ. I remeber seeing drow > somewhere on the web. Demons and such are unique so I > would just give them abilities as I see fit. i've got a working brp/rq bestiary of D&D critters here: http://chromebob.com/gaming/bestiary.html there's also some other stuff on: http://chromebob.com/gaming/ feel free to let me know if you've got anything new to add to the pool. i'm not interested in making wizards of the coast mad; i'm interested in using their creatures in a different system... anyway - enjoy! -- gerall kahla celestial mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Sun Jan 25 11:11:27 2004 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael.Christian at corbis.com) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:11:27 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404ACA277@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> I played in a game that had a fair amount of sorcery for a while and while a sorcerer *could* theoretically do a 16 point damage boosting it would take him dex+16 strike ranks of doing nothing else to do it. This leaves him very vulnerable for quite some time and possibly very susceptible to other magic once something like it was cast if he relied heavily on his own MP. Sorcery can be powerful, but it is also the most time consuming of the magic systems. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Aldanata at wmconnect.com Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 5:45 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 We managed a type of fix for the Damage Boosting. It takes 5 Intensity for a 1d6 damage bonus. You can still do a lot of damage but its variable. If that is too much for you you could make it 6 Intensity for 1d3 damage add. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From MurfNMurf at aol.com Sun Jan 25 19:27:53 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:27:53 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion Message-ID: <191.246cf9fe.2d44d809@aol.com> In a message dated 1/24/2004, John wonders about Giants, Demons and such... > I want to do the more "Dangerous" and "Rare" ones. > Like the Giants, Demons, > Devils, and even drow... Chaosium's "Stormbringer" (formerly "Elric", and formerly "Stormbtinger" before *that*, if I'm remembering right) is *loaded* with many different types of demon---as well as having rules for generating same; though I'm too unfamiliar with this particular flavor of the BRP family tree to offer any deeper insights (lol!). Anyone? For that matter, I think the stats for the Melnibonians (which my spell-checker is unable to tell me whether it is spelled correctly or not--go figure.lol!) in those rules would serve pretty handily for these Drow things... Best. -Ken Murphy- From tiberius at runequest.za.org Mon Jan 26 16:41:08 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:41:08 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Critical Success Message-ID: <64968.196.8.104.31.1075095668.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Well, played H?rnmaster for the first time ever on Saturday. I have owned the 2nd ed rules for years but we just never got round to playing. Anyway the system is interesting and clearly very much influenced by RQ. What annoyed me greatly is my character was performing some climbing and skulking in bushes and I rolled a 02, 03 and 04 successivly. Possibly my best run of luck ever and in RQ my character would have been deified. In Harn though, none were crits because they weren't multiples of five. One can imagine my dissapointment, ha ha. Still, I like the idea of using multiples of five, maybe not for crits but for special success. Cheers Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jan 26 20:54:56 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:54:56 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: >I played in a game that had a fair amount of sorcery for a while and while a >sorcerer *could* theoretically do a 16 point damage boosting it would take >him dex+16 strike ranks of doing nothing else to do it. This leaves him very >vulnerable for quite some time and possibly very susceptible to other magic >once something like it was cast if he relied heavily on his own MP. Ah, but if he can cast damage boosting 16 with no duration boosting, he can cast Damage Boosting 9 (still pretty darn effective, makes a Broad Sword 1d8+10, 'average' of 14-15 with no db) in the morning and it is up ALL day... And what well turned out Sorcerer about town _doesn't_ have a solid reservoir of stored magic points? ;-) The danger of Sorcery is that with care and planning it can be phenomenally powerful (the stats of some of the Sorcerers in Griffin Island were terrifying to a died in the wool RQII players when I first saw them, and as for that chap in Strangers in Prax...) - this is also its advantage as an NPC power of course, and provided the GM is careful and keeps the pace rolling on, the Sorcerer shouldn't get too out of hand. I also prefer dropping free INT and limiting manipulations to skill/5 (so a spells maximum manipulation is Spell/5, but the maximum Intensity is Intensity/5) which encourages Sorcerers to be more active (I still allow Free INT based NPC's as they make good villains). Although I make no claim to originality for that tweak to the Sorcery rules, it's lifted from one of the numerous variants on the net (David Cake?). > Sorcery >can be powerful, but it is also the most time consuming of the magic >systems. Indeed, and I think that they created a reasonable NPC magic system, but if one is going to let players loose in a typical adventuring setting (as opposed to an Ars Magica style game, where it's the politics and setting that matter, not the magic per se) then I personally prefer a form of Sorcery that can contribute a bit more to the players fun. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jan 26 21:12:27 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:12:27 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] MOnster conversion Message-ID: >> I want to do the more "Dangerous" and "Rare" ones. >> Like the Giants, Demons, >> Devils, and even drow... > >Chaosium's "Stormbringer" (formerly "Elric", and formerly "Stormbtinger" >before *that*, if I'm remembering right) is *loaded* with many different types >of demon---as well as having rules for generating same; though I'm too >unfamiliar with this particular flavor of the BRP family tree to offer any deeper >insights (lol!). Anyone? whilst Stormbringer/Elric did/does include full stats for a number of Demons, it also includes a way of designing demons (details vary depending on which edition one has), but on the whole, I think Leon's suggestion of custom designing Demons for the occasion is a good idea. Plus RQ Chaotic features added to standard RQ creatures can produce some weird hybrids. >For that matter, I think the stats for the Melnibonians (which my >spell-checker is unable to tell me whether it is spelled correctly or not--go >figure.lol!) in those rules would serve pretty handily for these Drow things... Melniboneans are indeed a good fit for Drow; I do wonder whetehr there wasn't a certain unconscious influence on EGG there actually as the Drow invert several sterotypical ideas about "Elves" in a way that has echoes of MM's inversion of the tropes of Swords and Sorcery in the original Elric saga... But I would thoroughly recommend both Gerall Kahla and Leon Kirshtein's sites, my own glacially slow developement of an RQIII Dark Sun campaign is heavily influenced by their work. Cheers, Nick Middleton From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Tue Jan 27 00:13:49 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:13:49 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97D9B@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Nick Middleton: >And what well turned out Sorcerer about town _doesn't_ >have a solid reservoir of stored magic points? ;-) A large store of MPs is desirable, but is available entirely at the whim of the GM. If you don't hand them out, the player won't have them. You can disallow access to spirits, either by fiat or by making them more trouble than they are worth, for example, big spirits annoyed that you have stolen their resources without the proper devotion that shamans give, or even annoyed shamans. The sorceror in my group used to cast one spell a day, with a one week duration, so he had seven decent spells up at a time. A couple of Damage Boosts, a couple of Damage Resistances, Fly, I forget the rest. Phil Hibbs Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Aston, UK ======================================================= 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 authorised 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 tiberius at runequest.za.org Tue Jan 27 00:22:26 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:22:26 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Monster Conversion Message-ID: <10616.196.8.104.31.1075123346.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Interestingly enough, I recently checked out (but didn't bid) on ann item in eBay. Can't remember its exact name but it was some sorrt of D&D/AD&D moster assortment which apparently had rules to convert to RQ. One may also find soem exc ellently converted or new creatures for your RQ game in the old Judges Guuild Journals/Dungeoneers. All for RQ1 and 2 but still useful. Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 00:15:23 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:15:23 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: >From: "Steve Perrin" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:16:34 -0800 > >This actually comes out of the SCA experience that created the original >rules. The first piece of armor anyone built was the hip and thigh >protection for the left leg. > >This reflected our bias towards man to man sword and shield combat, of >course. I'm not so familiar with american SCA-rules. Is head and hands valid targets in that system? In europe we differ between *"full contact"-which is authentic armor and metal swords *Reenactmentrules -which vary greatly; sometimes head and hands are not valid targets, sometimes they are. I think that if head/hands were excluded targets, that could be the reason why your hips got hit quite often. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jan 27 02:15:28 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:15:28 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? References: Message-ID: <004f01c3e41f$4b49e940$f4407442@wizard> Heads and hands are covered by things like shields. Hips are just sitting out there. Believe me, heads and hands are legitimate targets, particularly heads. Helmets were, of course, the first thing we actually wore, from the first days. I am talking about "non-essential" armor - though the rules on that have changed mightily since I wrote RuneQuest... Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 5:15 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? > > > > >From: "Steve Perrin" > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? > >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:16:34 -0800 > > > >This actually comes out of the SCA experience that created the original > >rules. The first piece of armor anyone built was the hip and thigh > >protection for the left leg. > > > >This reflected our bias towards man to man sword and shield combat, of > >course. > > I'm not so familiar with american SCA-rules. Is head and hands valid targets > in that system? In europe we differ between > *"full contact"-which is authentic armor and metal swords > *Reenactmentrules -which vary greatly; sometimes head and hands are not > valid targets, sometimes they are. > I think that if head/hands were excluded targets, that could be the reason > why your hips got hit quite often. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jan 27 04:48:16 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:48:16 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Monster Conversion In-Reply-To: <10616.196.8.104.31.1075123346.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <10616.196.8.104.31.1075123346.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <401552E0.7010207@concentric.net> tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: > Interestingly enough, I recently checked out (but didn't bid) on ann item > in eBay. Can't remember its exact name but it was some sorrt of D&D/AD&D > moster assortment which apparently had rules to convert to RQ. My guess would be one of the old Chaosium "All the World's Monsters" volumes, one of which (IIRC) included D&D->RQ conversion notes from the Perrin-Meister himself, I forget which volume it was, perhaps Steve himself recalls? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jan 27 13:48:48 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:48:48 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Monster Conversion References: <10616.196.8.104.31.1075123346.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <401552E0.7010207@concentric.net> Message-ID: <028901c3e480$26abb580$f4407442@wizard> I believe we finally snuck that into ATWM #3. That's a a rare one, by the way. It wasn't reprinted more than once. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Monster Conversion > tiberius at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > Interestingly enough, I recently checked out (but didn't bid) on ann item > > in eBay. Can't remember its exact name but it was some sorrt of D&D/AD&D > > moster assortment which apparently had rules to convert to RQ. > > My guess would be one of the old Chaosium "All the World's Monsters" > volumes, one of which (IIRC) included D&D->RQ conversion notes from the > Perrin-Meister himself, I forget which volume it was, perhaps Steve > himself recalls? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From diadochi at bigfoot.com Tue Jan 27 19:48:34 2004 From: diadochi at bigfoot.com (David Ford) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:48:34 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20040127084741.01d7c680@pop.ntlworld.com> Bjorn, Please do trouble us with your details. I would very much like to see your complete 28 hit locations with percentages for hitting each. Also what effects does hitting each hit location have? Please post here or email me privately. I'd sure some of us would love to see your ideas in full. Regards, David > >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or > houserule > > > for partial armour. > > > > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem > that > > > is based on my own > > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) > > OK, here it comes (the short version:) > > (When I refer to the original system, I mean RQ3) > > I divide the humanoid body into 28 sections. I keep > the original hit > locations and total hit points, though, and any > damage hitting in the four > Right arm hit locations will all do damage to the > original Right arm hit > points. The 28 hit locations are only used for > determining how much damage > that was stopped, and for giving the GM some > directions as to where the hit > strikes, and what the consiquenses are conserning > describingpurposes. > The 28 locations are: > > Original: "Head" > Scull > Eyes/nose region > Chins > Mouth region > > Original:"Chest" (Front/back is logic; it depends on > wether you have the > back or the front exposed) > Throat/neck > Torso front/back (This is a large zone, i decided to > not split this location > up more than nessecary) > > Original: "R/L Arm" > Shoulder > Overarm > Elbow > Underarm > Hand > > Original: "Abdomen" > Upper abdomen (from ribcage to navel) > Lower abdomen (from navel to groin) > L/R upper thigh (hip area) > > Original: "R/L Leg" > Lower thigh > Knee > Leg > Foot > > The "TO HIT ROLL" is increased from a d20 to a d100 > roll, and the %to hit > which of theese 28 parts is outlined acording to my > own experiences when > sparring in WMA The ratio is altered a bit from the > original d20 system, I > haven't just multiplied with 5 and divided to each > main/original hit > location. > > I've allso had to work on the armor encumbrance to > make it fit the smaller > and more detailed hit locations table of mine. I > cannot remember the exact > propotions, but here I was more true to the original > RQ rules conserning > armor: (F.instance head armor is 1/10 = 10% of total > suit enc. (In my system > i state that covering scull counts as 6% Eyes/nose > as 1% Mouth as 1% and > chins as 2%) > > I've allso altered the armor points -rules for RQ-3 > (Dividing between > piercing/bashing and cuttingdamage, and introducing > two importaint > armortypes; gambersons and Linothoraxes(textile > paddings), damage done by > weapons, and the fatigue system, but I don't want to > troubble you with that! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 00:20:08 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:20:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: >From: "Steve Perrin" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:15:28 -0800 > >Heads and hands are covered by things like shields. > >Hips are just sitting out there. > >Believe me, heads and hands are legitimate targets, particularly heads. >Helmets were, of course, the first thing we actually wore, from the first >days. I am talking about "non-essential" armor - though the rules on that >have changed mightily since I wrote RuneQuest... > >Steve But then I think it should be the head/arms that is most likely to be hit, with the legs as a number three. The original(rq3)d20 to hit table is meant for both people with and without shields, and not nessecarily covered by things like shields. The way I feel the d20 table works, it's most likely to be hit in the legs which doesn't correspond to either your or my experience. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jan 28 02:20:13 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:20:13 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? References: Message-ID: <017601c3e4e9$2145eed0$f4407442@wizard> No, actually, the original hit location table was meant to be for folks with shields. That was just the experience of three out of the four authors, only Ray Tierney had never been an SCA fighter. It's one of those blind spots that can creep into "realistic" gaming. You go with the realism you know and tend to forget about all the other possibilities. And none of the other Chaosium people (or Ray) had any combat experience, so they didn't catch the fallacy for two editions. Steve Perrin, who has other thoughts on the subject these days. www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:20 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? > > >From: "Steve Perrin" > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? > >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:15:28 -0800 > > > >Heads and hands are covered by things like shields. > > > >Hips are just sitting out there. > > > >Believe me, heads and hands are legitimate targets, particularly heads. > >Helmets were, of course, the first thing we actually wore, from the first > >days. I am talking about "non-essential" armor - though the rules on that > >have changed mightily since I wrote RuneQuest... > > > >Steve > > But then I think it should be the head/arms that is most likely to be hit, > with the legs as a number three. The original(rq3)d20 to hit table is meant > for both people with and without shields, and not nessecarily covered by > things like shields. The way I feel the d20 table works, it's most likely to > be hit in the legs which doesn't correspond to either your or my experience. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? > norsk i dag > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Jan 28 10:50:22 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:50:22 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules In-Reply-To: <20040127152440.415902226FB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040127154734.0189d638@incoming.verizon.net> I have to agree with David here. Having done similar things over the years I am always interested in the point of view of others on the subject. By they way, hello again all. It has been over a year since I last posted. But, I have been "keeping" up more or less (read the less part!). Decided I would join pack in to the discussion. Bo At 07:24 AM 1/27/2004, you wrote: >Bjorn, > >Please do trouble us with your details. I would very much like to see your >complete 28 hit locations with percentages for hitting each. Also what >effects does hitting each hit location have? Please post here or email me >privately. I'd sure some of us would love to see your ideas in full. > >Regards, > >David From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 20:42:40 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:42:40 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: That explains it all! WOW, I never noticed that! _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 21:44:06 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:44:06 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules Message-ID: Here it comes, Use it as you see fit! Original name of location, %to hit-melee(d100), %enc weight and finally "notes": (Head) (10%) Eyes region 00 2% Mouth region 99 2% Scull 95-98 4% R. Chin 93-94 1% L.chin 91-92 1% (R.Arm) (10%) R.Hand 85-90 2% R.Underarm 79-84 2% R.Elbow 76-78 2% R.Overarm 72-75 2% R.Shoulder 70-71 2% (L.Arm) (10%) L.Hand 64-69 2% L.Underarm 58-63 2% L.Elbow 55-57 2% L.Overarm 51-54 2% L.Shoulder 49-50 2% (Chest) (18%) Throat/Neck 48 2%/2% Wether you're hit in front or back is up to the GM RibchageF/B 41-47 7%/7% Wether you're hit in front or back is up to the GM (Abdomen) (18%) Upper abdomenF/B36-40 4%/4% Wether you're hit in front or back is up to the GM Lower abdomen 31-35 2% ="Trouser-line" Private parts+"tail-bone" and ass R. Hip/upper tigh 26-30 4% = Hip joint + bottoks+as far down the tigh as"boxertrousers"goes. L. Hip/upper tigh 21-25 4% = Hip joint + bottoks+as far down the tigh as"boxertrousers"goes. (R.Leg) (17%) R.Lower Tigh 16-20 4% R.Knee 14-15 4% R.Leg 12-13 4% R.Foot 11 5% (L.Leg) (17%) L.Lower Tigh 06-10 4% L.Knee 04-05 4% L.Leg 02-03 4% L.Foot 01 5% _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag From MurfNMurf at aol.com Thu Jan 15 10:13:13 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:13:13 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question Message-ID: <99.41f23422.2d372662@aol.com> Well, there's a rule in *Elfquest* that might be apropos---where if the character is wearing ornaments on a hit location (and if you've ever seen the comic, just about everyone is loaded down with armbands, headbands, etc.) that takes damage, roll POW x3 to see if the ornament is hit first. If damage exceeds the ornament's AP, then it is destroyed, and any damage remaining wounds that location, If the damage done is equal to, or less than the ornament's AP, it instead loses 1 AP. Ornaments have 1D6-1 AP. Best, -Ken- "Monkeys! Why must it always be monkeys? Why can't I be attacked by trained Supermodels?" --Ron Stoppable, Kim Possible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040114/d2431852/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 15 19:37:10 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:37:10 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Partial armor coverage Message-ID: You could use the Elric!/Stormbringer armor system, i.e. the armor don't have fixed armor points, but rolleable one. In the exemple you mention, the chest could have a 1D8-1 armor point. If 0 is rolled, you hit the no protected part. If you roll 8, your blow hit the full plate part. All other rolls are up to your interpretation. The Elric regular system do not call for hit location roll (but the armor roll may give you some guides as to the hit location if partial armor is worn, as above), but as you can see it can be easily adpated to hit location. Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040115/84249b9f/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 15 19:40:15 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:40:15 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Language spell Message-ID: I use the following divine spell : Polyglot (2 POU, non stackable). The character on which the spell is cast can use his higher Speak Language skill to speak any language he knows (01% or more). The effect of the spell stops when the charater switch to another language. Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040115/c1969e6c/attachment-0001.html From comogatas at yahoo.com Fri Jan 16 18:45:29 2004 From: comogatas at yahoo.com (Eddy) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:45:29 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Partial Armor Message-ID: <20040116074246.28165.qmail@web40507.mail.yahoo.com> I have not seen a detailed partial armor system to the extent that detailed critical hit (hit location) systems exist. The Riddle of Steel RPG is supposed to be very detailed and the site allows you to download a sample of their rules but I don't know how extensive the armor rules are. I was tinkering with giving armor pieces a "coverage rating" from 1 (Wonder Woman's bracers) to 20 (hermetically sealed super science armor) and using a d20 roll to see if the attack hit the armor or not. The system would have to play along with and essentially be part of the hit location system (RQ or whatever you choose) in order to minimize disruption of game flow. I don't have a play group so if someone could run with it, please do. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040116/fc4aa872/attachment.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Wed Jan 21 01:03:46 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:03:46 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] Archives Message-ID: I tried to acces the 2004 archives, and I noticed that the archived messages end on January 16. The latest digest I received contained a mix of messages earlier than 16 and later than 16, but they don't appear in the archived message list ? Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040120/5bf2e812/attachment-0001.html From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jan 21 02:27:51 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:27:51 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508385@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> I've never tried to use sorcery in RQ2 and never really liked the sorcery rules. It seemed to take away from the simplicity of the system. As the current game I run is unlikely to go anywhere near the West I'm not too concerned but I would like to give the Lunars something a bit different.... -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of gianni at basicrps.com Sent: Tue 20/01/2004 13:50 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Cc: Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sorcery with RQ2 Hi Has anybody ever tried using sorcery within a RQ2 campaign? How'd it work? Cheers Gianni _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040120/762e592c/attachment-0001.bin From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 22 19:59:23 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:59:23 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hit location/Elric system Message-ID: >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > > for partial armour. > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > > is based on my own > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) >OK, here it comes (the short version:) Yes indeed, it's quite complex. Do you take into account other relevant elements such as whether it is hand to hand or missile attack, whether the attacker is right or left handed, whether the attacker has two weapons or multiple attacks, whether the attak comes from above or behind (a scorpionman dart attack ?), ... and so on ? And do you do same for all hit location table in RQ (for all monsters ?). Just kidding... :-) I still think the Elric armor system with armor having a die roll instead of a fixed AP is a good solution. Any known drawback from that system ? (I did not play much Elric or Stormbringer). Alain http://www. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040122/99676e7c/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Jan 22 22:09:55 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:09:55 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] [ADMIN] Still incomplete Archives. Message-ID: Nick's answer on my message "Hit Location/Elric system" is already available of the Archived sites, while my own post (obviously sent prior his answer, unless some time gap occured), is not yet there ! How that can be ? My previous messages of 16 January (two of them) are still not listed in the Archives ! Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040122/cae958b7/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 00:04:48 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:04:48 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] new D20 hit location table ? Message-ID: Bjorn Stolen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 01:27:13 PST 2004 >Well, I was asked to share it, I'm not trying to enforce the system on you >or suggestin that it is perfect.... Bjorn, sorry for my remarks and examples, but I just couldn't resist to mention plenty other elements that could be taken into account to further improve the realism. But this would be too complicated for my game. >And I do have different tables between hand to hand or missile attack, just >as in the RQ3 standard rules, as probable hit locations will differ greatly >between those two. > >My experience with the d20 hit location for melee combat is that you get hit >far to often in the legs compared to when we do sparring. Maybe the D20 RQ tables for melee and missile could be simply improved to better reflect reality ? Any suggestion, based on real world fencing experience ? http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/5dc7bbbb/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 00:09:28 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:09:28 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] major wounds ? Message-ID: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jan 23 02:09:16 PST 2004 >Personally, I always found the RQ location system as about as far as I >wanted to go in terms of detail (as opposed to say Aftermath!) and have >grown increasingly comfortable with BRP's lack of locations and major >wounds, but if one wanted more detail I think Bjorn's system sounds like a >good option. I am not sure to remember what that "major wounds" system is in the BRP rules ? http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/727a2e7e/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 01:17:21 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:17:21 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] plated legs Message-ID: Bjorn Stolen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 05:55:15 PST 2004 Well, there seems to be a bit of a discussion on wether I'm "right" or not here. I'd definately make it easier to be hit in the arms than the system shows today, perhaps on expence of the legs. This is only a problem if you think it is a broblem. When we used the original system we were cursed with rolling hits on the left leg all the time, to such an extent that we started joking about having heroues totally unarmoured exept from plated left legs.... I guess there is indeed a 'flaw' in the table to that regard, as I faced the same concerns in my games : many players envisaged also for melee combat to wear plate in both legs (and linen cloth in the chest to compensate for the cost and weight) ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/aa583292/attachment-0001.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Jan 24 02:05:51 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:05:51 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Why my messages are not archived ? Message-ID: I am still complaining that my messages are NOT archived ! What is (technically) wrong with my posts ? They are part of the digests I receive, but they are not individually archived ? Any clue how to fix that ? Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040123/72aeb309/attachment-0001.html From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jan 22 04:20:18 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:20:18 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508386@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Did you never look at the Harnmaster hit location table? Personally its too detailed for me but there are 38 hit locations (if I remember correctly) I'll have a look see if I can reproduce the table for you. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of Bjorn Stolen Sent: Wed 21/01/2004 15:52 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Cc: Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stolenbjorns hit location rules >From: grogthing >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Another arbitary rule of thumb question >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:24:58 -0800 (PST) > >It soundes interesting, I would like to see more >details. > >Greg > >--- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > >Has anyone developed a rule of thumb or houserule > > for partial armour. > > > > > > I've made a horrendously detailed armoursystem that > > is based on my own > > experiences with fighting (I'm into WMA) OK, here it comes (the short version:) (When I refer to the original system, I mean RQ3) I divide the humanoid body into 28 sections. I keep the original hit locations and total hit points, though, and any damage hitting in the four Right arm hit locations will all do damage to the original Right arm hit points. The 28 hit locations are only used for determining how much damage that was stopped, and for giving the GM some directions as to where the hit strikes, and what the consiquenses are conserning describingpurposes. The 28 locations are: Original: "Head" Scull Eyes/nose region Chins Mouth region Original:"Chest" (Front/back is logic; it depends on wether you have the back or the front exposed) Throat/neck Torso front/back (This is a large zone, i decided to not split this location up more than nessecary) Original: "R/L Arm" Shoulder Overarm Elbow Underarm Hand Original: "Abdomen" Upper abdomen (from ribcage to navel) Lower abdomen (from navel to groin) L/R upper thigh (hip area) Original: "R/L Leg" Lower thigh Knee Leg Foot The "TO HIT ROLL" is increased from a d20 to a d100 roll, and the %to hit which of theese 28 parts is outlined acording to my own experiences when sparring in WMA The ratio is altered a bit from the original d20 system, I haven't just multiplied with 5 and divided to each main/original hit location. I've allso had to work on the armor encumbrance to make it fit the smaller and more detailed hit locations table of mine. I cannot remember the exact propotions, but here I was more true to the original RQ rules conserning armor: (F.instance head armor is 1/10 = 10% of total suit enc. (In my system i state that covering scull counts as 6% Eyes/nose as 1% Mouth as 1% and chins as 2%) I've allso altered the armor points -rules for RQ-3 (Dividing between piercing/bashing and cuttingdamage, and introducing two importaint armortypes; gambersons and Linothoraxes(textile paddings), damage done by weapons, and the fatigue system, but I don't want to troubble you with that! _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail snakker ditt spr?k! http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/sbox?rru=dasp/lang.asp - F? Hotmail p? norsk i dag _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7102 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20040121/8ef2336e/attachment.bin