From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Mar 2 02:14:07 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:14:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New BRP Game Finally Released! Message-ID: >Steve Perrin wrote: >> Has anyone picked this up? >> >> Any reviews? I was thinking about doing such a project, but was told this >> was in the offing so I forbore. It might be just what I'm looking for. >> >> Steve Perrin > >I haven't seen the actual printed result, but having corresponded with >the author Stephane Gesbert (who seems a sterling character) and >examined the preceding on-line alpha versions in some detail I can only >imagine it's a wonderful product. Whilst not without some irritating minor flaws (inconsistencies between tables on different pages, poorly explained shield rules, the choice of which mythos entities are detailed, the anachronistic inclusion of plate armour), it looks (bought it on Friday, haven't had a solid read through yet) excellent. It's very close to CoC in rules, and what it adds to cover archaic melee etc is not overly fussy. The Cthulhoid elements are well handled, the historical detail seems generally superb (but to use that immortal phrase beloved of academic historians the world over, "It's not my period..."). And it has a wonderful picture of a Viking longship afloat on the ocean whilst you-know-who rears out of the depths behind it... >It's no mere redressing of CoC with with swords and armor instead of >guns and grenades, nor is it D&D warmed over. Stephane has gone to some >pains to provide an authentic historical medieval setting, though with a >Mythos spin natch! ;-) I always liked the way Stephane's original pdf seemed determined to keep both the gritty feel of a "historical" Dark Ages game and the bleak world view of HPL fully intact and from a skim through, I don't think Chaosium have harmed that at all. I was initially a little uncertain about buying CDA, as I already have LOTS of S&S BRP material and generally prefer classic 1920 CoC (with the occasional VSF Cthulhu:1889 moment...) but, especially at the price (?14.99 in the UK) Cthulhu Dark Ages seemed too good to miss, hence my slightly impulsive purchase! Cheers, Nick Middleton From grogthing at yahoo.com Tue Mar 2 02:21:04 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:21:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New BRP Game Finally Released! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040301152104.46059.qmail@web41510.mail.yahoo.com> I too bought the book friday. Have not read it thoroughly but after skimming excitedly thru, I give it a thumbs up. Greg --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >Steve Perrin wrote: > >> Has anyone picked this up? > >> > >> Any reviews? I was thinking about doing such a > project, but was told > this > >> was in the offing so I forbore. It might be just > what I'm looking for. > >> > >> Steve Perrin > > > >I haven't seen the actual printed result, but > having corresponded with > >the author Stephane Gesbert (who seems a sterling > character) and > >examined the preceding on-line alpha versions in > some detail I can only > >imagine it's a wonderful product. > > Whilst not without some irritating minor flaws > (inconsistencies between > tables on different pages, poorly explained shield > rules, the choice of > which mythos entities are detailed, the > anachronistic inclusion of plate > armour), it looks (bought it on Friday, haven't had > a solid read through > yet) excellent. It's very close to CoC in rules, and > what it adds to cover > archaic melee etc is not overly fussy. The Cthulhoid > elements are well > handled, the historical detail seems generally > superb (but to use that > immortal phrase beloved of academic historians the > world over, "It's not my > period..."). And it has a wonderful picture of a > Viking longship afloat on > the ocean whilst you-know-who rears out of the > depths behind it... > > >It's no mere redressing of CoC with with swords and > armor instead of > >guns and grenades, nor is it D&D warmed over. > Stephane has gone to some > >pains to provide an authentic historical medieval > setting, though with a > >Mythos spin natch! ;-) > > I always liked the way Stephane's original pdf > seemed determined to keep > both the gritty feel of a "historical" Dark Ages > game and the bleak world > view of HPL fully intact and from a skim through, I > don't think Chaosium > have harmed that at all. I was initially a little > uncertain about buying > CDA, as I already have LOTS of S&S BRP material and > generally prefer > classic 1920 CoC (with the occasional VSF > Cthulhu:1889 moment...) but, > especially at the price (?14.99 in the UK) Cthulhu > Dark Ages seemed too > good to miss, hence my slightly impulsive purchase! > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools From jellen at ameritech.net Wed Mar 3 06:34:02 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:34:02 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <022f01c4008d$5236ac40$ca9d4d44@DCNL6S01> I abandoned D&D in 1984, when I discovered RQ. I couldn't convince my D&D buddies to switch over, however, so we haven't RPGed together until EQ came along. Since then, we've debated the merits of our systems of choice many times, but one issue does confound me: levels. Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and unrealistic as all of you do, but I have to admit: they do make it pretty easy to compare the relative might of a party to that of a group of nasties. What methods do you GMs use when designing scenarios to make sure that you're providing an adequate challenge for your players? I must admit that I've often been forced to provide a blatant deus ex machina to spare players from unfair dooms. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 3 07:55:36 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:55:36 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <13635211.1078260936645.JavaMail.root@skeeter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> I compare the two most likely combat abilities of a critter to that of the PC group. Then I compare the _type_ of attack vs. the defenses of the PC group. Having a PC average Dodge of 80% isn't very helpful against an area attack like dragon's breath, even if the breath percentage is around 30-40%. Against a baby dragon's bite/claw attack of 40%, however, a Dodge 80 is rather decent. It takes a little more practice but it become more intuitive over time. And I almost always roll hidden dice, particularly with newbie players. If I need to fudge, then a PC may up with a rather showy scar rather than looking back up at his toppling headless body. David -----Original Message----- From: J and/or Ellen Sent: Mar 2, 2004 1:34 PM To: RQ Rules , RQ Addicts , brpsystem at yahoogroups.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? I abandoned D&D in 1984, when I discovered RQ. I couldn't convince my D&D buddies to switch over, however, so we haven't RPGed together until EQ came along. Since then, we've debated the merits of our systems of choice many times, but one issue does confound me: levels. Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and unrealistic as all of you do, but I have to admit: they do make it pretty easy to compare the relative might of a party to that of a group of nasties. What methods do you GMs use when designing scenarios to make sure that you're providing an adequate challenge for your players? I must admit that I've often been forced to provide a blatant deus ex machina to spare players from unfair dooms. _______________________________________________ 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 jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 3 07:59:31 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:59:31 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat Message-ID: <29719151.1078261171681.JavaMail.root@skeeter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Poll: How do you all handle multiple hostile spirits in spirit combat on a single target? 1) Is it possible? 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the hostile spirits or only one? 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is any loss of MPs taken into account after all attacks are done? Immediately between attacks? Just curious how everyone would handle such a thing and in what order the various effects would occur. David Smart From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 3 08:48:17 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:48:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat In-Reply-To: <29719151.1078261171681.JavaMail.root@skeeter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040302214817.91657.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Smart wrote: > Poll: How do you all handle multiple hostile spirits > in spirit combat on a single target? > > 1) Is it possible? Sure. > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the > hostile spirits or only one? Only one. > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is > any loss of MPs taken into account after all attacks > are done? Immediately between attacks? Combat would be simultanious. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 3 08:52:31 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:52:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Looking for a couple of players for online RQ In-Reply-To: <20040302214817.91657.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040302215231.92519.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> I have room for a couple of more players for an online RQ game. If you want to play make sure you can post at least once every several days or so. If interested email me directly at leonbk at yahoo.com Fist served, first come :) ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 3 09:51:00 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:51:00 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat Message-ID: <12626846.1078267860786.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Hoo boy! Talk about being tossed into a spiritual blender set on "Puree"... David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: Mar 2, 2004 3:48 PM To: David Smart , "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat --- David Smart wrote: > Poll: How do you all handle multiple hostile spirits > in spirit combat on a single target? > > 1) Is it possible? Sure. > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the > hostile spirits or only one? Only one. > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is > any loss of MPs taken into account after all attacks > are done? Immediately between attacks? Combat would be simultanious. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 3 10:15:41 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:15:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat In-Reply-To: <12626846.1078267860786.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040302231541.67919.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> Sure it is meant to be deadly. You do not mess with shamans. Leon --- David Smart wrote: > Hoo boy! Talk about being tossed into a spiritual > blender set on "Puree"... > > David Smart > > > Poll: How do you all handle multiple hostile > spirits > > in spirit combat on a single target? > > > > 1) Is it possible? > Sure. > > > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the > > hostile spirits or only one? > Only one. > > > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is > > any loss of MPs taken into account after all > attacks > > are done? Immediately between attacks? > Combat would be simultanious. > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster > http://search.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 3 20:28:30 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:28:30 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >From: "J and/or Ellen" >Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and unrealistic as all of >you do, but I have to admit: they do make it pretty easy to compare the >relative might of a party to that of a group of nasties. What methods do >you GMs use when designing scenarios to make sure that you're providing an >adequate challenge for your players? I must admit that I've often been >forced to provide a blatant deus ex machina to spare players from unfair >dooms. Don't we all? In my settings, the opposition isn't the main thing, though, and I never make campagins based on which creatures I want them to meet, I often improvise that on the spot. Would a level-system help me pick "the perfect PC-victim"? Probably. But to me, RPG'ing isn't about sacrifying NPC's to bloodthirsty PC's. There are allso several ways of bailing out PC's, the best one IMO is to have them decide what to do, not forcing them. I never make plots where they "have to slay the farting pidgeon of doom", or have to be exposed to an earthquake and having them roll 3d6 to total hit points with no chanse of escape and a 40% chanse of die. Now, if they decide they want to go out and slay the farting pidgeon of doom, they do so at their own risk, if I decide they're about to experience an earthquake, I'll not let that have any chanse of killing them. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Mar 3 21:51:07 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:51:07 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4045B89B.2090206@padrigu.gu.se> Hi! I pretty much work in the same way as Bjorn, improvising most encounters apart from main villains etc. A "probelm" in RQ is of course that it is a highly deadly game. Who isn't afraid of the critically hitting Trollkin or a serious fumble? ;-) About NPC:s being to tough for the PC:s it is also a question of getting the players to understand that they can't attack anything they meet or that they have to be smart when in combat with their foes. If they must steal something from a dragon, allow them to pursue alternative ways of doing it if they choose to. It doesn't mean that every stupid alternative idea is ok, but often players come up with brilliant ideas of doing things in another way than the GM anticipated. Let them persue it, but also prepare at least one alternative way yourself, instead of putting them up agianst a foe they can't match. My real problem is not so much to balance the fights beforehand but to handle strokes of luck/unluck, for instance when 2 players manage to fumble severely in the same round tilting a combat in the NPC:s direction or someone missees a parry while the NPC: rolled a 01. (but this is also the interesting thing with RQ compared to level absed games where you have 150 HP which mean that a Kobold will never kill you through a stroke of luck) As a rule of thumb, I do as Bjorn and let the PC:s decide for themselves what they will do and if they act extremely foolish I have no remorse if they die, but they usually get a good warning first. If there is bad luck involved or they play it smart but still fail for some reason, then I usualy take a kinder approach. This usually means that I play my NPC:s "stupid" for a moment or deciding that a NPC takes an opportunity to leave the combat instead of risking being killed, or have the PC:s taken prisoners or have DI:s etc readily available. Usually my main goal is that a fight should make a good story, unless it is mostly a way of handing out experince checks. :-) And a good fight usually means that it is a close call but that the PC:s make it out alive in the end. But, to give a more hands on advise, I design NPC groups to have slightly lower percentage chances (10-20%) than the PC:s (usually with the exception of the leader). If I have mighty NPC:s, than I way in the number factor putting the NPC:s in a minority position. I also tend to play major NPC:s the way they are portraid in movies, books etc, that is having their henchmen do the work, fleeing instead of fighting if they find that the PC:s push through etc. I think the important thing is to make NPC:s act intelligent and with an understandable reason (apart from Dragonewts :-) ) instead of mindless killing machines. This, of course, might be a problem if you deal with mindless critters, but then again, if a Dragon snail get killed in a fight that is turning bad for the PC:s have the other Dragon snails start eating on the dead one... if the PC:s decide not to retreat, let them take their chances. No one can blame you if they die then. For me, this is also one of the most important things about being a GM, the players must feel that if they die, it is not your fault as a GM. It is either their own, a stroke of bad luck or that stupid Trollkin's fault, critically hitting you in the back. :-) /Peter J Bjorn Stolen wrote: > From: "J and/or Ellen" > >> Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and unrealistic as all >> of you do, but I have to admit: they do make it pretty easy to >> compare the relative might of a party to that of a group of nasties. >> What methods do you GMs use when designing scenarios to make sure >> that you're providing an adequate challenge for your players? I must >> admit that I've often been forced to provide a blatant deus ex >> machina to spare players from unfair dooms. > > > Don't we all? In my settings, the opposition isn't the main thing, > though, and I never make campagins based on which creatures I want > them to meet, I often improvise that on the spot. Would a level-system > help me pick "the perfect PC-victim"? Probably. But to me, RPG'ing > isn't about sacrifying NPC's to bloodthirsty PC's. There are allso > several ways of bailing out PC's, the best one IMO is to have them > decide what to do, not forcing them. I never make plots where they > "have to slay the farting pidgeon of doom", or have to be exposed to > an earthquake and having them roll 3d6 to total hit points with no > chanse of escape and a 40% chanse of die. Now, if they decide they > want to go out and slay the farting pidgeon of doom, they do so at > their own risk, if I decide they're about to experience an earthquake, > I'll not let that have any chanse of killing them. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 3 23:35:07 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 04:35:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <4045B89B.2090206@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <20040303123507.78730.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter wrote: > But, to give a more hands on advise, I design NPC groups to have slightly lower percentage chances (10-20%) than the PC:s (usually with the exception of the leader). Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, sometimes as much as 50% more. The reason for this is that players know their characters much better than I do as a GM and usually work together to over come theri weakness. Therefore, most parties I played are than capable of taking out monsters that are much more skilled than they. Leon ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Thu Mar 4 00:08:44 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:08:44 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040303123507.78730.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040303123507.78730.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4045D8DC.3090506@padrigu.gu.se> Leon Kirshtein wrote: >--- Peter wrote: > > >>But, to give a more hands on advise, I design NPC >> >> >groups to have slightly lower percentage chances >(10-20%) than the PC:s (usually with the exception of >the leader). > >Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves >the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, >sometimes as much as 50% more. The reason for this is >that players know their characters much better than I >do as a GM and usually work together to over come >theri weakness. Therefore, most parties I played are >than capable of taking out monsters that are much more >skilled than they. > As you might have guessed, my players usually aren't :-), but it is also a matter of numbers of course. If the NPC:s are less than the PC:s they need to be better, if they are more or about the same number as the PC:s they need to have lower skills. I also play a pretty low power level campaign, with small amount of Rune magic; only one PC have Healing 6 (we play RQ2), there is only one power storage in the party at the moment, etc. For most part though, my players either jump in to combat with no or little preparation or they create quite eloborate plans that fail because they fumble at a critical moment. It is almost like a curse when we play... but we laugh a lot and it makes good stories afterwards. :-) /Peter From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Mar 4 00:17:12 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:17:12 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040303123507.78730.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040303123507.78730.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4045DAD8.9000602@inetnebr.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: >--- Peter wrote: > > >>But, to give a more hands on advise, I design NPC >> >> >groups to have slightly lower percentage chances >(10-20%) than the PC:s (usually with the exception of >the leader). > >Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves >the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, >sometimes as much as 50% more. > ouch dude doesnt that increase the likelihood of folks getting unnacceptably random crits ... against the players? guess you can gloss them out >The reason for this is >that players know their characters much better than I >do as a GM and usually work together to over come >theri weakness. > and it should be rewarded... IMHO -- 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Mar 4 00:52:08 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:52:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <4045DAD8.9000602@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20040303135208.43558.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> --- lance dyas wrote: > ouch dude doesnt that increase the likelihood of > folks getting unnacceptably > random crits ... against the players? guess you > can gloss them out I rarely have to gloss over crits. We play that the person does not die till the end of the round and a character can go to -10 general hp before dead-dead. The result is that characters go out but do not die a lot as long as the party wins the fight. It is also easier to actually capture them this way. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Mar 4 01:19:21 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:19:21 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040303135208.43558.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040303135208.43558.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4045E969.5080501@inetnebr.com> Leon Kirshtein wrote: >--- lance dyas wrote: > > >>ouch dude doesnt that increase the likelihood of >>folks getting unnacceptably >>random crits ... against the players? guess you >>can gloss them out >> >> > >I rarely have to gloss over crits. We play that the >person does not die till the end of the round and a >character can go to -10 general hp before dead-dead. > >The result is that characters go out but do not die a >lot as long as the party wins the fight. It is also >easier to actually capture them this way. > >Leon > > Ah capturing is a good thing.. .though I was thinking of crits in terms of the Stormbringer rules variant where you would have a bunch of maimed Characters. There are crits and CRITS -- 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Mar 4 01:27:02 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 06:27:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <4045E969.5080501@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20040303142702.81985.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- lance dyas wrote: > There are crits and CRITS Yes, sometimes shit happens. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Mar 4 04:54:44 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:54:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels, Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat In-Reply-To: <20040302225112.75458222707@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040303175444.72885.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> J and/or Ellen: > I abandoned D&D in 1984, when I discovered RQ. I couldn't convince my D&D > buddies to switch over, however, so we haven't RPGed together until EQ came > along. Since then, we've debated the merits of our systems of choice many > times, but one issue does confound me: levels. > > Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and unrealistic as all of > you do, but I have to admit: they do make it pretty easy to compare the > relative might of a party to that of a group of nasties. What methods do > you GMs use when designing scenarios to make sure that you're providing an > adequate challenge for your players? I must admit that I've often been > forced to provide a blatant deus ex machina to spare players from unfair > dooms. It all depends on what kind of scenario I am running. In a scenario where the PCs will meet a series of small groups, for instance wandering through the countryside, exploring a ruin, going underground in a huge cavern complex, then I make the groups comparable to the PCs. This means that the group will have roughly the same number of NPCs, with perhaps an overlap one way or the other, with roughly the same skills. If I have more NPCs then I reduce the skills or armour, if I have fewer NPCs I increase the skills, armour or damage bonus. For unintelligent NPCs, I double the numbers or increase the damage bonus, because these can't parry and normally have low armour, so they are dogmeat for a normal party. In a scenario where the PCs meet challenging individuals, or the big monster at the end of the scenario, I use one or two more powerful NPCs. For humanoids, I give them a high weapon skill and good damage bonus with better spells, because the party can gang up on a single NPC and atack multiple times. For non-humanoids, such as dragons, I count the number of attacks and treat that as equivalent to a small party, so a dragon has Claw/Claw/Bite/Breathe so counts as 4 NPCs and could fight a party of 4 or 5 PCs. If things are going badly for the NPC I make it concentrate all attacks on a single PC, if things are going badly for the PCs I make the NPC attack all the PCs individually. In a scenario where the PCs must climb over a mountain of corpses to win, for instance when hacking through a temple with hundreds of initiates, the PCs are faced with probably double their numbers at a time, but with inferior skills and damage. This has the effect that the PCs must decide who to attack, who to parry and who to ignore and hope he doesn't do a lot of damage. As a general rule, all PCs are better in defence than attack and all NPCs are better in attack than defence. So, a gang of PCs will survive better against a single powerful foe than a group of equivalent NPCs. David Smart: > I compare the two most likely combat abilities of a critter to that of the > PC group. Then I compare the _type_ of attack vs. the defenses of the PC > group. Having a PC average Dodge of 80% isn't very helpful against an area > attack like dragon's breath, even if the breath percentage is around > 30-40%. Fortunately, most parties will not stand around waiting for the dragon to breathe, but will run around the dragon, trying to attack in different places. Any party that walks up to a dragon in a cone-formation deserves anything they get. > Against a baby dragon's bite/claw attack of 40%, however, a Dodge 80 is > rather decent. And against multiple attacks, so a good Dodge is very effective against Walktapi and Hydras, for instance. Well, perhaps not hydras, but you wouldn't want to parry them either. > It takes a little more practice but it become more intuitive over time. And > I almost always roll hidden dice, particularly with newbie players. If I > need to fudge, then a PC may up with a rather showy scar rather than > looking back up at his toppling headless body. I never roll hidden dice in combat, but there are ways of changing tactics to make things easier for the PCs. They can be taken as hostages for ransom, can be taken by broos for recreational purposes, can be taken away to be eaten or can be captured for interrogation, for instance. A party of NPCs can decide to gang up on the most powerful PC, leaving the others free reign to gang up on individual NPCs. NPCs can decide to go Fanatical to finish off the PCs, reducing their defensive capabilities and allowing the PCs to parry them out and grind them down. If I need to fudge, I will miscalculate atack percentages, turning a critical into a special or a special into a normal hit, for instance, or I may forget to add in a Bladesharp or Truesword spell for attack/damage purposes. David Smart: > Poll: How do you all handle multiple hostile spirits in spirit combat on a > single target? > > 1) Is it possible? > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the hostile spirits or only > one? > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is any loss of MPs taken > into account after all attacks are done? Immediately between attacks? > > Just curious how everyone would handle such a thing and in what order the > various effects would occur. According to the normal rules: > 1) Is it possible? Yes. > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the hostile spirits or only > one? Only one. > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is any loss of MPs taken > into account after all attacks are done? Immediately between attacks? You attack with your current MPs, as do spirits. They lose their 1D3 and you lose your ND3 then you start again next round. According to the rules I use: > 1) Is it possible? Yes > 2) If so, does the target get to attack all the hostile spirits or only > one? He can split his Spirit Combat Skill as a normal attack to attack multiple spirits who are attacking him. > 3) If all, simulateoulsy or one after another ? is any loss of MPs taken > into account after all attacks are done? Immediately between attacks? Using POW as DEX to calculate a SR for attacking works wonders here. So, powerful spirits attack first, less powerful ones attack later. Loss of MPs is by SR, so if you are attacked on SR 1,2,3,4 then you could lose MPs on each of those SRs, reducing defensive MPs each time. David Smart: > Hoo boy! Talk about being tossed into a spiritual blender set on "Puree"... Yep, the best tactics when attacked by multiple spirits are: 1. Cast as big a Spirit Shield/Spirit Block as you can 2. Run away as fast and as far as you can and hope they are bound to an area 3. Hope that there is nothing big and nasty around the corner to hit you without your Protection/Shield Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Mar 4 05:18:18 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:18:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Multiple Spirits on Spirit Combat, Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040303175456.BABD5222701@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040303181818.10958.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > Sure it is meant to be deadly. You do not mess with > shamans. > > Leon > > --- David Smart wrote: > > Hoo boy! Talk about being tossed into a spiritual > > blender set on "Puree"... I agree absolutely. Shamans are possibly the most dangerous of the magical types (especially the rules I play for spirit combat). Leon Kirshtein: > --- Peter wrote: > > But, to give a more hands on advise, I design NPC > groups to have slightly lower percentage chances > (10-20%) than the PC:s (usually with the exception of > the leader). > > Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves > the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, > sometimes as much as 50% more. The reason for this is > that players know their characters much better than I > do as a GM and usually work together to over come > theri weakness. Therefore, most parties I played are > than capable of taking out monsters that are much more > skilled than they. Absolutey true. I would bet any party against a single NPC nine times out of ten, no matter how powerful the NPC. Multiple opponents always wears a single NPC down as does superior tactics and inter-PC planning. In fact, I have had trouble in the past designing a single NPC that is capable of being a threat to a party. Peter Johansson: > As you might have guessed, my players usually aren't :-), but it is also > a matter of numbers of course. If the NPC:s are less than the PC:s they > need to be better, if they are more or about the same number as the PC:s > they need to have lower skills. Quite right. > I also play a pretty low power level campaign, with small amount of Rune > magic; only one PC have Healing 6 (we play RQ2), there is only one power > storage in the party at the moment, etc. For most combats that isn't a problem. If a PC takes a minor wound, he can probably heal it using his own Heal, certainly a Heal 2 will stop bleeding and prevent the wound worsening. If the PC can take a gamble on not dying through Total HP loss then he can restrict healing during combat to when a limb is taken out. Don't forget, even at that kind of level, a PC will probably have 4-5 point armour and 4-5 HPs in a vital location, 3-4 in an arm, so he needs to take 8-10 points of damage before being knocked down or being unable to attack/parry. If he parries the blow, then the NPC needs to do 18-20 points of damage to take a PC down. Even someone using a Bastard Sword with a 1D6 DB will be doing 6.5 + 3.5 = 10 points of damage, so they can be parried out, if you are lucky. Someone more typical, using a Broadsword and 1D4 DB does 5.5 + 2.5 = 8 points of damage, so could take a PC down if not parried. However, if someone attacks you with a sword and you don't parry, should you expect to be standing afterwards? Anyone using Protection 2, say, raises the damage needed to take them down to 10-12, Protection 4 raises it to 12-14, Protection 4 and good armour raises it to 14-16. You see the point? Even at the starting end, it is difficult to take a PC down in a combat situation. > For most part though, my players either jump in to combat with no or > little preparation or they create quite eloborate plans that fail > because they fumble at a critical moment. It is almost like a curse when > we play... but we laugh a lot and it makes good stories afterwards. :-) Well, anyone who jumps into combat without any preparation deserves to die. Fumbling is just bad luck, but most fumbles are harmless, unless they cut their own heads off. lance dyas: > >Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves > >the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, > >sometimes as much as 50% more. > > > > ouch dude doesnt that increase the likelihood of folks getting > unnacceptably > random crits ... against the players? guess you can gloss them out Unnaceptably random crits? No such thing. If it's good enough for PC then it's good enough for NPCs. > >The reason for this is > >that players know their characters much better than I > >do as a GM and usually work together to over come > >theri weakness. > > > and it should be rewarded... IMHO Rewarding the players for working together to overcome a more dangerous foe is better than rewarding them for working togther to defeat an easy foe. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Mar 4 06:59:05 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:59:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <022f01c4008d$5236ac40$ca9d4d44@DCNL6S01> Message-ID: <20040303195905.27789.qmail@web12408.mail.yahoo.com> --- J and/or Ellen wrote: > Now, I find the concept of levels as illogical and > unrealistic as all of you do, but I have to admit: > they do make it pretty easy to compare the relative > might of a party to that of a group of nasties. What > methods do you GMs use when designing scenarios to > make sure that you're providing an adequate > challenge for your players? I must admit that I've > often been forced to provide a blatant deus ex > machina to spare players from unfair dooms. The old RuneQuest (and current Mythworld) concept of Treasure Factor (so many points for best weapon ability, offensive spells, armor, mounts, number in the group, etc.) have obvious weaknesses for computing treasure, but are excellent for balancing forces in the situation you describe. On the other hand, a situation of inevitable doom might be useful once in awhile to convince the players that a quick retreat is a perfectly viable combat tactic. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 4 22:38:34 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:38:34 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >I rarely have to gloss over crits. We play that the >person does not die till the end of the round and a >character can go to -10 general hp before dead-dead. > >The result is that characters go out but do not die a >lot as long as the party wins the fight. It is also >easier to actually capture them this way. > >Leon > If my players go to -1 total hp, I go into the thinking-boks. If they ended on -1 total hit points because they did somthing stupid (meaning out of setting/character's nature), i let them die. (If they ended on -1 total HP because of my ruling, forcing a situation on them they couldn't avoid, I might let them live. This makes them not engaging in combat unless tehy're pretty sure they're coming out on top, be it due to better skills, element of surprise, better tactics, a safeway out just in case or are more than the enemy. I find this healthy for the "realism"(a pretty stupid word when used in fantasy-settings) of the game. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 4 22:44:00 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:44:00 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >On the other hand, a situation of inevitable doom >might be useful once in awhile to convince the players >that a quick retreat is a perfectly viable combat >tactic. > >Paul Cardwell My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you make to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell them "get the **** out of Dodge!" _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 4 22:32:31 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:32:31 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I really don't look to much on the stats of the NPC's I explain the situations the PC's comes up in, and they've over the years developed a pretty safeproof hunch for the given situations. There's exeptions; the NPC good guys and the supreeme badguy. I let them be way byond the PC's to keep them from getting a too high self esteem ;) >Hmm, I found that to give a good account of themselves >the NPC's skills must be higher than the PCs, >sometimes as much as 50% more. The reason for this is >that players know their characters much better than I >do as a GM and usually work together to over come >theri weakness. Therefore, most parties I played are >than capable of taking out monsters that are much more >skilled than they. > >Leon _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From rico at ricosweb.com Fri Mar 5 01:57:44 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:57:44 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20043475744.978096@laptop> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:44:00 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you make > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell them > "get the **** out of Dodge!" In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to know the PCs can die at any moment. I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game setting. I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to work out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and the game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common reference between the world you are creating and the players who are experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation might come up. Rich (who's stating an opinion, not trying to change anyone's mind.) From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Mar 5 02:56:16 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:56:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") In-Reply-To: <20043475744.978096@laptop> References: <20043475744.978096@laptop> Message-ID: <404751A0.3080207@padrigu.gu.se> Thought of a new thread after reading what Rich Allen wrote in response to Bjorn Stolen: >/.../ The problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to know the PCs can die at any moment. /.../ > I created my own Hero Questing rules for RQ based on the Pendragon questing style and personal traits system (also somewhat influenced by David Dunham's Pendragon Pass) and Hero Wars (now Hero Quest) questing rules, between which there are some similarities. It didn't really change the way RQ worked though regarding the difference between "the impossible odds" D&D style and the "PC can die at any moment" RQ style. However the Hero Quest I sent them on, and the way I percieve Heroquesting to work, was more a test of character/personal traits than of skill. If I would have put them up against what would be "impossible odds" if fought, it would probably have meant that their foe (or the situation) would have judged them on the PC:s personal traits (virtues in Hero Wars?) and the players roleplaying ability rather than trying their sword skill. (Sword fighting was still a vital part of the quest though.) I guess there are more people out there on this list who have developed their own Hero Questing rules. It would be interesting to read what kind of sources and influences you have used? If anyone's interested I'd try to find the time to get into more detail about the system I used. /Peter J From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri Mar 5 04:49:45 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:49:45 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Advaanced Hit Location Table Message-ID: <1414.155.239.188.15.1078422585.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Niall C. Shapero wrote: I tried to access your hit location table on your site, and failed. I tried sending you e-mail at your posted e-mail address in your message, and got a bounce reply. Perhaps you could post the article to this list? How very strange, it works for me fine. However..... My site was moved to a new server this week so maybe it was beig moved at the same time you tried. Cioa Tony From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 5 11:54:24 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:54:24 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <09FAABCE.69C5A4A0.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/4/2004 6:44:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you make > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you > make to tell them > "get the **** out of Dodge!" This is a very fine art and requires a good sense of your players. But, do understand that if you want your players to attempt the "impossible", you have to make the situation one of extremis. To use your hobbit example, the fate of the entire world was at hand. Therefore, refusing to try and failure were tantamount to the same thing. It would be foolish to expect the PCs to go after an amazing doom laden situation merely to gain some treasure or rescue a princess (unless they are that type). I tell my players (admittedly in a D&D game not an RQ game) to act like they think their characters would. Don't metagame. If a situation sounds impossible, then don't do it. This forces me, as a GM, to be very careful introducing scenarios with phrases like "no one has ever returned alive". Because the average player and his PC is likely to think "hey wait a minute....why should I (an initiate) risk my neck in a chaos infested catacombs when no one has ever returned...no one including Storm Khans and Orlanthi Windlords?" I like to tell a funny story. I was running a 1st level D&D scenario. The party was hired to enter the tower of an ancient archmage and retrieve a gem known to be there. The PCs got to the top level and got the gem. Also in the top level of the tower was an ornate sacrophaggus inlaid with powerful runes of warding and dire curses of death and horror to any who defiled the resting place of the archmage. Etchings on one side warned that any who touched the tomb would have their souls ripped asunder. All of the PCs but one were for leaving the place. One PC, Janice, decided to touch the sarcophaggus. Out of the coffin appeared a floating disembodied skull with gems for teeth and eyes. Every D&D player knows this is exactly the description of a demi-lich, one of the most powerful creatures in the game. Way way above the level of a 1st level party (In RQ terms try an elderly Mistress Race Troll against some lay members). The skull floated up, and intoned "leave me rest in peace! If you touch my tomb again, I shall feast upon your soul!". And down it went back into the sarcophaggus. A discussion ensued. All the players but Janice wanted to flee at once. Janice, however, stated "we are 1st level characters. There is no way Devin would throw one of the most powerful creatures in the book at us! No way. It's got to be a fake or an illusion." So, the rest of the PCs left and Janice's character touched the coffin. Up came the skull and out went her soul. As she whined and complained about how it was unfair that I put a powerful monster up against a 1st level party, I told her that she had received fair warning, that she should play her character as a character and not metagame, and that everyone else in the part had figured out not to touch the coffin. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 5 12:00:20 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:00:20 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <0AB2E398.548CE1A2.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:57:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, rico at ricosweb.com writes: > I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in full tilt. Both > can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game setting. While the core of what you say is true, two points: 1. 3rd edition D&D is much less amenable to PCs rushing in unawares. Even high level PCs are likely to die doing that. 2. I did manage to run a heroic RQ campaign. You can even read about it on my website. There were a hell of a lot of PC casualties, especiall at first as the players had to be stripped of their D&D mindset, but we had a core cadre of PCs who survived and did some nice worldshaking. You don't need to break the rules to heroically adventure in RQ. You just need to be careful as a GM in setting up your encounters, and you need to have players who understand that in RQ you should try to avoid combat when at all possible, and when it is necessary that they need to do everything feasible to swing the combat their way (i.e. scouting ahead, devising plans, etc.). Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 5 12:03:54 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:03:54 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") Message-ID: <37B73327.38B13B85.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/4/2004 10:56:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > I guess there are more people out there on this list who have developed > their own Hero Questing rules. It would be interesting to read what kind > of sources and influences you have used? If anyone's interested I'd try > to find the time to get into more detail about the system I > used. My own HQ system was an aglomeration of the others that were floating around. It basically had four parts: 1. All percentages divided by 10 on the hero plane. 2. Personality traits (e.g. Reckless/Cautious 85, where the higher the number the more towards the trait after the slash you were) 3. Rune Affiliations (e.g. Mastery 50, Death 35) 4. Will (a Will statistic used to affect the hero plane.) My system coalesced all four borrowed HQ concepts into a single entity that worked fairly well when I used it in my campaign. Devin From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Mar 5 19:04:59 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:04:59 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") In-Reply-To: <37B73327.38B13B85.00047AF1@aol.com> References: <37B73327.38B13B85.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <404834AB.3090608@padrigu.gu.se> DevinC at aol.com wrote: >My own HQ system was an aglomeration of the others that were floating around. It basically had four parts: > >[snip] > >3. Rune Affiliations (e.g. Mastery 50, Death 35) > >4. Will (a Will statistic used to affect the hero plane.) > How did you use these two parts? /Peter J From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 5 20:28:07 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:28:07 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") Message-ID: <19c.21031c80.2d79a227@aol.com> In a message dated 3/5/2004 12:05:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: <>My own HQ system was an aglomeration of the others that were floating around. It basically had four parts: > >[snip] > >3. Rune Affiliations (e.g. Mastery 50, Death 35) > >4. Will (a Will statistic used to affect the hero plane.) > How did you use these two parts? /Peter J> You channeled Will points through Runic affiliations to accomplish things on the hero plane. For example....let's say you want to permanently kill someone on the hero plane. You would defeat them in combat, then expend Will and channel it through your Death Rune affiliation. You chance to succeed would increase as your Death Rune affiliation increased. I can try to dig up my exact rules. Devin From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Mar 5 20:54:58 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:54:58 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") In-Reply-To: <19c.21031c80.2d79a227@aol.com> References: <19c.21031c80.2d79a227@aol.com> Message-ID: <40484E72.3010902@padrigu.gu.se> DevinC at aol.com wrote: >You channeled Will points through Runic affiliations to accomplish things on the hero plane. For example....let's say you want to permanently kill someone on the hero plane. You would defeat them in combat, then expend Will and channel it through your Death Rune affiliation. You chance to succeed would increase as your Death Rune affiliation increased. > >I can try to dig up my exact rules. > Please do. Making permanent changes on the Hero plane wasn't something I dealt with at the time but it might be of interest further on. It sounds like an interesting solution, and reminds me of the Dreaming skill in the Cthulhu Dreamlands supplement How many or which runic associations can a PC have? Is it only Death cults that can use the death rune or are they just better at it? Would for instance an Orlanth worshipper be able to use the Death Rune or is it the exclusive privilege of Humakt and other Death cults if we use a Glorantha analogy? /Peter J From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Mar 6 00:40:53 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:40:53 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I liked this reply and liked the story so much that I wanted to reply to it, just to have it posted one more time! (This is exactly what I'm trying to say.) >From: DevinC at aol.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules discussion.") >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:54:24 -0500 > >In a message dated 3/4/2004 6:44:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, >stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > > > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a >badguy's > > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you >make > > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you > > make to tell them > > "get the **** out of Dodge!" > >This is a very fine art and requires a good sense of your players. But, do >understand that if you want your players to attempt the "impossible", you >have to make the situation one of extremis. > >To use your hobbit example, the fate of the entire world was at hand. >Therefore, refusing to try and failure were tantamount to the same thing. >It would be foolish to expect the PCs to go after an amazing doom laden >situation merely to gain some treasure or rescue a princess (unless they >are that type). > >I tell my players (admittedly in a D&D game not an RQ game) to act like >they think their characters would. Don't metagame. If a situation sounds >impossible, then don't do it. This forces me, as a GM, to be very careful >introducing scenarios with phrases like "no one has ever returned alive". >Because the average player and his PC is likely to think "hey wait a >minute....why should I (an initiate) risk my neck in a chaos infested >catacombs when no one has ever returned...no one including Storm Khans and >Orlanthi Windlords?" > >I like to tell a funny story. I was running a 1st level D&D scenario. The >party was hired to enter the tower of an ancient archmage and retrieve a >gem known to be there. The PCs got to the top level and got the gem. Also >in the top level of the tower was an ornate sacrophaggus inlaid with >powerful runes of warding and dire curses of death and horror to any who >defiled the resting place of the archmage. Etchings on one side warned that >any who touched the tomb would have their souls ripped asunder. > >All of the PCs but one were for leaving the place. One PC, Janice, decided >to touch the sarcophaggus. Out of the coffin appeared a floating >disembodied skull with gems for teeth and eyes. Every D&D player knows this >is exactly the description of a demi-lich, one of the most powerful >creatures in the game. Way way above the level of a 1st level party (In RQ >terms try an elderly Mistress Race Troll against some lay members). The >skull floated up, and intoned "leave me rest in peace! If you touch my tomb >again, I shall feast upon your soul!". And down it went back into the >sarcophaggus. > >A discussion ensued. All the players but Janice wanted to flee at once. >Janice, however, stated "we are 1st level characters. There is no way Devin >would throw one of the most powerful creatures in the book at us! No way. >It's got to be a fake or an illusion." > >So, the rest of the PCs left and Janice's character touched the coffin. Up >came the skull and out went her soul. As she whined and complained about >how it was unfair that I put a powerful monster up against a 1st level >party, I told her that she had received fair warning, that she should play >her character as a character and not metagame, and that everyone else in >the part had figured out not to touch the coffin. > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Mar 6 00:37:12 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:37:12 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Well, my point was as a reply to an earlier post that for the reasons both you and I mention, it's not advicable to use impossible resistanse as a hint to the players, as it makes it impossible for you later to create campagins where they're meant to do the impossible. I disagree with you that it's impossible to create heroic campagins for RQ; I've done it for 15 years, it's just that the PC's doesn't allways manage to solve the problems. It's allways fun when the players whimps away, deterred by the triumphant badguys :) >From: Rich Allen >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 07:57:44 -0700 > >On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:44:00 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a >badguy's > > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you >make > > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell >them > > "get the **** out of Dodge!" > >In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The >problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About >the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I >know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but >there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as >far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games >like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and >butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to >know the PCs can die at any moment. > >I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need >to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing >to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in >full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game >setting. > >I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to work >out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and the >game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common >reference between the world you are creating and the players who are >experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should >expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation might >come up. > >Rich (who's stating an opinion, not trying to change anyone's mind.) > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Mar 6 01:50:01 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:50:01 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <0AB2E398.548CE1A2.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <2004357501.669970@laptop> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:00:20 -0500, DevinC at aol.com wrote: > 2. I did manage to run a heroic RQ campaign. You can even read about it on my website. There were a hell of a lot of PC casualties, especiall at first as the players had to be stripped of their D&D mindset, but we had a core cadre of PCs who survived and did some nice worldshaking. Fair enough. For me, the definition of an epic/heroic game is one in which there are little or no PC deaths. Just like the epic novels that these types games try to emulate. I freely admit there are other definitions of the term though! :) Rich Allen From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Mar 6 02:32:00 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:32:00 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <14933096.1078500720678.JavaMail.root@grover.psp.pas.earthlink.net> I'm with you on this one, Bjorn. My current campaign is rapidly becoming "epic" in terms of the fate of the world hanging in the balance. What makes it interesting for _me_ as the GM is the campaign is actually a continuation of the one I ran back in my university days. That one was neither one nor lost by the players then; they just barely managed to cause a draw by getting the pantheon to take direct action. A Pact of the Gods arose from the damage that forbids any further such direct action and the current campaign occurs 500 years after the first, with the Great Evil(tm) rising once again. What's so fun is now that my current players have become comfortable with the rules, they are proactively trying to build an alliance between mutually hostile groups of elves and dwarves on Griffin Island in order to deal with what they perceived to be a potential orc/sorcerer threat from Ockless. It's actually something quite different and they don't realize their actions could become the opening shot in a world war that's been brewing for centuries. I've planned out the strategy of the bad guys months in advance and have built a calendar of events that occur in various parts of my world. Some events will occur regardless of what the PCs do while others can be affected by them, assuming they're in the right place at the right time to do something about it. As Gandalf said in The Return of the King, "The board is set. The pieces are moving." David -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: Mar 5, 2004 7:37 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? I disagree with you that it's impossible to create heroic campagins for RQ; I've done it for 15 years, it's just that the PC's doesn't allways manage to solve the problems. It's allways fun when the players whimps away, deterred by the triumphant badguys :) From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 6 04:49:34 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:49:34 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hero Quests (was "Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based...") Message-ID: <52C33CF9.373C15EF.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/5/2004 4:54:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > How many or which runic associations can a PC have? Is it only Death > cults that can use the death rune or are they just better at it? Would > for instance an Orlanth worshipper be able to use the Death Rune or is > it the exclusive privilege of Humakt and other Death cults > if we use a > Glorantha analogy? > > /Peter J I believe one gained runic affiliations from ranking in a cult. You could then gain more through hero questing. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 6 04:53:54 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:53:54 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <07104053.50015F41.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/5/2004 9:50:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, rico at ricosweb.com writes: > Fair enough. For me, the definition of an epic/heroic game is one in which there are little or no PC deaths. Just like the epic novels that these types games try to emulate. I freely admit there are other definitions of the term though! > :) > > Rich Allen Well, do you count permanent deaths? After all, if you were to have access to Teleportation magicks at higher levels of play and/or access to a Chalanna Arroy with Resurrection, then Death begins to become...well...meaningless. But in any event, while I believe proper play can reduce deaths, I cede that if you definition of heroic play is general avoidance of death, then RQ ain't your game (for that purpose). Devin From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Mar 6 06:05:18 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:05:18 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <030520041905.4433.6b48@comcast.net> >David Smart - [relates his Epic Griffin Island campaign] Epic on Griffin Island? Bravo!! The story is the epic for you, isn?t it? Great, I love it. > Rich Allen > Fair enough. For me, the definition of an epic/heroic game is one in which > there are little or no PC deaths. Just like the epic novels that these types > games try to emulate. I freely admit there are other definitions of the term > though! :) > DevinC > But in any event, while I believe proper play can reduce deaths, I cede that if > you definition of heroic play is general avoidance of death, then RQ ain't your > game (for that purpose). [This is addressed directly to Devin, but I feel I need to bring it up here instead of private emails.] Sorry Devin but in my opinion you are so very, very wrong. I would say that RQ is the game for Rich if he says so. His choice and that of his players are theirs and they will work it out. It irritates me to no end when some tells me that the way I run a campaign/game is not the right way. I paid for! I Will Run It My Way! If that means low fatality rate on the PC's then so be it. As for ruining the integrity of a game system; I ask you, whose money did I spend? I am one of those RQ GM?s that have low PC fatality and a far amount of combat. Time for my rules of Roleplaying (which I may have sent here before). Jim's rules for Roleplaying. 1. If the GM is not having fun then, the players are not having fun. 2. If the players are not having fun, then the GM is not having fun. 3. If we are not having fun, then why are we doing this? I have never enjoyed PC hunting GM's. Thus, my games tend to be low PC fatalities. Oh, and I do a good amount of hacking. Most evening involve 2 and more combats. At least one brings the group the edge of destruction and back. But that is what I like to run, and that is the game my friends show up for. On to constructive.... How do I bring the PC's to the edge in combat? Many weaker opponents and Heal spells for the players. If I want to make it tougher for the players, then I spread a far amount of healing around the enemy. Also I play that a PC is not dead until their CON in negative HP. I, also, have to remember that some fights are just easy. Not even require any real MP expending or FG loss. As well, some enemies will have flight not fight as their main goal. Not everyone will stand and fight to the death. So before the fight begins I decide at what point the NPC's will consider breaking. Rich, my advice to you is; don't start offing PC's. More fun and challenging to thwart them the to kill them. But I get the feeling that you are already playing that way. Mind you, I am not saying that PC meat grinders are wrong. Just not for me. RQ can be a meat grinder, or excellent Roleplaying tool. But foremost it is a fun vehicle to invoke a fantasy world where we accomplish epic deeds and earn famous reputations for our alter egos. Jim Bickmeyer - Always the GM, never the player. From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Mar 6 06:49:39 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:49:39 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <030520041905.4433.6b48@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200435124939.011955@laptop> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:05:18 +0000, bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > Rich, my advice to you is; don't start offing PC's. More fun and challenging to thwart them the to kill them. But I get the feeling that you are already playing that way. Heh heh. I think you might have missed my point. If you want to change the rules of RQ to make it a less deadly system, and the rules you change are consistently applied, then I'm all for it. I'd comment that you're now playing a RQ variant, not RQ, but that's just semantics. :) I maintain that RQ is a game where a PC can at any time be killed by any encounter at the whim of the dice. D&D is not, and both have their place at my gaming table. An example: I played a character in a friend's Griffin Island campaign, an ogre who's one chaos-feature was that he didn't detect as chaos. Nobody, not even the other characters, knew he was an ogre. He was instrumental in starting an alliance between the Mostali and humans of the area, and had resurrected a minor cult (and was sole priest with less than a dozen followers). The GM had future plans for the character and the new cult, and had designed much of the story around him and one of the other characters in the group. All of those plans were laid to waste through a critical hit, and several fumbles, in an encounter where none of the other characters were even wounded. The GM was really upset by the outcome of that encounter, more so than I was. But there's simply no way to undo that kind of thing without ruining the game. Since we were playing RQ, I already had a back-up character ready to go and we moved on. If this had happened in a novel, I would probably would have stopped reading it at that point. You just don't kill off a major character a third of the way into the book, mid-plot. If this had happened in a D&D game, the character would still have had a large percentage of his hit points and the story would have continued as the GM had planned. See what I mean? :) Rich Allen From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 6 06:49:56 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:49:56 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <4A598078.7DEEED02.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/5/2004 2:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at comcast.net writes: > Sorry Devin but in my opinion you are so very, very wrong. I would say that RQ is the game for Rich if he says so. His choice and that of his players are theirs and they will work it out. It irritates me to no end when some tells me that the way I run a campaign/game is not the right way. I paid for! I Will Run It My Way! If that means low fatality rate on the PC's then so be it. As for ruining the integrity of a game system; I ask you, whose money did I spend? I am one of those RQ GM?s that have low PC fatality and a far amount of > combat. Sorry, but the undeniable fact is that in RQ a single lucky crit is the end of it. Given a single PC with a 90% parry against an endless stream of opponents with 50% attacks, you will get a Critical to a vital location .05% of the time. That means a 2% chance of a critical combined with 90% chance of parrying for a 0.2% chance of a critical connecting, combined with a 25% chance of a vital location comes to .05%. That's 5 in 10,000 or 1 in 2,000. If a given session has 2 combat, each lasting, say 10 rounds, then that means 20 strikes per session. After 100 sessions you are going to suffer a critical. And this is under ideal circumstances. It doesn't cound multiple attackers, attackers with better than 50%, special hits, etc. You roll enough dice and your number comes up in RQ. Its an unavoidable (and not necessarily an undesirable) feature of a system that doesn't advance you in hit points and spreads those hit points across various hit locations. If a dude rolls a crit with a longsword and a 1D4 strength bonus and rolls a 10 to the head, you're dead. That's it. Goodbye. You as a DM can certainly provide players with healing, throw lower and lower strengthed encounters on them, but eventually Rurik meets his trollkin....it's somewhat inevitable. Devin The From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Sat Mar 6 08:20:14 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:20:14 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-22004355212014687@earthlink.net> I see people's points, but I've used a system since the early playtesting days (I still have the brown binder from Sir Stefan with all the photocopies) that was never incorporated based on my knowledge of the Norse mythos. To the Viking, Luck was critical! A Viking who was lucky was to have a guardian Hamingja, similar in concept to mana, prana prana, but embodied like an Amerindian Manitou. The force behind that was called "Ond" or magical breath. Thus besides using Power as a basic luck roll, I would modify it using a sacrifice of Ond. This was often enough that it served as a save from certain death & would put you into debt (questwise or whatever) to the Gods. That in turn generated more adventures. There were 7 types of Ond corresponding to the characteristics. Ond could be sacrified to raise characteristics above species maximums (thus helping toward Heroquests) or be used to up skill attributes, modify critical die rolls, create magical items & imbue them with characteristics, etc. It was accumulated in each of the different categories similar to power based on the discretion of the DM & the heroic actions of the PC. I even tied it in with Sorcery later on. But it's main purpose that the wiser PC's quickly learned was for saving your characters posterior from absolute death & turning it into something slowly recoverable from. > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 3/5/2004 11:49:57 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > In a message dated 3/5/2004 2:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at comcast.net writes: > > > Sorry Devin but in my opinion you are so very, very wrong. I would say that RQ is the game for Rich if he says so. His choice and that of his players are theirs and they will work it out. It irritates me to no end when some tells me that the way I run a campaign/game is not the right way. I paid for! I Will Run It My Way! If that means low fatality rate on the PC's then so be it. As for ruining the integrity of a game system; I ask you, whose money did I spend? I am one of those RQ GM?s that have low PC fatality and a far amount of > > combat. > > Sorry, but the undeniable fact is that in RQ a single lucky crit is the end of it. Given a single PC with a 90% parry against an endless stream of opponents with 50% attacks, you will get a Critical to a vital location .05% of the time. That means a 2% chance of a critical combined with 90% chance of parrying for a 0.2% chance of a critical connecting, combined with a 25% chance of a vital location comes to .05%. That's 5 in 10,000 or 1 in 2,000. If a given session has 2 combat, each lasting, say 10 rounds, then that means 20 strikes per session. After 100 sessions you are going to suffer a critical. > > And this is under ideal circumstances. It doesn't cound multiple attackers, attackers with better than 50%, special hits, etc. > > You roll enough dice and your number comes up in RQ. Its an unavoidable (and not necessarily an undesirable) feature of a system that doesn't advance you in hit points and spreads those hit points across various hit locations. If a dude rolls a crit with a longsword and a 1D4 strength bonus and rolls a 10 to the head, you're dead. That's it. Goodbye. > > You as a DM can certainly provide players with healing, throw lower and lower strengthed encounters on them, but eventually Rurik meets his trollkin....it's somewhat inevitable. > > Devin > > The > _______________________________________________ > 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 tiberius at runequest.za.org Mon Mar 8 01:49:09 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:49:09 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Johnson's Alchemy Message-ID: <1498.155.239.188.219.1078670949.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Is Christopher W Johnson, the author of RQ III Alchemy System ( http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy1.html ) a member of this list? If not, does anyone her know him or how to get hold of him? I am concerned that his and other systems at The RQ Alchemy Lab http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html may soon be lost,, soem links already no longer work. Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 8 10:59:04 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:59:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HeroQuests In-Reply-To: <20040305005443.08C40222726@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040307235904.48985.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn Stolen: > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you > make > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell them > > "get the **** out of Dodge!" It depends what you mean by a heroic campaign. If Frodo and Sam had walked up to Mount Doom, waved their swords at Sauron and pitched in for a quick combat, then the outcome would be quite predictable. In RQ, they wouldn't last very long, lucky crit or no lucky crit. However, climbing up a Volcano is definitely possile, as it is a series of small encounters with not very powerful foes, resisting the effects of the Ring is also possible, fighting off a weedy little halfling is possible and htrowing the ring into the volcano is possible. Looking at the Lord of the Rings from a RQ point of view, there were only a few dangerous encounters: 1. Gandalf vs the Balrog - this is Hero vs Hero combat and Gandalf only survived because he cheated 2. The defeat of the Riders - this was combat, but Aragorn was a hero and helped a bit 3. The defeat of the riders - they were washed away by a magical flood caused by a sorceress 4. The defeat of the spider - this was a lucky combat - Sam and Frodo should not have survived this, but Sam got lucky with a good crit Looking through various books, very few stories have mighty heroes standing toe-to-toe with other mighty heroes. Most have lesser beings doing incredible things by defeating a series of lesser beings or being lucky. Rich Allen: > In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The > problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About > the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I > know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but > there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as > far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games > like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and > butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to > know the PCs can die at any moment. Epic/Heroic stories are not about killing immensely powerful things. Where they are, the gods help out quite a bit. Look at epics like the Oddessy, illiad or the Golden Fleece - most things are hand to hand combat with normal people or occasionally defeating soercers. Where they kill dragons, Heroes help out. > I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need > to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing > to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in > full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game > setting. You can play a high level game in RQ where the PCs can go charging in and defeat pretty much anythig they face. I know, I have run such a game. Of course, the players had to think about tactics and so on, but they could be s heroic as they wanted to. > > I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to work > out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and the > game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common > reference between the world you are creating and the players who are > experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should > expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation might > come up. That's what House Rules are for - to extend the normal ruleset and introduce better rules to fit the style of gaming you like. A consistently broken rule is justa House Rule. Peter Johansson: > I guess there are more people out there on this list who have developed > their own Hero Questing rules. It would be interesting to read what kind > of sources and influences you have used? If anyone's interested I'd try > to find the time to get into more detail about the system I used. Mine are on my website at www.geocities.com/soltakss with comments etc. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 8 11:08:13 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:08:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040305174948.6D85E22272D@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040308000813.28377.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Rich Allen: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 20:00:20 -0500, DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > 2. I did manage to run a heroic RQ campaign. You can even read about it > on my website. There were a hell of a lot of PC casualties, especiall at > first as the players had to be stripped of their D&D mindset, but we had a > core cadre of PCs who survived and did some nice worldshaking. > > Fair enough. For me, the definition of an epic/heroic game is one in which > there are little or no PC deaths. Just like the epic novels that these > types games try to emulate. I freely admit there are other definitions of > the term though! :) If you play straight RQ3 but have liberal use of Healing Potions, friendly Chalana Arroy cultists, freely available DI, Rune Level charcters and a gentle GM then it is fairly easy to have a campaign where the PCs do not die permanently. Once a character gains 1D10 DI it is very hard to kill them permanently. If there are freely available Resurrects then the PCs ed up poor but alive. Healing potions allow even lower level PCs to survive combat by reattaching limbs. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 8 11:12:46 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:12:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] HW --> RQ Conversion Notes In-Reply-To: <20040305174948.6D85E22272D@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040308001246.27470.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> I have put my version of the Hero Wars --> RQ Cults onto my website. How to convert HW Cults: www.geocities.com/soltakss/hwconv01.html Conversion of HW Cults: www.geocities.com/soltakss/hwconv02.html How to convert HW creatures: www.geocities.com/soltakss/hwconv03.html Spells and Skills for HW Conversion of Cults: www.geocities.com/soltakss/hwconv04.html I know that these are Gloranthan conversions and are of little interest to some mhardliners, but they might be useful to people who want to play in Sartar or the Lunar Empire. Regards Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 8 11:37:54 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:37:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040308000822.EC3E8222740@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040308003754.54261.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Rich Allen: > I maintain that RQ is a game where a PC can at any time be killed by any > encounter at the whim of the dice. D&D is not, and both have their place > at my gaming table. > > An example: > > I played a character in a friend's Griffin Island campaign, an ogre who's > one chaos-feature was that he didn't detect as chaos. Nobody, not even the > other characters, knew he was an ogre. He was instrumental in starting an > alliance between the Mostali and humans of the area, and had resurrected a > minor cult (and was sole priest with less than a dozen followers). The GM > had future plans for the character and the new cult, and had designed much > of the story around him and one of the other characters in the group. All > of those plans were laid to waste through a critical hit, and several > fumbles, in an encounter where none of the other characters were even > wounded. The GM was really upset by the outcome of that encounter, more so > than I was. But there's simply no way to undo that kind of thing without > ruining the game. Since we were playing RQ, I already had a back-up > character ready to go and we moved on. If it is that important to the plt, the GM should fudge the next session. Have a healer encountered with a caravan, let her resurrect the PC, have her not charge the PCs but make the PC be in her debt. Or have the PCs find a healing shrine or pass by a town with a healer or do something similar. Plotlines are very, very flexible and a GM who can think on his feet and doesn't stick rigisly to the scenario can bend and twist to get around any minor obstacles to the plot. If the GM was that upset, he should have done somethng about it. This comes under the "GM Cock-up" category. > If this had happened in a novel, I would probably would have stopped > reading it at that point. You just don't kill off a major character a > third of the way into the book, mid-plot. If this had happened in a D&D > game, the character would still have had a large percentage of his hit > points and the story would have continued as the GM had planned. Novels are written after the event, so it wouldn't have appeared, or the author would have been a bit ceverer and explaind away the robolem. By the way, you certainly can kill off main characters mid-plot for dramatic effect - wasn't there a D&D series of novels where the Paladin was killed off mid-book, to everyone's shock? > See what I mean? :) Not really, but I ran a heroic campaign for years. Devin: > Sorry, but the undeniable fact is that in RQ a single lucky crit is the end > of it. Given a single PC with a 90% parry against an endless stream of > opponents with 50% attacks, you will get a Critical to a vital location > .05% of the time. That means a 2% chance of a critical combined with 90% > chance of parrying for a 0.2% chance of a critical connecting, combined > with a 25% chance of a vital location comes to .05%. That's 5 in 10,000 or > 1 in 2,000. If a given session has 2 combat, each lasting, say 10 rounds, > then that means 20 strikes per session. After 100 sessions you are going to > suffer a critical. > > And this is under ideal circumstances. It doesn't cound multiple attackers, > attackers with better than 50%, special hits, etc. > > You roll enough dice and your number comes up in RQ. Its an unavoidable > (and not necessarily an undesirable) feature of a system that doesn't > advance you in hit points and spreads those hit points across various hit > locations. If a dude rolls a crit with a longsword and a 1D4 strength bonus > and rolls a 10 to the head, you're dead. That's it. Goodbye. When playingand GMin in a high level campaign for around 12 years, I only found one PC who was permanently killed. All other deaths were fixed through DI or Resurrection. The PC who was killed was killed by a fellow PC who killed him, then killed him again when he Died, then skinned the PC (who was a minotaur), went on a HeroQuest to the Eternal Battle, where all good Sorm Buollers go after they die, then found the person he had killed and bound him into his own skin, So, we had a high-mortality high-resurrect campaign which was heroic and fast-paced. In RQ3 you can help make PCs tougher by using Strengtheningenchantments to boost both general and specific location HPs, to increase armour in various locations. If you have Heal Body or other major healing and use the 10 SR until you die rule, then PCs are basically unkillable. We had PCs who had doubled their general HPs, to 36, then doubled their vital locations, to 24, so they could take 23 HPs in a vital without going down, since they had iron armour, armouring enchantments and Protection/Shield spells they were going into combat with something like 20APs, so a normal hit had to do weoll over 40 HPs to take them down and a critical had to do 24 HPs to knock them over and 36 HPs to kill them, Trollkin with lucky crits do not figure here. My point is that you can use the RQ rules to make PCs a lot harder to kill. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Mar 8 14:20:39 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:20:39 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HeroQuests References: <20040307235904.48985.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <404BE687.2020600@earthlink.net> Well...technically, Gandalf _didn't_survive. He died of his wounds and just happened to critical success a DI roll. ;-) David Simon Phipp wrote: >Bjorn Stolen: > > >>My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like >>having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's >>realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you >>make >>to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell them >> >>"get the **** out of Dodge!" >> >> > >It depends what you mean by a heroic campaign. > >If Frodo and Sam had walked up to Mount Doom, waved their swords at Sauron >and pitched in for a quick combat, then the outcome would be quite >predictable. In RQ, they wouldn't last very long, lucky crit or no lucky >crit. However, climbing up a Volcano is definitely possile, as it is a series >of small encounters with not very powerful foes, resisting the effects of the >Ring is also possible, fighting off a weedy little halfling is possible and >htrowing the ring into the volcano is possible. > >Looking at the Lord of the Rings from a RQ point of view, there were only a >few dangerous encounters: >1. Gandalf vs the Balrog - this is Hero vs Hero combat and Gandalf only >survived because he cheated >2. The defeat of the Riders - this was combat, but Aragorn was a hero and >helped a bit >3. The defeat of the riders - they were washed away by a magical flood caused >by a sorceress >4. The defeat of the spider - this was a lucky combat - Sam and Frodo should >not have survived this, but Sam got lucky with a good crit > >Looking through various books, very few stories have mighty heroes standing >toe-to-toe with other mighty heroes. Most have lesser beings doing incredible >things by defeating a series of lesser beings or being lucky. > > > >Rich Allen: > > >>In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The >>problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About >>the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I >>know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but >>there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as >>far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games >>like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and >>butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to >>know the PCs can die at any moment. >> >> > >Epic/Heroic stories are not about killing immensely powerful things. Where >they are, the gods help out quite a bit. Look at epics like the Oddessy, >illiad or the Golden Fleece - most things are hand to hand combat with normal >people or occasionally defeating soercers. Where they kill dragons, Heroes >help out. > > > >>I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need >>to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing >>to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in >>full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game >>setting. >> >> > >You can play a high level game in RQ where the PCs can go charging in and >defeat pretty much anythig they face. I know, I have run such a game. Of >course, the players had to think about tactics and so on, but they could be s >heroic as they wanted to. > > > > >>I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to work >>out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and the >>game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common >>reference between the world you are creating and the players who are >>experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should >>expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation might >>come up. >> >> > >That's what House Rules are for - to extend the normal ruleset and introduce >better rules to fit the style of gaming you like. > >A consistently broken rule is justa House Rule. > >Peter Johansson: > > >>I guess there are more people out there on this list who have developed >>their own Hero Questing rules. It would be interesting to read what kind >>of sources and influences you have used? If anyone's interested I'd try >>to find the time to get into more detail about the system I used. >> >> > >Mine are on my website at www.geocities.com/soltakss with comments etc. > >Simon > > > > > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >your friends today! Download Messenger Now >http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >_______________________________________________ >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 peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Mon Mar 8 19:15:28 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:15:28 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HeroQuests In-Reply-To: <404BE687.2020600@earthlink.net> References: <20040307235904.48985.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> <404BE687.2020600@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <404C2BA0.1010904@padrigu.gu.se> Technically, Gandlaf died but also gained a lot of levels for killing the Balrog which in turn increased Gandalf's Hit Points. The new amount of Hit Points would save Gandalf from dying so the player started to whine that the level increase, and hence the hit Points, must have risen before Gandlaf died since the Balrog died first. Therefor Gandalf wasn't really dead to begin with. After complaining to the GM for days, reading aloud from the rule book quoting passages like "killing a Balrog is worth 10000000 experience points" and concluding that it doesn't say that these are not given immendiately after the death of the opponent, the GM finally gave in and let Gandalf survive with a slight case of amnesia. :-) /Peter J D. Smart wrote: > Well...technically, Gandalf _didn't_survive. He died of his wounds and > just happened to > critical success a DI roll. > > ;-) > > David > > Simon Phipp wrote: > >> Bjorn Stolen: >> >> >>> My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible >>> (like having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle >>> of a badguy's realm) The problem for the players is to know which >>> impssible dooms you >>> make to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make >>> to tell them >>> >>> "get the **** out of Dodge!" >>> >> >> >> It depends what you mean by a heroic campaign. >> >> If Frodo and Sam had walked up to Mount Doom, waved their swords at >> Sauron >> and pitched in for a quick combat, then the outcome would be quite >> predictable. In RQ, they wouldn't last very long, lucky crit or no lucky >> crit. However, climbing up a Volcano is definitely possile, as it is >> a series >> of small encounters with not very powerful foes, resisting the >> effects of the >> Ring is also possible, fighting off a weedy little halfling is >> possible and >> htrowing the ring into the volcano is possible. >> Looking at the Lord of the Rings from a RQ point of view, there were >> only a >> few dangerous encounters: >> 1. Gandalf vs the Balrog - this is Hero vs Hero combat and Gandalf only >> survived because he cheated >> 2. The defeat of the Riders - this was combat, but Aragorn was a hero >> and >> helped a bit >> 3. The defeat of the riders - they were washed away by a magical >> flood caused >> by a sorceress >> 4. The defeat of the spider - this was a lucky combat - Sam and Frodo >> should >> not have survived this, but Sam got lucky with a good crit >> >> Looking through various books, very few stories have mighty heroes >> standing >> toe-to-toe with other mighty heroes. Most have lesser beings doing >> incredible >> things by defeating a series of lesser beings or being lucky. >> >> >> >> Rich Allen: >> >> >>> In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. >>> The >>> problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. >>> About >>> the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic >>> sacrifice. I >>> know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero >>> Questing, but >>> there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own >>> (and as >>> far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and >>> games >>> like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's >>> bread and >>> butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to >>> know the PCs can die at any moment. >>> >> >> >> Epic/Heroic stories are not about killing immensely powerful things. >> Where >> they are, the gods help out quite a bit. Look at epics like the Oddessy, >> illiad or the Golden Fleece - most things are hand to hand combat >> with normal >> people or occasionally defeating soercers. Where they kill dragons, >> Heroes >> help out. >> >> >> >>> I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the >>> players need >>> to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or >>> choosing >>> to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go >>> charging in >>> full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game >>> setting. >>> >> >> >> You can play a high level game in RQ where the PCs can go charging in >> and >> defeat pretty much anythig they face. I know, I have run such a game. Of >> course, the players had to think about tactics and so on, but they >> could be s >> heroic as they wanted to. >> >> >> >> >>> I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to >>> work >>> out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and >>> the >>> game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common >>> reference between the world you are creating and the players who are >>> experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should >>> expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation >>> might >>> come up. >>> >> >> >> That's what House Rules are for - to extend the normal ruleset and >> introduce >> better rules to fit the style of gaming you like. >> >> A consistently broken rule is justa House Rule. >> >> Peter Johansson: >> >> >>> I guess there are more people out there on this list who have >>> developed their own Hero Questing rules. It would be interesting to >>> read what kind of sources and influences you have used? If anyone's >>> interested I'd try to find the time to get into more detail about >>> the system I used. >>> >> >> >> Mine are on my website at www.geocities.com/soltakss with comments etc. >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________ >> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! >> Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Mar 8 19:49:17 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:49:17 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HeroQuests Message-ID: >3. The defeat of the riders - they were washed away by a magical flood caused >by a sorceress So who out of Elrond and Gandalf wears the dress? (Oh, you meant that ruddy film...) ;-> Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Mar 8 19:52:20 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:52:20 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >I see people's points, but I've used a system since the early playtesting >days (I still have the brown binder from Sir Stefan with all the >photocopies) that was never incorporated based on my knowledge of the Norse >mythos. To the Viking, Luck was critical! A Viking who was lucky was to >have a guardian Hamingja, similar in concept to mana, prana prana, but >embodied like an Amerindian Manitou. The force behind that was called "Ond" >or magical breath. Thus besides using Power as a basic luck roll, I would >modify it using a sacrifice of Ond. This was often enough that it served as >a save from certain death & would put you into debt (questwise or whatever) >to the Gods. That in turn generated more adventures. > >There were 7 types of Ond corresponding to the characteristics. Ond could >be sacrified to raise characteristics above species maximums (thus helping >toward Heroquests) or be used to up skill attributes, modify critical die >rolls, create magical items & imbue them with characteristics, etc. It was >accumulated in each of the different categories similar to power based on >the discretion of the DM & the heroic actions of the PC. I even tied it in >with Sorcery later on. But it's main purpose that the wiser PC's quickly >learned was for saving your characters posterior from absolute death & >turning it into something slowly recoverable from. Ooh, that sounds rather intriguing, any chance of getting a bit more detail, or is it already up on the net somewhere? Cheers, Nick Middleton From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Mon Mar 8 21:58:28 2004 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:58:28 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20040308000823.5ABBE22273C@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040308000823.5ABBE22273C@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <1078743508.404c51d43c36c@webmail4.leeds.ac.uk> I use my own HeroQuest rules http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/hqrules2.htm Which are an amalgamation of some of Simon Phipps ideas, some work I did with Nils Weinander on YAHQS and (the unfortunately unpublished) set of Sandy Petersen's rules. I didn't like the idea of Pendragon style personality traits, they seemed to be an unneccessary add-on, I think if you add a rule it has to really DO something in the system, so I came up with Passions that add (or detract) from your skills and give you a chance to retain certain rune magics. I also opted for dividing skills whilts on the HeroPlane, which really bolstered the Passions system. If I had a Hate Chaos Passion of 15 and fought some chaos with a skill of 70% then it was boosted to 85, but if I was on a quest where the skill is divided by 5 then I'd have 14% base, but the passion added straight on, giving you 29% to hit. So it makes Passions really, really important. Which i liked. There were also rules for cult support etc... In playtesting I've encountered no real problems at all, in fact it works like a dream. And I agree with Simon on the question of high level gaming. Whilst YGMV according to the RuneQuest rules it becomes pretty easy to find ressurection, DI's, and masses and masses of healing. There's also the trickle down effect, your players will nick all the magic point matrices and crystals etc... of their fallen foes, so for them to meet even more worthy opponents they'll have even more in the way of that sort of thing, which the PCs then get hold of alter etc... Obviously there's ways around this (user conditions on matrices, chaos tainted objects they won't go near, the creature they're facing having a trendy power to draw upon huge pools of mp's without matrices so the PCs can't take it afterwards) but these should be used sparringly, lest your players call foul. Personally I like the idea of my PCs not being able to die, it places far less emphasis on combat, and more emphasis on problem solving and political gameplay. For instance, one of the PCs recently stormed a vampire stronghold which he had for years been infiltrating. The actual combat itself was not as important as the planning that he put into it, getting the devices and allies he required etc... because at no point was he ever in serious danger of death, just in serious danger of screwing it up and leaving himself open not to physical, but political damage if he failed. Nikk From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 23:01:35 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:01:35 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >To the Viking, Luck was critical! A Viking who was lucky was to >have a guardian Hamingja, similar in concept to mana, prana prana, but >embodied like an Amerindian Manitou. The force behind that was called "Ond" >or magical breath. Thus besides using Power as a basic luck roll, I would >modify it using a sacrifice of Ond. This was often enough that it served as >a save from certain death & would put you into debt (questwise or whatever) >to the Gods. That in turn generated more adventures. Just a little detail(this is not meant for mocking the above post, just as extra info): The word Ond should rather be typed Aand (or Aande), pronounced the A sound in american "WAR"(In Norway we have an own letter showing that sound; an "A" with a ring on the top.), followed by N and D.+ an E;(as pronounched in "Where?" Aand means "spirit" in Norwegian Aande means "sprirt in an other dialect of norwegian + in sweden, or breath (like in "bad breath= smells bad"). Ond means evil in Norwegian... :) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 22:53:27 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:53:27 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Devin: We agree on RQ having a very fatal combatsystem. But you're wrong when you state that high fatality ratded combat system = high mortality rate on PC's You tend to forget the GM in all this. If I want playingcharacters to die, I as the GM is not going to have a problem with that even in D&D! If you play "the first of the lord of the rings-books"-style, there's not going to be any combat dice rolling at all, and with no combat, I've having a hard time seeing those crit's of yours coming up... >From: DevinC at aol.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules discussion.") >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:49:56 -0500 > >In a message dated 3/5/2004 2:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, >bick10 at comcast.net writes: > > > Sorry Devin but in my opinion you are so very, very wrong. I would say >that RQ is the game for Rich if he says so. His choice and that of his >players are theirs and they will work it out. It irritates me to no end >when some tells me that the way I run a campaign/game is not the right way. > I paid for! I Will Run It My Way! If that means low fatality rate on >the PC's then so be it. As for ruining the integrity of a game system; I >ask you, whose money did I spend? I am one of those RQ GM?s that have low >PC fatality and a far amount of > > combat. > >Sorry, but the undeniable fact is that in RQ a single lucky crit is the end >of it. Given a single PC with a 90% parry against an endless stream of >opponents with 50% attacks, you will get a Critical to a vital location >.05% of the time. That means a 2% chance of a critical combined with 90% >chance of parrying for a 0.2% chance of a critical connecting, combined >with a 25% chance of a vital location comes to .05%. That's 5 in 10,000 or >1 in 2,000. If a given session has 2 combat, each lasting, say 10 rounds, >then that means 20 strikes per session. After 100 sessions you are going to >suffer a critical. > >And this is under ideal circumstances. It doesn't cound multiple attackers, >attackers with better than 50%, special hits, etc. > >You roll enough dice and your number comes up in RQ. Its an unavoidable >(and not necessarily an undesirable) feature of a system that doesn't >advance you in hit points and spreads those hit points across various hit >locations. If a dude rolls a crit with a longsword and a 1D4 strength bonus >and rolls a 10 to the head, you're dead. That's it. Goodbye. > >You as a DM can certainly provide players with healing, throw lower and >lower strengthed encounters on them, but eventually Rurik meets his >trollkin....it's somewhat inevitable. > >Devin > >The >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Mar 8 23:23:07 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:23:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HeroQuests Message-ID: Technically, from my point of wiev as GM using my house rules, this is a classical example of the GM beeing nice with a PC, inventing some wierd reason why the character survives the combat. I've done this several times in several types of games, and it all comes down to mee beeing a wimpy GM not standing to kill a PC... >From: Peter Johansson >Technically, Gandlaf died but also gained a lot of levels for killing the >Balrog which in turn increased Gandalf's Hit Points. The new amount of Hit >Points would save Gandalf from dying so the player started to whine that >the level increase, and hence the hit Points, must have risen before >Gandlaf died since the Balrog died first. Therefor Gandalf wasn't really >dead to begin with. > >After complaining to the GM for days, reading aloud from the rule book >quoting passages like "killing a Balrog is worth 10000000 experience >points" and concluding that it doesn't say that these are not given >immendiately after the death of the opponent, the GM finally gave in and >let Gandalf survive with a slight case of amnesia. :-) > > /Peter J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Mar 9 06:05:09 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:05:09 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <20043475744.978096@laptop> Message-ID: <008601c40540$47217f80$47904d44@DCNL6S01> I agree with everything you said, Rich. Just one thing, though: it's not easy to invest many, many hours of work into preparing an adventure, getting a group of players together for an afternoon of gaming, then sitting back and watching the players (or even just one of them) die in the first five minutes due to a fumble or an unparried critical hit. Not fun. GMs gotta have an arbitrary Fudge Factor to keep the game playable. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Allen" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:44:00 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > My problem is that sometimes I want the PC's to do the impossible (like > having a hobbit throwing a ring into a vulcano in the middle of a badguy's > realm) The problem for the players is to know which impssible dooms you make > to have them become heroes and which impossible dooms you make to tell them > "get the **** out of Dodge!" In my opinion, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The problem you state comes about because RQ isn't an epic/heroic RPG. About the only thing a RQ character can do heroically is the heroic sacrifice. I know, there will be a few people crying out that RQ has Hero Questing, but there aren't any rules for that in any of the RQ rule books I own (and as far as I know, I have them all) so I can't comment on it. D&D (and games like it) is meant for sessions where impossible odds are the PC's bread and butter. RQ (and games like it) are meant for sessions when you want to know the PCs can die at any moment. I like to play both, and I don't try to mix them. In RQ, the players need to research the situation before moving in and dealing with it, or choosing to avoid it. In D&D the players can ignore all of that and go charging in full tilt. Both can be enjoyable when played out in the correct game setting. I truly feel that if you have to break some rules to get the game to work out the way you want it to, you are doing yourself, the players, and the game, a disservice. The rules are there, in part, to provide a common reference between the world you are creating and the players who are experiencing. If you break the rules once, the players can and should expect those rules to stay broken at any other time that situation might come up. Rich (who's stating an opinion, not trying to change anyone's mind.) From DevinC at aol.com Tue Mar 9 06:18:13 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:18:13 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <33841B96.7F8E5FFF.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/8/2004 6:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > Devin: We agree on RQ having a very fatal combatsystem. But you're wrong > when you state that high fatality ratded combat system = high mortality rate > on PC's You tend to forget the GM in all this. If I want playingcharacters > to die, I as the GM is not going to have a problem with that even in D&D! > > If you play "the first of the lord of the rings-books"-style, there's not > going to be any combat dice rolling at all, and with no > combat, I've having > a hard time seeing those crit's of yours coming up... Yeah, interesting LOTR analaysis, but let's look a little closer shall we? 1. Combat with a tree (Old Man Willow) 2. Combat with Undead (barrow wights) 3. Combat at Weathertop 4. Combat against wolves near Caradhras 5. Combat against the Lurker in the Lake outside Moria 6. Combat against Orcs and a Troll in Balin's Tomb That's just before the Fellowship splits. Truly, Sam and Frodo only have a couple of combats thereafter: 1. Combat with Gollum before taming him 2. Combat against Shelob 3. Combat against the Orcs of the Tower of Cirith Ungol. 4. Final combat against Gollum Merry and Pippin have: 1. Battle of the Pelannor Fields 2. Battle at the Black Gate That's not a small series of battles, though of course not the frequency of a series of gaming sessions. In any event, I agree tha DM can take steps to minimize combats and thereby reduce the risk of lucky hits. But even that said, it is almost defacto that since RQ is more conducive to lucky hits and instant deaths, that it is more difficult and less conducive to run a heroic campaign in RQ than it is in D&D. Devin From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 07:11:55 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:11:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <33841B96.7F8E5FFF.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040308201155.28053.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: ... it is almost defacto > that since RQ is more conducive to lucky hits and > instant deaths, that it is more difficult and less > conducive to run a heroic campaign in RQ than it is > in D&D. But, it is a heck of alot more fun and works in the characters favor as well. A while ago (a long while ago) a friend of mine was asked to write up a Balrog for RQ for publication. Before sending it in he decided to test it out on our party. The end result ... the Balrog had to re-written after lasting exactly one round!!! All it took was a 1 arrow with a speedart and a critical = 21 points of damage to the head. Which come to think of it, was similar to the dragons fate in the Hobbit. So what do you think is more heroic an nobody slaying a Balrog with an arrow or a 15th level fighter taking on a Balrog? ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Tue Mar 9 07:32:23 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:32:23 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-22004318203223578@earthlink.net> No offense taken, my friends Trond Woxen & Thrudr Vinje (native-speakers of Norwegian) also mentioned that in "modern" Norwegian that is the case. It's one of the nice thing I've loved in RQ since the playtesting days, is that the players are generally more educated & thoughtful, such as yourself. The problem with the word comes from two parts: one, most English & american writers use the spelling "Ond" because of the original books by both Blum & Thorsen used that spelling, so I used it to remain consistant & recognizable. The other issue is that the association with Evil is something that was placed on by early Christian zealots in Scandinavia who were propgandizing & labeling anything in indiginous religion as "evil". Hence, you see the change from settled peaceful relationships with the Sami (American spelling) change to a holocaust where they nearly wiped them out. But yes, those are how the words are modernly used, tho my friends also talked about the older meanings & showed me their sources since they are linguists & writers. Aside: I had a great deal of fun working with Trond (an Ibsen scholar) working on the definitive translation of Terje Vigen. It gave me a great deal of insight into the background behind some modern day politics. BTW with me, I admire a person who is straight foward & honest, rather than creating a misunderstanding by trying to coddle feelings. So thank you very much for you great little insight & don't worry. tusen takk, Sven > [Original Message] > From: Bjorn Stolen > To: > Date: 3/8/2004 4:01:35 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > > >To the Viking, Luck was critical! A Viking who was lucky was to > >have a guardian Hamingja, similar in concept to mana, prana prana, but > >embodied like an Amerindian Manitou. The force behind that was called "Ond" > >or magical breath. Thus besides using Power as a basic luck roll, I would > >modify it using a sacrifice of Ond. This was often enough that it served as > >a save from certain death & would put you into debt (questwise or whatever) > >to the Gods. That in turn generated more adventures. > > Just a little detail(this is not meant for mocking the above post, just as > extra info): > The word Ond should rather be typed Aand (or Aande), pronounced the A sound > in american "WAR"(In Norway we have an own letter showing that sound; an "A" > with a ring on the top.), followed by N and D.+ an E;(as pronounched in > "Where?" > > Aand means "spirit" in Norwegian > Aande means "sprirt in an other dialect of norwegian + in sweden, or breath > (like in "bad breath= smells bad"). > > Ond means evil in Norwegian... :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 07:34:17 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:34:17 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gandalf in a Dress/HeroQuesting/High Level Gaming In-Reply-To: <20040308105855.AB06E22273E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040308203417.80026.qmail@web9610.mail.yahoo.com> > >1. Gandalf vs the Balrog - this is Hero vs Hero combat and Gandalf only > >survived because he cheated David Smart: > Well...technically, Gandalf _didn't_survive. He died of his wounds and > just happened to > critical success a DI roll. and Peter Johansson: > Technically, Gandlaf died but also gained a lot of levels for killing > the Balrog which in turn increased Gandalf's Hit Points. The new amount > of Hit Points would save Gandalf from dying so the player started to > whine that the level increase, and hence the hit Points, must have risen > before Gandlaf died since the Balrog died first. Therefor Gandalf wasn't > really dead to begin with. > > After complaining to the GM for days, reading aloud from the rule book > quoting passages like "killing a Balrog is worth 10000000 experience > points" and concluding that it doesn't say that these are not given > immendiately after the death of the opponent, the GM finally gave in and > let Gandalf survive with a slight case of amnesia. :-) Like I said, he only survived because he cheated. (Dead and alive again through whatever means is not really dead). Nick Middleton: > >3. The defeat of the riders - they were washed away by a magical flood > caused > >by a sorceress > > So who out of Elrond and Gandalf wears the dress? Both of them, as I recall :-) > (Oh, you meant that ruddy film...) As I've not read the book for nigh on 15 years, some details get a bit hazy. I'll have to read t again soom. Nikk Effingham: > I use my own HeroQuest rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/hqrules2.htm > > Which are an amalgamation of some of Simon Phipps ideas, some work I did > with > Nils Weinander on YAHQS and (the unfortunately unpublished) set of Sandy > Petersen's rules. I didn't like the idea of Pendragon style personality > traits, > they seemed to be an unneccessary add-on, I think if you add a rule it has > to > really DO something in the system, so I came up with Passions that add (or > detract) from your skills and give you a chance to retain certain rune > magics. I based my Personality Traits on the ones in Griffin Mountain, as I had used them as character guidelines ever since I read about them. If I was personally unsure how my PC would act under unusual circumstances, I would roll against the traits to see if he was brave or cowardly, for instance. It seemed a good way of simulating the situation where the GM says "You enter a cave and are filled with dread..." Player: "I ignore it and carry on", GM: "You are extremely scared now and stop", Player: "But I am really brave and ignore it carrying on anyway" and do on. > There's also the trickle down > effect, > your players will nick all the magic point matrices and crystals etc... of > their fallen foes, so for them to meet even more worthy opponents they'll > have > even more in the way of that sort of thing, which the PCs then get hold of > alter etc... > Obviously there's ways around this (user conditions on > matrices, Rarely use them. > chaos tainted objects they won't go near, My payers managed to overcome their predjudices and realised that using Chaos to kill Chaos was OK, so they'd have had these, if only to trade. > the creature they're facing having a trendy power to draw upon huge pools > of mp's without matrices so the PCs can't take it afterwards That's always a good one - it really annoys the players > Personally I like the idea of my PCs not being able to die, it places > far > less emphasis on combat, and more emphasis on problem solving and political > gameplay. Absolutley. One of the things that people don't realise about High Level RQ is that combat, skill-chasing and gaining/sacrificing POW become meaningless and irrelevant after a while. What becomes mportant is what the PCs do, what they can achieve and how they achieve it. That is far more interesting than chasing rules. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Tue Mar 9 07:34:09 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:34:09 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-2200431820349671@earthlink.net> Actually having both played in the SCA where the combat system found it's roots & been thru real combat in the '70's I don't see RQ as being particularly fatal compared to real life. > [Original Message] > From: Bjorn Stolen > To: > Date: 3/8/2004 3:53:27 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > > Devin: We agree on RQ having a very fatal combatsystem. But you're wrong > when you state that high fatality ratded combat system = high mortality rate > on PC's You tend to forget the GM in all this. If I want playingcharacters > to die, I as the GM is not going to have a problem with that even in D&D! > > If you play "the first of the lord of the rings-books"-style, there's not > going to be any combat dice rolling at all, and with no combat, I've having > a hard time seeing those crit's of yours coming up... > > >From: DevinC at aol.com > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules discussion.") > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > >Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 14:49:56 -0500 > > > >In a message dated 3/5/2004 2:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >bick10 at comcast.net writes: > > > > > Sorry Devin but in my opinion you are so very, very wrong. I would say > >that RQ is the game for Rich if he says so. His choice and that of his > >players are theirs and they will work it out. It irritates me to no end > >when some tells me that the way I run a campaign/game is not the right way. > > I paid for! I Will Run It My Way! If that means low fatality rate on > >the PC's then so be it. As for ruining the integrity of a game system; I > >ask you, whose money did I spend? I am one of those RQ GM?s that have low > >PC fatality and a far amount of > > > combat. > > > >Sorry, but the undeniable fact is that in RQ a single lucky crit is the end > >of it. Given a single PC with a 90% parry against an endless stream of > >opponents with 50% attacks, you will get a Critical to a vital location > >.05% of the time. That means a 2% chance of a critical combined with 90% > >chance of parrying for a 0.2% chance of a critical connecting, combined > >with a 25% chance of a vital location comes to .05%. That's 5 in 10,000 or > >1 in 2,000. If a given session has 2 combat, each lasting, say 10 rounds, > >then that means 20 strikes per session. After 100 sessions you are going to > >suffer a critical. > > > >And this is under ideal circumstances. It doesn't cound multiple attackers, > >attackers with better than 50%, special hits, etc. > > > >You roll enough dice and your number comes up in RQ. Its an unavoidable > >(and not necessarily an undesirable) feature of a system that doesn't > >advance you in hit points and spreads those hit points across various hit > >locations. If a dude rolls a crit with a longsword and a 1D4 strength bonus > >and rolls a 10 to the head, you're dead. That's it. Goodbye. > > > >You as a DM can certainly provide players with healing, throw lower and > >lower strengthed encounters on them, but eventually Rurik meets his > >trollkin....it's somewhat inevitable. > > > >Devin > > > >The > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den > raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner > > _______________________________________________ > 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 07:56:23 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Players Deserve It - They Really Do In-Reply-To: <20040308203428.4CB7522273F@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040308205623.93292.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> J and/or Ellen: " > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > I agree with everything you said, Rich. Just one thing, though: it's not > easy to invest many, many hours of work into preparing an adventure, > getting > a group of players together for an afternoon of gaming, then sitting back > and watching the players (or even just one of them) die in the first five > minutes due to a fumble or an unparried critical hit. Not fun. GMs gotta > have an arbitrary Fudge Factor to keep the game playable. It's also no fun spending months writing up a multi-session scenario as the climax of part of a campaign only for the players to take one look at where it is set and turn tail, vowing never to go there. Nor is it fun to write up a campaign arc involving two powerful NPCs, let's call them Harrek and Argrath for instance, only to have the evil players decide to take them out one at a time using devilishly fiendish strategy, all their skills, spells and magic items and ambushing the poor GM. PCs who die get what they (the players) richly deserve. Simon - Rune-Lord Priest (Retired) of the B'stard Ge'em Cult ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From DevinC at aol.com Tue Mar 9 09:22:37 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:22:37 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <7AC77702.4AEF54FB.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/8/2004 3:11:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, leonbk at yahoo.com writes: > But, it is a heck of alot more fun and works in the > characters favor as well. A while ago (a long while > ago) a friend of mine was asked to write up a Balrog > for RQ for publication. Before sending it in he > decided to test it out on our party. The end result > ... the Balrog had to re-written after lasting > exactly one round!!! All it took was a 1 arrow with a > speedart and a critical = 21 points of damage to the > head. Which come to think of it, was similar to the > dragons fate in the Hobbit. > > So what do you think is more heroic an nobody slaying > a Balrog with an arrow or a 15th level fighter taking > on a Balrog? Due to the nature of eposidic campaigning, any critical rule invariably favours the monsters over the PCs. In each individual battle, of course, there is generally no favouritism. But as the PCs are generally expected to fight many battles against many foes over the course of their careers, a critical rule favours the bad guys. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Tue Mar 9 09:24:25 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:24:25 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <00C01200.57318721.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/8/2004 3:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, freyrvanic at earthlink.net writes: > Actually having both played in the SCA where the combat system found it's > roots & been thru real combat in the '70's I don't see RQ > as being > particularly fatal compared to real life. I agree. RQ is probably the most realistic FRPG system in existence. But real life is rarely "heroic" in the literature sense. Devin From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 09:31:24 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:31:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <7AC77702.4AEF54FB.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040308223124.54046.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > Due to the nature of eposidic campaigning, any > critical rule invariably favours the monsters over > the PCs. In each individual battle, of course, there > is generally no favouritism. But as the PCs are > generally expected to fight many battles against > many foes over the course of their careers, a > critical rule favours the bad guys. Statistically, I agree, but from my experience it has not been the case. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Mar 9 09:48:37 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:48:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <00C01200.57318721.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040308224837.70440.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > RQ is probably the most realistic FRPG > system in existence. But real life is rarely > "heroic" in the literature sense. > > Devin Is RQ really still in existence? It is played, of course, but can an out of print system be considered current or just fossilized? Actually, Mythworld is even more "realistic", and indeed missed being the basis for RQ3 partly by being too detailed in its realism for Greg's taste. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 02:29:43 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:29:43 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >From: DevinC at aol.com :) I stand corrected, but I appreciate that you actually got my point as well :) I think we can agree on that RQ has a potentially more lethal combatsystem than D&D But I allso want to argue that RQ's system is far more realistic, and appeals more to both me and my players for exactly that reason. I think I'll have problems with ever taking part in a heroic campagin where you're an invincible superhero wading through trolls, dragons and orcs. (I actually know a very funny D&D-song sirculating in Norway handeling just this) I allso see the point made by someone else, on preparing for a campagin for weeks, just to have a PC impaled on a branch as he rides by. But I tend to ignore such deaths by simply ignoring such disruptive and irrellevant rolls. I never make encounters like "you're beeing ambushed by 3 archers", as those archers are bound to roll 01, 03 and 09. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 02:37:07 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:37:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: This story reminds me of a female geriatric burglar-victimNPC, attempted to be rescued by a playing character. The NPCthief soon got the upper hand in the narrow alley, though, and I as the GM decided that the old lady should try and help her alledgedl saviour by picking up a dropped spear and try and stab. I gave her 10% with the spear, and she of-cource rolled 01, impaled the thief and totally killed him in front of the perplexed PC! >From: Leon Kirshtein >So what do you think is more heroic an nobody slaying >a Balrog with an arrow or a 15th level fighter taking >on a Balrog? > >===== >Leon Kirshtein >www.godlearner.d2g.com _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 02:48:51 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:48:51 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >Due to the nature of eposidic campaigning, any critical rule invariably >favours the monsters over the PCs. In each individual battle, of course, >there is generally no favouritism. But as the PCs are generally expected to >fight many battles against many foes over the course of their careers, a >critical rule favours the bad guys. > >Devin I'm glad you put in "generally", here, as I personally dont follow the D&D -tradition of campagining; Heroes are approached by the initializer of the adventure Heroes follows the path to the "goal of the adventure", where they fight off X monsters Heroes return, rais in EX.Ps. and Levels Our games don't work like that, and don't need to fight that much. Last Tuesday, we played for 6 hours without any dice rolling at all!!! -And my Viking warrior woman-character in a Warhammergame have spent the past 10 session trying to administer a small village. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 02:56:36 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:56:36 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >From: DevinC at aol.com > > Actually having both played in the SCA where the combat system found >it's > > roots & been thru real combat in the '70's I don't see RQ > > as being > > particularly fatal compared to real life. > >I agree. RQ is probably the most realistic FRPG system in existence. But >real life is rarely "heroic" in the literature sense. > >Devin Well, Tolkien based his epic story on the famous RL-game (RL= real life) -and roleplaying games were originally strongly based on his work, weren't they? My experience is that real life beats anything fantasy can throw at you! A German tank-hero form WW2; Wittmann, managed in Prague in 1944 on one instance to hold of 36 soviet tanks with only 6 of his own tanks, guarding a bridge. He later died on the weastern front in a supposedly invincibleTiger I-tank This is my in "arguing-modus". I see your point; there aren't that many dragons around... -But genuine heroes/heroes fighting in a realistic setting makes it feel that much more of an acomplishment than a fantasy-one/a hero set in a hero-favouring environment. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From DevinC at aol.com Wed Mar 10 05:05:51 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:05:51 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <596256F7.23F2CE4C.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/9/2004 10:29:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > I think we can agree on that RQ has a potentially more lethal combatsystem > than D&D > > But I allso want to argue that RQ's system is far more realistic, and > appeals more to both me and my players for exactly that reason. I think I'll > have problems with ever taking part in a heroic campagin where you're an > invincible superhero wading through trolls, dragons and orcs. (I actually > know a very funny D&D-song sirculating in Norway handeling just this) > > I allso see the point made by someone else, on preparing for a campagin for > weeks, just to have a PC impaled on a branch as he rides by. But I tend to > ignore such deaths by simply ignoring such disruptive and irrellevant rolls. > I never make encounters like "you're beeing ambushed by 3 > archers", as those > archers are bound to roll 01, 03 and 09. I fully agree on the realism thing. In fact, I don't view D&D and RQ as being in competition with one another. Each brings a different "thing" to the gaming table. RQ brings realistic combat, exotic cultures and magic systems, and a more micro-oriented feel to a game. D&D brings a more swashbuckling, high fantasy, Conan wading through hordes of lesser enemies type feeling. Neither is bad or lesser IMO, just different, and that's why I respect and have enjoyed both systems during my 30 years of RPGing. As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. Devin (donning his asbestos suit) From DevinC at aol.com Wed Mar 10 05:13:48 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:13:48 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <09170384.2F6C811E.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/9/2004 10:48:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > Heroes are approached by the initializer of the adventure > Heroes follows the path to the "goal of the adventure", where they fight off > X monsters > Heroes return, rais in EX.Ps. and Levels > > Our games don't work like that, and don't need to fight that much. Last > Tuesday, we played for 6 hours without any dice rolling at all!!! > > -And my Viking warrior woman-character in a Warhammergame > have spent the > past 10 session trying to administer a small village. It's all a matter of taste. I have run many a session with no combat whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is a style of RPing I call (somewhat derogatorily) the "baker's dozen" (a reference to spending 12 hours RPing the purchase of bread at a bakery) that I refuse to play in. I have no desire to spend my hard won play time running an exercise in the mundane. With a job and family and kids and a house, I can do that well enough without dice thank you very much. When I sit down at a table to game, I expect an exercise in the fantastic. I want high adventure. I would personally hate to have to spend 10 sessions running the administration of a village. I spend 10 hours a day running the administration of the finance department for a company, why'd I want to go home and do it all over again? I sat down at a local convention, where I had plunked down $35 to play in a few games, and went to play in an RQ session. We spent, literally, 2 hours shopping at a bakery, a horse dealer, and a blacksmith. The session's allotment of time was 4 hours. I basically rolled my eyes at this point, asked if anything worthwhile was about to happen, was smugly informed that the group was "roleplaying" and promptly picked up my things and left. There is a certain community of self-labelled elitist in the RPG community who seem to think that rolling dice in combat is a bad thing or that if one features a combat-heavy campaign one is somehow deficient in RP ability or have a lack of discriminating taste. Balderdash says I! I am NOT saying your style is wrong or mine right overall...just it ain't right for me personally and ain't right for a body of players who prefer heroic action (which does not equate necessarily with hack and slash). Devin From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 06:03:11 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:03:11 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hoard Generator? Message-ID: <14332394.1078858991556.JavaMail.root@statler.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Would someone happen to have a tomb hoard (i.e. loot) generator? David From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Mar 10 06:28:21 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 19:28:21 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Origins of RuneQuest Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EAA@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Paul Cardwell: >Actually, Mythworld is even more "realistic", and >indeed missed being the basis for RQ3 partly by being >too detailed in its realism for Greg's taste. Is this true, Steve? Care to give the kids a history lesson? :-) Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not 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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 11:19:37 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:19:37 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. >From: DevinC at aol.com >As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. I've >debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will simply say >that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the open (unless it >absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D terms, all attack rolls, >damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. In RQ terms, it'd mean all >attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, and magic rolls out >in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, >IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, then something's wrong...either with the >system or with the session. > >Devin (donning his asbestos suit) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 11:24:25 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:24:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I see your point, but IMO, there's a substantial difference between organizing a village prone to attack by beasts, roaming mercs, dissatisfied peassents, greedy clerics etc. than beeing a local burocrat in a moderntown,or to say it even more shortly; It's a difference in buying a bread in Prax compared to do it in the local store. People are -as you say; different, and I fully respect your right to like "conangaming" from time to time and to disdain "overly breadbuying". >From: DevinC at aol.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules discussion.") >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:13:48 -0500 > >In a message dated 3/9/2004 10:48:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, >stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > > > Heroes are approached by the initializer of the adventure > > Heroes follows the path to the "goal of the adventure", where they fight >off > > X monsters > > Heroes return, rais in EX.Ps. and Levels > > > > Our games don't work like that, and don't need to fight that much. Last > > Tuesday, we played for 6 hours without any dice rolling at all!!! > > > > -And my Viking warrior woman-character in a Warhammergame > > have spent the > > past 10 session trying to administer a small village. > >It's all a matter of taste. I have run many a session with no combat >whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is a style of RPing I call (somewhat >derogatorily) the "baker's dozen" (a reference to spending 12 hours RPing >the purchase of bread at a bakery) that I refuse to play in. I have no >desire to spend my hard won play time running an exercise in the mundane. >With a job and family and kids and a house, I can do that well enough >without dice thank you very much. When I sit down at a table to game, I >expect an exercise in the fantastic. I want high adventure. I would >personally hate to have to spend 10 sessions running the administration of >a village. I spend 10 hours a day running the administration of the finance >department for a company, why'd I want to go home and do it all over again? > >I sat down at a local convention, where I had plunked down $35 to play in a >few games, and went to play in an RQ session. We spent, literally, 2 hours >shopping at a bakery, a horse dealer, and a blacksmith. The session's >allotment of time was 4 hours. I basically rolled my eyes at this point, >asked if anything worthwhile was about to happen, was smugly informed that >the group was "roleplaying" and promptly picked up my things and left. > >There is a certain community of self-labelled elitist in the RPG community >who seem to think that rolling dice in combat is a bad thing or that if one >features a combat-heavy campaign one is somehow deficient in RP ability or >have a lack of discriminating taste. Balderdash says I! > >I am NOT saying your style is wrong or mine right overall...just it ain't >right for me personally and ain't right for a body of players who prefer >heroic action (which does not equate necessarily with hack and slash). > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Mar 10 11:48:30 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:48:30 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <404E65DE.1060507@sbcglobal.net> I disagree, too (In other words, I agree with Bjorn). Too many times I've seen a die roll spoil what would have been a great experience. Fudging should be used sparingly, but it's a valid tool in a GM's toolkit. Guy Hoyle Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. > > >> From: DevinC at aol.com >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. >> >> Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste > veien mellom deg og dine venner > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bick10 at comcast.net Wed Mar 10 16:09:53 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:09:53 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <404E65DE.1060507@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <002f01c4065d$fe94b420$6401a8c0@attbi.com> And I will join the disagree with Devin band wagon. Hello, my name is Jim and I fudge... It all matters what you consider a good time. Creating characters every gaming session, or several times a session, bores the living hell out of me. Been in those games and hate them. But my friends and I enjoy heavy combat games. I found RQ can be that and we have a great time. I will now cause controversy.... As I GM I ... Cheat. For and against the players. Whatever it takes, and I freely admit it. Am I a bad GM? My players don't think so. At least they keep coming back for more. Jim Bickmeyer > Guy Hoyle > I disagree, too (In other words, I agree with Bjorn). Too many times > I've seen a die roll spoil what would have been a great experience. > Fudging should be used sparingly, but it's a valid tool in a GM's toolkit. > > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. > > > > > >> From: DevinC at aol.com > >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. > >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will > >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the > >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D > >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. > >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, > >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the > >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, > >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. > >> > >> Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste > > veien mellom deg og dine venner > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 freyrvanic at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 13:38:53 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:38:53 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-22004331023853609@earthlink.net> Devin I must respectfully disagree. Fudging, done in moderation does not mean a failure in the system of the GM. On news casts, plays, speeches, movies, poetry readings, etc they succesful storyteller/reader/actor fudges all the time. Scripts are not iron bound, & reading off of a telle-prompter must be fudged so it doesn't look wooden. Many of your best performances you've seen in films & TV were improvisations, which is fudging. Being a GM is taking on the roll of a story-teller, & to keep the audience enthralled & the story flowing the storyteller plays to the audience by improvising / fudging parts. Admittedly Fudging is like fudge-chocolate, too much, can be problematic. Sven > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 3/9/2004 10:05:51 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > In a message dated 3/9/2004 10:29:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > > > I think we can agree on that RQ has a potentially more lethal combatsystem > > than D&D > > > > But I allso want to argue that RQ's system is far more realistic, and > > appeals more to both me and my players for exactly that reason. I think I'll > > have problems with ever taking part in a heroic campagin where you're an > > invincible superhero wading through trolls, dragons and orcs. (I actually > > know a very funny D&D-song sirculating in Norway handeling just this) > > > > I allso see the point made by someone else, on preparing for a campagin for > > weeks, just to have a PC impaled on a branch as he rides by. But I tend to > > ignore such deaths by simply ignoring such disruptive and irrellevant rolls. > > I never make encounters like "you're beeing ambushed by 3 > > archers", as those > > archers are bound to roll 01, 03 and 09. > > I fully agree on the realism thing. In fact, I don't view D&D and RQ as being in competition with one another. Each brings a different "thing" to the gaming table. RQ brings realistic combat, exotic cultures and magic systems, and a more micro-oriented feel to a game. D&D brings a more swashbuckling, high fantasy, Conan wading through hordes of lesser enemies type feeling. Neither is bad or lesser IMO, just different, and that's why I respect and have enjoyed both systems during my 30 years of RPGing. > > As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. > > Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > _______________________________________________ > 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 DevinC at aol.com Wed Mar 10 14:00:15 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:00:15 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <0D40C117.227EBDEC.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/10/2004 12:09:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, bick10 at comcast.net writes: > And I will join the disagree with Devin band wagon. Hello, my name is Jim > and I fudge... It all matters what you consider a good time. Creating > characters every gaming session, or several times a session, bores the > living hell out of me. Been in those games and hate them. But my friends > and I enjoy heavy combat games. I found RQ can be that and we have a great > time. > > I will now cause controversy.... As I GM I ... Cheat. For and against > the players. Whatever it takes, and I freely admit it. Am I a bad GM? > My players don't think so. At least they keep coming back > for more. The fundamental question becomes then, when do you decide to fudge? The problem I find with fudging is that it becomes a crutch for many DMs in that they use it to smooth out all of the wrinkles in a scenario. It gets to the point where I know how every scenario is going to turn out....we have a rough time of whatever but just barely make out. While that is technically the ideal outcome of a scenario, when it begins to become the outcome of every scenario, it loses its lustre. I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I have left. Goes something like this: GM: Ooh, the beast hits you. Me: Oof! GM: Um....hmmm....how many hit points do you have left? Me: Um....12. GM: (Rolls dice behind his screen)You take 11 hit points. You are barely alive! When things like that happen, I feel cheated. I am a big boy. I knew adventuring would be potentially lethal to my character when I took the job. I can handle being killed. Let my PC live or die by the scenario design and the dice. I expect my foes to do the same. The problem with fudging is that you start to suspect it as a player whether it happens or not. When I barely survive any encounter, I have to begin to wonder whether I really survived it or was I fudged? Devin From DevinC at aol.com Wed Mar 10 14:03:39 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:03:39 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <5FA49085.00C2E3C2.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/9/2004 9:38:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, freyrvanic at earthlink.net writes: > Devin I must respectfully disagree. Fudging, done in moderation does not > mean a failure in the system of the GM. On news casts, plays, speeches, > movies, poetry readings, etc they succesful storyteller/reader/actor fudges > all the time. Scripts are not iron bound, & reading off of a telle-prompter > must be fudged so it doesn't look wooden. Many of your best performances > you've seen in films & TV were improvisations, which is fudging. Being a GM > is taking on the roll of a story-teller, & to keep the audience enthralled > & the story flowing the storyteller plays to the audience by improvising / > fudging parts. Admittedly Fudging is like fudge-chocolate, > too much, can be > problematic. > > Sven I must respectfully disagree back. Role playing is not solely about storytelling. Otherwise, you might as well read a book. And, to some extent, why even bother using dice then? If the ultimate aim is to tell a good story, it would seem to me you'd want to play diceless and be able to absolutely tell the story without any pesky randomness intruding (this is not a hyperbole, I am sure you are all aware that there are a good many good diceless RP systems available). Roleplaying is also a game, established with a set of rules that the players and the DM presumably socially contract to follow. And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces the players to question 100% of the time because they have no way of discerning which 5% you are fudging. Devin From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Mar 10 15:47:11 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:47:11 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Origins of RuneQuest References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EAA@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <00f201c4065a$d0534d40$68417442@wizard> I'm not sure Paul isn't talking about RQ4... We had a lot of input from a lot of people on RQ3. Some advice we took was probably the wrong advice, and a bunch of that probably came internally (like from me). I know Paul has been playing the game a long time, so he might have been corresponding with us about RQ3, but there was never a chance that someone from outside the office was going to have the final say in the direction of the game. As it was, I think too many people had a say even from within the office. But I was spending a lot of time on projects like Superworld and Elfquest, so some of the decision-making on RQ3 passed me by. It's really Greg and Sandy's game, based on what I had done before and what I added for that edition. And that's about as much history as I can come up with at this late notice... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hibbs, Phil" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:28 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Origins of RuneQuest > Paul Cardwell: > >Actually, Mythworld is even more "realistic", and > >indeed missed being the basis for RQ3 partly by being > >too detailed in its realism for Greg's taste. > > Is this true, Steve? Care to give the kids a history lesson? :-) > > Phil Hibbs > > > ======================================================= > This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not 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. > ======================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > 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 steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Mar 10 15:53:33 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:53:33 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <404E65DE.1060507@sbcglobal.net> <002f01c4065d$fe94b420$6401a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <010501c4065b$b41608b0$68417442@wizard> Actually, I am pretty much of the let the dice show the way school, simply because I'm lazy. It's so much simpler for everyone to see what the dice rolled than to make up what the dice rolled. That said, I will take a bad roll and fudge its result in front of everyone, blatantly ignoring the rules if need be. I have been characterized as a "dramatist-gamist" in my approach to gaming, and that's probably just about right. I also tend to play with very experienced people, most of whom have GMed. We're all building the story. If I conceal a roll, it usually means the result is pre-determined and the roll is to keep the feel of the game going. Steve Perrin, rolling dice for a long long time ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bickmeyer" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > And I will join the disagree with Devin band wagon. Hello, my name is Jim > and I fudge... It all matters what you consider a good time. Creating > characters every gaming session, or several times a session, bores the > living hell out of me. Been in those games and hate them. But my friends > and I enjoy heavy combat games. I found RQ can be that and we have a great > time. > > I will now cause controversy.... As I GM I ... Cheat. For and against > the players. Whatever it takes, and I freely admit it. Am I a bad GM? > My players don't think so. At least they keep coming back for more. > > Jim Bickmeyer > > > > Guy Hoyle > > > I disagree, too (In other words, I agree with Bjorn). Too many times > > I've seen a die roll spoil what would have been a great experience. > > Fudging should be used sparingly, but it's a valid tool in a GM's toolkit. > > > > > > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > > > Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. > > > > > > > > >> From: DevinC at aol.com > > >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. > > >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will > > >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the > > >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D > > >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. > > >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, > > >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the > > >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, > > >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. > > >> > > >> Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste > > > veien mellom deg og dine venner > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > 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 freyrvanic at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 20:29:32 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:29:32 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-22004331092932375@earthlink.net> Heilsa Steve, long time no see. It's Les (Sven) Lugar. I still have the photocopied pre-version one rules that you gave me in the same bloody brown binder. Hope you & Louise are doing well. ves thu hael, Sven > [Original Message] > From: Steve Perrin > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 3/9/2004 8:54:10 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > Actually, I am pretty much of the let the dice show the way school, simply > because I'm lazy. It's so much simpler for everyone to see what the dice > rolled than to make up what the dice rolled. > > That said, I will take a bad roll and fudge its result in front of everyone, > blatantly ignoring the rules if need be. I have been characterized as a > "dramatist-gamist" in my approach to gaming, and that's probably just about > right. I also tend to play with very experienced people, most of whom have > GMed. We're all building the story. > > If I conceal a roll, it usually means the result is pre-determined and the > roll is to keep the feel of the game going. > > Steve Perrin, rolling dice for a long long time > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Bickmeyer" > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:09 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > > > And I will join the disagree with Devin band wagon. Hello, my name is Jim > > and I fudge... It all matters what you consider a good time. Creating > > characters every gaming session, or several times a session, bores the > > living hell out of me. Been in those games and hate them. But my > friends > > and I enjoy heavy combat games. I found RQ can be that and we have a > great > > time. > > > > I will now cause controversy.... As I GM I ... Cheat. For and against > > the players. Whatever it takes, and I freely admit it. Am I a bad GM? > > My players don't think so. At least they keep coming back for more. > > > > Jim Bickmeyer > > > > > > > Guy Hoyle > > > > > I disagree, too (In other words, I agree with Bjorn). Too many times > > > I've seen a die roll spoil what would have been a great experience. > > > Fudging should be used sparingly, but it's a valid tool in a GM's > toolkit. > > > > > > > > > > > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > > > > > Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: DevinC at aol.com > > > >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. > > > >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will > > > >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the > > > >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D > > > >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. > > > >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, > > > >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the > > > >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, > > > >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. > > > >> > > > >> Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste > > > > veien mellom deg og dine venner > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 20:42:02 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:42:02 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I have to reply to this one, as it reminded me of a IMO brilliant example of a situation where me fudging made the story much better: This was in the RPG "Werewolf". A PC tracked an NPC, and didn't do it very well either, then he lost him, and as he was seaching for the dude (shouldn't have...) he got 30 silver bullets in his back; not even me could pretend that he survived. But (as in RQ), werewolf deals a lot with spirits etc, and I decided that his spirit while leaving the carcass was abducted by a powerful enemy spirit, that placed his spirit in the body of a Tasmanian devil. (This is kind of a great way of humiliating a werewolf, putting him into a body that the werewolves helped making extinct.) This way, he could cuntinue using the character; same skills, new attributes, and the badguys had him running errands, promising him a wolves body if he behaved... >From: "Sven Lugar" >Reply-To: freyrvanic at earthlink.net,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:38:53 -0800 > >Devin I must respectfully disagree. Fudging, done in moderation does not >mean a failure in the system of the GM. On news casts, plays, speeches, >movies, poetry readings, etc they succesful storyteller/reader/actor fudges >all the time. Scripts are not iron bound, & reading off of a telle-prompter >must be fudged so it doesn't look wooden. Many of your best performances >you've seen in films & TV were improvisations, which is fudging. Being a GM >is taking on the roll of a story-teller, & to keep the audience enthralled >& the story flowing the storyteller plays to the audience by improvising / >fudging parts. Admittedly Fudging is like fudge-chocolate, too much, can be >problematic. > >Sven _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 20:47:07 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:47:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I agree to not fudge to make the plot go as planned. That's what IMO is so crap with many bought adventures in other RPG's (we're not spoiled with loads of campagins for RQ, are we?); they need the players to do this and this. If the situation you describes below comes up in my games, my decition on wether to fudge or not depends on wether it's the players stupidity making them ending up there or not decide. I could allso let you survive, but letting you be taken prisoner by the NPC's, for instance. >I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I >have left. Goes >something like this: >GM: Ooh, the beast hits you. >Me: Oof! >GM: Um....hmmm....how many hit points do you have left? >Me: Um....12. >GM: (Rolls dice behind his screen)You take 11 hit points. You are barely >alive! >When things like that happen, I feel cheated. I am a big boy. I knew >adventuring would be >potentially lethal to my character when I took the >job. I can handle being killed. Let my PC live or >die by the scenario >design and the dice. I expect my foes to do the same. >Devin _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 20:55:48 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:55:48 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I like this purely principal and professional discussion that I enjoy. (Devin it's not you I'm after, allthough the past 15 posts can make it seem so.) I must say I disagree with you again, Devin. If you as the player gets too focused on the metalevel in the gaming -"why do the GM want us to go there, did I really recieve 4 hits to my arm, or does he do that to punish me because I criticised his last critter in having more spells than the rules allow for?", you'll loose the fun of the game! You must let the fantasy flow, in unison with the GM and the other players! The memorable sessions is where i can see the situations and other characters as clearly in my head as if i went to the movies. I'd like to once playing an entire session with no stats and no dice; mabye that's why I'm getting more and more into Larp'ing despite me soon beeing 30 years... To me, RPG'ing has much more in common with the fantasy novel than a dicegame. >From: DevinC at aol.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: freyrvanic at earthlink.net,rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules >discussion.") >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:03:39 -0500 > >In a message dated 3/9/2004 9:38:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, >freyrvanic at earthlink.net writes: > > > Devin I must respectfully disagree. Fudging, done in moderation does not > > mean a failure in the system of the GM. On news casts, plays, speeches, > > movies, poetry readings, etc they succesful storyteller/reader/actor >fudges > > all the time. Scripts are not iron bound, & reading off of a >telle-prompter > > must be fudged so it doesn't look wooden. Many of your best performances > > you've seen in films & TV were improvisations, which is fudging. Being a >GM > > is taking on the roll of a story-teller, & to keep the audience >enthralled > > & the story flowing the storyteller plays to the audience by improvising >/ > > fudging parts. Admittedly Fudging is like fudge-chocolate, > > too much, can be > > problematic. > > > > Sven > >I must respectfully disagree back. Role playing is not solely about >storytelling. Otherwise, you might as well read a book. And, to some >extent, why even bother using dice then? If the ultimate aim is to tell a >good story, it would seem to me you'd want to play diceless and be able to >absolutely tell the story without any pesky randomness intruding (this is >not a hyperbole, I am sure you are all aware that there are a good many >good diceless RP systems available). > >Roleplaying is also a game, established with a set of rules that the >players and the DM presumably socially contract to follow. > >And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces >the players to question 100% of the time because they have no way of >discerning which 5% you are fudging. > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 10 21:02:07 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:02:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I must remember to say that I try to fudge as little as possible, but I recognize fudging as a valid option from time to time _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Mar 10 21:07:13 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:07:13 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <0D40C117.227EBDEC.00047AF1@aol.com> References: <0D40C117.227EBDEC.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <404EE8D1.3090708@padrigu.gu.se> I hate that as well. Any GM asking you for your total HP in a fight has made a fundamental error. No other question is more obvious when it comes to cheating. What is even worse in your example is that I would not only feel cheated if it was a way to save my PC from dying. I might also suspect the GM of giving me more hits just to make my character incapacitated. Especially if he became a prisoner afterwards. As we all know, rule number one in fudging (which you as a GM never do of course) the players must never know about it. :-) /Peter J DevinC at aol.com wrote: >I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I have left. Goes something like this: > >GM: Ooh, the beast hits you. >Me: Oof! >GM: Um....hmmm....how many hit points do you have left? >Me: Um....12. >GM: (Rolls dice behind his screen)You take 11 hit points. You are barely alive! > >When things like that happen, I feel cheated. I am a big boy. I knew adventuring would be potentially lethal to my character when I took the job. I can handle being killed. Let my PC live or die by the scenario design and the dice. I expect my foes to do the same. > >The problem with fudging is that you start to suspect it as a player whether it happens or not. When I barely survive any encounter, I have to begin to wonder whether I really survived it or was I fudged? > >Devin > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Mar 10 20:15:31 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:15:31 +0000 Subject: How I run RPG's (Was Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? ) Message-ID: >Roleplaying is also a game, established with a set of rules that the players and the DM presumably socially >contract to follow. Actually, I think the problem here is that RPG's are NEITHER conventional story-telling NOR a traditional group game (as exemplified by say Poker or Monopoly) but rather a social group past time. So for me the rules are important (they are what gives a common basis for interaction, help quantify the challenges and interactions) but the primary function is social interaction. Similarly, whilst being able to look back on an adventure or a whole campaign and be able to see it in terms of a narrative (heroic or otherwise) is fabulous, since no-one not even me as GM, knows for certain what is coming next it's not story-TELLING (i.e. the story is NOT pre-formulated and being related or revealed) - at most we are together story-CREATING. >And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces the players to question 100% of the time >because they have no way of discerning which 5% you are fudging. I disagree: in 25 years of playing, mild fudging has never been a problem because obsessing about exactly how I as GM am keeping the game going in a fun form for everyone strikes me as deliberately breaking the social contract of the game (a bit like loudly explaining a magicians tricks to the audience). I think of it as damping: curbing the wilder extremes of the dice mechanics when they hamper an enjoyable game for the group. I use it when, for example, the PC's (despite being warned) dawdled in werewolf country and ran in to a pair of werewolves. Rather than either run free with the encounter (which could have killed ALL the party) or let them off scot free, I "damped it down" by lowering the werewolves stats a touch and fudging a few rolls so that the chances of a TPK were largely removed (people could still have died, but it was VERY unlikely they all would) but then built the consequences (i.e. one of the PC's getting lycanthropy) in to the subsequent sessions (turned a one week "You journey to the big city" in to a three month bloody epic, but that's another story)... I only fudge to the extent that I nudge the probabilities a little in favour of ALL the group having a better time, and would note that frequently allows for the possibility of making PC death MORE likely (if they are enjoying a combat, I may boost the opponents hit points or magic reserves a little, simply to draw things out). Leaving aside just badly run games, the worst games I have ever played have all been the ones which have rigorously and slavishly adhered to the rules... And to be honest, why should it matter to the players which 5% I'm fudging , given that I'm 99.999999% of everyone and everything they'll ever meet or interact with in any form in the game? Changing my mind AFTER I've done something is bad but until it is in front of player characters, nothing is immutable in my games, because just as the Character have their head to go in any direction (i.e. aren't tied to a particular story line I have chosen) so to I believe I have the right to improvise whatever seems to fit with whatever piece of insanity the PC's decide to pursue. And whilst I don't allow players to fudge dice rolls, I always allow a little slack in my head about how difficult things are, so if a player gives a particularly plausible (or entertaining) description about how they are going to solve a problem (or get a sufficiently close roll on something I think it would be better they succeeded at than failed) I'll let them do it. Given the purely random nature of dice mechanics, rigidly adhering to them with no fudge factor guarantees tat at some point, players will suffer the death of favoured characters in pointless circumstances. Given that I play RPG's to indulge a sense of the heroic, I see nothing wrong with curbing or eliminating the purely random and pointless from my games. YMMV. Cheers, Nick Middleton From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 21:31:27 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:31:27 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-220043310103127609@earthlink.net> I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm mistaken) Devin you've never experienced being a storyteller because you'ld know the difference between reading a book & the telling of a story. One is a performance shared mutually & the other a far more passive act usually practice individually. Even in the Skaldskaparmal (Snorri Sturleson's late 12th-early 13th century treatise on Viking Age Poetry) he & all the referenced Skalds refer to in terms of liquid (either ale or sea) because of it's fluidness. It is a poor debate trick to put words in someone elses mouth so if you understood me to say that it is "solely about storytelling" then you misunderstand me. My experience of GM'ing & the experiences of every other succesful GM I know, see it as a dynamic process that has it's development stage (the basic adventure script) which serves as the guideline that the GM & the players then evolve together with the aid of the creativity, unexpectedness (random chance) & guiding rules. Just as the actor & audience each gain pleasure from the give & take of the performance, so likewise do the GM & PC's. Likewise, I didn't say a percentage but I did say that too much fudging is not good. I've never seen a situation where 1 in 20 die rolls needs to be fudged (your percentage). That is way too high. My experience is far less than even 1 in 100 rolls needs any tweeking at all. I'd say in all the years of playing Runequest (I was one of the original playtesters) I've had to fudge less than a dozen times. I've also never had any player question my honor, integrity, or honesty. I've had my twisted sense of humor questioned admittedly. A final thought that might explain the origins of my dynamic approach to things. My Grand-dad started teaching me the sword on December 25th, 1958. One of the things he stressed was to become a good swordsman you have to not only learn to let go the rigidity of rote-patterns in not only your bladework, but also in your mind, because the sword will follow the mind. If the mind is constricted, the sword is constricted. The random & unexpected happen in real life as well gaming, the question becomes one of how we respond rather than merely reacting. journey well, Sven > [Original Message] > From: > To: ; > Date: 3/9/2004 7:03:39 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > In a message dated 3/9/2004 9:38:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, freyrvanic at earthlink.net writes: > > > Devin I must respectfully disagree. Fudging, done in moderation does not > > mean a failure in the system of the GM. On news casts, plays, speeches, > > movies, poetry readings, etc they succesful storyteller/reader/actor fudges > > all the time. Scripts are not iron bound, & reading off of a telle-prompter > > must be fudged so it doesn't look wooden. Many of your best performances > > you've seen in films & TV were improvisations, which is fudging. Being a GM > > is taking on the roll of a story-teller, & to keep the audience enthralled > > & the story flowing the storyteller plays to the audience by improvising / > > fudging parts. Admittedly Fudging is like fudge-chocolate, > > too much, can be > > problematic. > > > > Sven > > I must respectfully disagree back. Role playing is not solely about storytelling. Otherwise, you might as well read a book. And, to some extent, why even bother using dice then? If the ultimate aim is to tell a good story, it would seem to me you'd want to play diceless and be able to absolutely tell the story without any pesky randomness intruding (this is not a hyperbole, I am sure you are all aware that there are a good many good diceless RP systems available). > > Roleplaying is also a game, established with a set of rules that the players and the DM presumably socially contract to follow. > > And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces the players to question 100% of the time because they have no way of discerning which 5% you are fudging. > > Devin From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 21:38:45 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 02:38:45 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <410-220043310103845828@earthlink.net> > [Original Message] > From: Bjorn Stolen > To: > Date: 3/10/2004 1:55:48 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > ...snip... I'd like to > once playing an entire session with no stats and no dice; mabye that's why > I'm getting more and more into Larp'ing despite me soon beeing 30 years... > To me, RPG'ing has much more in common with the fantasy novel than a > dicegame. > ...snip... Hooray for Peter Pan! Hooray for the Corn Wolf! Larping is a very valid method for bringing the Leaven of the Wild into the Tame & livening things up. I'm 49 & I still going out & beating on my friends with swords several times a week. It will keep you young & the oxygen flowing to the brain. best of luck, Sven From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Mar 10 21:27:12 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:27:12 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >As we all know, rule number one in fudging (which you as a GM never do >of course) the players must never know about it. :-) Well, it shouldn't be paraded in front of players. If a players chooses to work out after a fight that I must have fiddled things so he survived and then loudly complains to the rest of the group about it a)it's his own bloody fault for poking around and b)I'd throw him out of the group. >>I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I have left. Goes something like >>this: >> >>GM: Ooh, the beast hits you. >>Me: Oof! >>GM: Um....hmmm....how many hit points do you have left? >>Me: Um....12. >>GM: (Rolls dice behind his screen)You take 11 hit points. You are barely alive! To be fair, I don't call this fudging (or cheating), just crap GMing. I avoid asking about hit point levels until AFTER a fight, not only so it doesn't influence me but so the other players don't have a concrete idea of other peoples condition. > >When things like that happen, I feel cheated. I am a big boy. I knew adventuring would be potentially lethal >to my character when I took the job. I can handle being killed. Let my PC live or die by the scenario design >and the dice. I expect my foes to do the same. But what if it's simply a howlingly 'lucky'/ 'bad' (depending on PoV) roll? Doesn't it bother you at all that a completely random event, potentially entirely unrelated to the plot or ANY of the characters ongoing concerns could eliminate a character (or several characters)? Whilst life is frequently that untidy, I prefer my fantasy a little neater... > >The problem with fudging is that you start to suspect it as a player whether it happens or not. When I barely >survive any encounter, I have to begin to wonder whether I really survived it or was I fudged? > Well, with a GM as you describe, yes I think we'd all get a bit suspicious as to how relevant we were as players to the game given the GM's willingness to arrange things as he required. But that is precisely the reason I think that it is more poor GMing than a problem with fudging per se. To me it is part of a GM's job to adapt on the fly to what PC's do and keep the game entertaining. In that regard I will use whatever tricks I can, fudging dice rolls where the dice are unhelpful and indeed rolling dice where I'm out of inspiration... (A classic sign Nick is thinking: for or five hidden percentile rolls...) Cheers, Nick Middleton _______________________________________________ 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 jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 23:50:39 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:50:39 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <5FA49085.00C2E3C2.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <404F0F1F.6070406@earthlink.net> I often do both; that is, roll behind a screen during times when they're operating on limited information and roll out in the open when they would have full knowledge of the true outcome. It works rather well. David DevinC at aol.com wrote: >And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces the players to question 100% of the time because they have no way of discerning which 5% you are fudging. > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 02:17:38 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:17:38 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I feel that dices are a distraction to the illusion the GM and the players are trying to create, and prefere not to roll in the open for that reason more than so I can cheat. >From: "D. Smart" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:50:39 -0600 > >I often do both; that is, roll behind a screen during times when they're >operating on limited information and roll out in the open when they would >have full knowledge of the true outcome. > >It works rather well. > >David > >DevinC at aol.com wrote: > >>And the problem is, fudging even a little bit (say 5% of the time) forces >>the players to question 100% of the time because they have no way of >>discerning which 5% you are fudging. >> >>Devin >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Mar 11 02:44:17 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:44:17 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <23784124.1078933457456.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> I do see your point, Bjorn, and fully agreed with it when I was able to use table maps and 25mm miniatures back in my university days. Now my group has to deal with pets/spouses/children interrupting our 3-hour maximum evening play time so the illusion starts out with gaping holes. *grin* So our play style tends to change depending on environmental factors as well as in-game situations. I admit, my preference is for more hidden dice until my players are very familiar with combat optimization and have become a tight-knit unit. At that point, we all understand the gloves come off and I roll all but "limited knowledge" rolls in the open. In fact, the gloves come off for my current group tomorrow night when they lead a strike team into an undead/spirit riddled dwarf mine/city (ala Moria) to retrieve a major quest item. Even I am a little nervous at the thought. They all really can die in there and not just from a bad run of dice rolls. But they've come a long way for a group who's only RPG experience has been with Traveller. Should be interesting. David -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: Mar 10, 2004 9:17 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? I feel that dices are a distraction to the illusion the GM and the players are trying to create, and prefere not to roll in the open for that reason more than so I can cheat. From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Mar 11 04:50:23 2004 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:50:23 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels and BRP In-Reply-To: <20040310100220.AEB85222743@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <404F555F.5387.4FF40F3@localhost> A d20 to Stormbringer conversion.. There is one here; http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~sws99dsc/rpg.html I don't actually agree with it but it's a good start to make your own. -- Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as email) http://tavern.elric.org.uk http://www.zunder.org.uk From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Thu Mar 11 04:56:40 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:56:40 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EB1@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> >I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I have left. I once knew a GM that wouldn't let the /players/ know what their current hit points were. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not 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 tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Mar 11 05:01:03 2004 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:01:03 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging In-Reply-To: <20040310030038.0F094222740@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <404F57DF.27305.50903DA@localhost> I too have had PCs die pointlessly due to a string of fumbles, or some nonsense. I tend to use hero points. They can be used by players to retake rolls or even just bend what happens. It's fudging, under player control. -- Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as email) http://tavern.elric.org.uk http://www.zunder.org.uk From DevinC at aol.com Thu Mar 11 05:58:11 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:58:11 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <2B23D931.27CF5CFE.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/10/2004 4:47:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > If the situation you describes below comes up in my games, my decition on > wether to fudge or not depends on wether it's the players stupidity making > them ending up there or not decide. I could allso let you > survive, but > letting you be taken prisoner by the NPC's, for instance. Well, taking prisoner is not fudging IMO, it's Dm's discretion. In most cases it is more logical for intelligent creatures to take prisoners than kill outright. Even broos would be likely to do so, to torture thei victims, await a Mallia high holy day, to impregnate their victims, et al. Same with Uz for example. As far as the "stupidity = no fudge" argument, the problem is that as long as a player knows he has played to a certain level of adequacy, he can then determine their is no lethal risk to him. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Thu Mar 11 06:12:42 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:12:42 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/10/2004 5:07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > As we all know, rule number one in fudging (which you as a > GM never do > of course) the players must never know about it. :-) And there's the rub. After so many years of playing, I have yet to meet a single DM who fudges where I couldn't tell fairly early on that fudging was going on. I may simply have a good innate sense of recognizing fudge. Devin From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Mar 11 08:19:56 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:19:56 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <09170384.2F6C811E.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <2004310141956.494572@laptop> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:13:48 -0500, DevinC at aol.com wrote: >?It's all a matter of taste. I have run many a session with no >?combat whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is a style of RPing I call >?(somewhat derogatorily) the "baker's dozen" (a reference to >?spending 12 hours RPing the purchase of bread at a bakery) that I >?refuse to play in. I have no desire to spend my hard won play time >?running an exercise in the mundane. With a job and family and kids >?and a house, I can do that well enough without dice thank you very >?much. When I sit down at a table to game, I expect an exercise in >?the fantastic. I want high adventure. I would personally hate to >?have to spend 10 sessions running the administration of a village. >?I spend 10 hours a day running the administration of the finance >?department for a company, why'd I want to go home and do it all >?over again? I haven't finished going through all of the list mail yet (I was out of town from Saturday until last night), but I wanted to say AMEN to this one. My motto at the game table is "Let's kill something!" and if that makes me a hack-n-slasher then so be it. That's the part of RPGs I enjoy! As soon as I finish the rest of the list mail I'll draft a proper reply. :^) Rich Allen From rico at ricosweb.com Thu Mar 11 09:23:04 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:23:04 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040308003754.54261.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200431015234.399110@laptop> Whew! This topic has generated quite a lot of opinion! I love it! :) OK, some people feel that RQ is fine as a heroic/epic RPG, as long as you have a few house rules. Sounds fine to me, but I'd rather just play D&D for those campaigns where I want little or no PC death. I *like* the fact that in RQ, my character can die at any time, in any situation, with little rhyme or reason. I don't think it's a bad GM who allows the dice to dictate the flow of the game. As some of you have said, if you're having fun, you're doing it right. I remember one RQ session in particular, I had *three* PCs die within about four hours. I loved it, I had a great time and the deaths all made sense in the context of the game. One of the other players that night lost two characters, and all of the players lost at least one. We always played RQ with multiple characters (one at a time though) because we knew RQ was a deadly game and PCs just don't last long. As for bringing characters back from the dead... Well, that just didn't fit into our RQ I guess. Maybe we are a low-power group, but I don't think so. We play RQ as it's written for the most part, and enjoy the quirks of the system. Healing potions were very expensive and even if we had the cash, finding someone who would use up his POW for profit was extremely rare. DI's were also pretty much non-existent. In all of the years that I've played RQ, I've never seen a PC who could roll a d10 for DI. Out of all of the characters I played who had any chance of DI, no matter how small, none of them made the roll. And we were normally so far away from any temple that having an NPC resurrect even a single character was out of the question. But I wouldn't change any of it! In fact, I'd go so far as to say that for our group, having frequent resurrects/DIs would ruin the feel of the game. Back to GMing styles... I must say that I'm different as a GM than as a player. The games that I GM are normally made up as I go, with an even amount of problem solving and combat. I too believe that fudging is a very bad thing. I want to know that my achievements as a character were the result of good playing, not of GM fudging, and the people I play with are the same way. So, we play D&D if we don't want the players to die, or ruin the story. We play RQ when we just want a good session of RP/Hack-n-slash/whatever you want to call it. Also, in my experience, whenever the game starts playing out shopping trips most of the players get bored, distracted, or mad. It's usually one or two players and the GM, with the rest left out in the cold so to speak. When I GM, I have the players do the mundane stuff between playing sessions. And travel usually goes something like "You spend three weeks heading north toward [city], now you're at the city..." unless there's something I've planned along the way. Why? Because I think it's boring as hell to spend 30 minutes describing the country side, determine where to camp and who's on watch, having a horse throw a shoe and making the character roll a skill check to fix it, etc. I don't begrudge the people who enjoy that kind of RPGing, it's just not for me. I think it's very important in an RPG to have consistent expectations. If character death is prevented because it would ruin a story line, then character death should be prevented when it wouldn't ruin the story! In an encounter is toned down because the party couldn't other-wise handle it, then all encounters should be toned down. The players need to know that each situation will be handled the same way no matter when they occur, or what consequences will arise because of them. In my opinion, character death should not be prevented, and encounters should not be toned down, but either way it should be done consistently! :) I should state that with one very short lived exception, we never played RQ in Glorantha. That may have skewed our experience with the game, but I don't think so and I feel that what I've said is applicable no matter what setting is used. :) Rich Allen From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Mar 11 09:36:04 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:36:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040309180614.46951222736@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040310223604.14663.qmail@web9608.mail.yahoo.com> Devin: > Due to the nature of eposidic campaigning, any critical rule invariably > favours the monsters over the PCs. In each individual battle, of course, > there is generally no favouritism. But as the PCs are generally expected to > fight many battles against many foes over the course of their careers, a > critical rule favours the bad guys. I've never seen this effect. In my experience, the rogue critical is not particularly deadly or often. In fact, I have seen more PCs killed by each other, through rogue fumbles, than rogue criticals. All of my players have accepted criticals as something that happens, not one has ever whinged about being hit by a critical and, believe me, they were a group that would whinge about absolutely everything. It really is not an issue i a well-planned, flexible campaign. Paul Cardwell: > Is RQ really still in existence? It is played, of > course, but can an out of print system be considered > current or just fossilized? Well, people play it, write about it on the Internet, discuss it and publish RQ supplements in fanzines and publications, so I would say yes it is still in existence. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Mar 11 10:03:43 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:03:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/Hoard Generator? In-Reply-To: <20040310030037.93D4622273E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040310230343.33559.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Devin: > It's all a matter of taste. I have run many a session with no combat > whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is a style of RPing I call (somewhat > derogatorily) the "baker's dozen" (a reference to spending 12 hours RPing > the purchase of bread at a bakery) that I refuse to play in. I have no > desire to spend my hard won play time running an exercise in the mundane. > With a job and family and kids and a house, I can do that well enough > without dice thank you very much. When I sit down at a table to game, I > expect an exercise in the fantastic. I want high adventure. I would > personally hate to have to spend 10 sessions running the administration of > a village. I spend 10 hours a day running the administration of the finance > department for a company, why'd I want to go home and do it all over again? I completely agree. > I sat down at a local convention, where I had plunked down $35 to play in a > few games, and went to play in an RQ session. We spent, literally, 2 hours > shopping at a bakery, a horse dealer, and a blacksmith. The session's > allotment of time was 4 hours. I basically rolled my eyes at this point, > asked if anything worthwhile was about to happen, was smugly informed that > the group was "roleplaying" and promptly picked up my things and left. You lasted 2 hours? I'd have tried to move it along after 5 minutes. How much for the bread? Roll a Bargain roll. Chatting up the baker? Roll Orate/Fast Talk/Seduce. Buying bread shouldn't last more than a minute - state what you want, work out which skill to use, roll it, knock off the Clack, leave the shop. > I am NOT saying your style is wrong or mine right overall...just it ain't > right for me personally and ain't right for a body of players who prefer > heroic action (which does not equate necessarily with hack and slash). Heroic action is heroic action, regardless of the system used. > As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. > I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will > simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the > open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D > terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. > In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, > damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the > bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, > then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. I always roll my dice in the open, whether it is attack/parry, damage or whatever. If you roll your dice in secret then you are already open to accusations of cheating. Better to roll then openly and cheat in clever, undetectable ways. David Smart: > Would someone happen to have a tomb hoard (i.e. loot) generator? RQ2 has a pretty good loot/hoard generating system. If you fiddle about with the TFs, to give more TFs for powerful NPCs, and generate more treasure for TFs over 100 (a TF of 250 would give 2 lots of 100 TF and one of 50) then you can generate loads of items and treasure. Of course, you have to defeat the enemies who are using the generated items .... If you are after a program, I had one written in Progress 4GL once, but hardly anyone else uses Progress :-( Bjorn Stolen: > I see your point, but IMO, there's a substantial difference between > organizing a village prone to attack by beasts, roaming mercs, dissatisfied > peassents, greedy clerics etc. than beeing a local burocrat in a > moderntown,or to say it even more shortly; It's a difference in buying a > bread in Prax compared to do it in the local store. One of my players played a PC who had become King of Dykene and spent almost all his time trying to conquer Trilius and Elkoi to unite Balazar under his rule. He acted as king, judge, high priest and strategic organisor, so spent loads of time in mundane administration. He loved it and it made for some pretty good scenarios. He also liked sticking his spear into things and turning them crispy black with stacked Sunspears. You can do both in a campaign quite easily. Devin again: > The fundamental question becomes then, when do you decide to fudge? The > problem I find with fudging is that it becomes a crutch for many DMs in > that they use it to smooth out all of the wrinkles in a scenario. It gets > to the point where I know how every scenario is going to turn out....we > have a rough time of whatever but just barely make out. While that is > technically the ideal outcome of a scenario, when it begins to become the > outcome of every scenario, it loses its lustre. Ho, ho, if only I knew how every scenario would work out before I ran it. I've had PCs ruining scenarios by being too clever, by being stupid, by fumbling rolls, by criticalling rolls, by making friends with enemies and killing allies. Hardly any went exactly as I had planned. Quoite a few went entirely wrong, but spawned many even more interesting sessions. The trick is to mbe flexible and to be able to run with anidea as it occurs. > I absolutely despise when a GM asks me, for example, how many hit points I > have left. Goes something like this: > > GM: Ooh, the beast hits you. > > Me: Oof! > > GM: Um....hmmm....how many hit points do you have left? > > Me: Um....12. > > GM: (Rolls dice behind his screen)You take 11 hit points. You are barely > alive! > > When things like that happen, I feel cheated. I am a big boy. I knew > adventuring would be potentially lethal to my character when I took the > job. I can handle being killed. Let my PC live or die by the scenario > design and the dice. I expect my foes to do the same. Yep, I'd hate that as well. In fact, I'd ask the GM to roll dice in the open when rolling damage against me. > The problem with fudging is that you start to suspect it as a player > whether it happens or not. When I barely survive any encounter, I have to > begin to wonder whether I really survived it or was I fudged? When we had a multi-GM campaigns, one of the most satisfying scenarios were those where we crawled out of a temple with 3 HPs and 2 MPs left, having just surviveed and overcome our enemies. As a GM, it was quite challenging to get them to that point without them noticing. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From jellen at ameritech.net Thu Mar 11 10:35:07 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:35:07 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <404E65DE.1060507@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <038e01c406f8$52dc4580$47904d44@DCNL6S01> I'm with Guy & Bjorn. If a GM can't play God, who can? So Devin, are you saying that, under no circumstances whatsoever, would you as GM fudge a roll? Not even if you were trying to introduce your child or significant other to the game, and they took a critical to the head in their first melee? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Hoyle" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? I disagree, too (In other words, I agree with Bjorn). Too many times I've seen a die roll spoil what would have been a great experience. Fudging should be used sparingly, but it's a valid tool in a GM's toolkit. Guy Hoyle Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Just so we understand eachother: I fully disagree. > > >> From: DevinC at aol.com >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. >> >> Devin (donning his asbestos suit) > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste > veien mellom deg og dine venner > > _______________________________________________ > 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 DevinC at aol.com Thu Mar 11 11:24:27 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:24:27 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <14DE08BD.2FDD639A.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/10/2004 6:35:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, jellen at ameritech.net writes: > So Devin, are you saying that, under no circumstances whatsoever, would you > as GM fudge a roll? Not even if you were trying to introduce your child or > significant other to the game, and they took a critical to > the head in their > first melee? Yes, I am saying exactly that. And this having run a 9 year RQ campaign, then a 10 year 2nd ed D&D campaign and now in the midst of a going on 2 year 3rd ed D&D campaign. My players all know, to a man woman and child that I won't fudge dice. Thus, for every combat they are on edge. They have told me that my stance on not fudging makes my combat more tense and more exciting than those with GMs they know or think do fudge. Even then, in RQ and 2nd ed D&D I'd roll behind the screen because...well that's how it was always done. But in 3rd ed, I finally decided...screw it, I'll roll all attack rolls and saves and damage right out in the open. In our session before last the PCs were jumped by a very tough group of mercenaries. One guy, already low on hit points, got criticaled by a battle axe. As it turned out, the damage done took him to -9 hp, which in D&D terms is 1 away from death. I can guarantee if I had rolled that damage behind the screen, he would have had at least some place in his mind wondering if I had fudged it. But out in the open, he watched me roll the 20 and confirm the critical. He then watched me roll the damage. And he knew I didn't have precise tabs on how many hp he had left. It was all the ebb and flow of battle. Devin From aelarsen at mac.com Thu Mar 11 12:24:00 2004 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:24:00 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: <20040310233530.90B95222751@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: Simon Phipp > >> As far as "fudging"...hoo we could have a massive debate on that. >> I've debated the fudging issue many times on many boards, but I will >> simply say that I never fudge. In fact, I roll my dice out in the >> open (unless it absolutely has to be a secert). That means in D&D >> terms, all attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves are out in the open. >> In RQ terms, it'd mean all attack rolls, parry rolls, dodge rolls, >> damage rolls, and magic rolls out in the open. Fudging is, IMO, the >> bane of an enjoyable RP experience and, IMNSHO, if you have to fudge, >> then something's wrong...either with the system or with the session. > > I always roll my dice in the open, whether it is attack/parry, damage or > whatever. If you roll your dice in secret then you are already open to > accusations of cheating. Better to roll then openly and cheat in clever, > undetectable ways. I recently had a minor crisis in my RQ campaign. A Uroxi PC frenzied during a combat. Another PC (who was his cousin) tried to bring him out of the frenzy, but failed to. The Uroxi responded by attacking his would-be helper, hit him in the abdomen, and did maximum damage, which was enough to kill him outright. (No question of fudging, since I wasn't rolling any of the dice.) This was a serious problem. In addition to being out of a major PC, this also raised the spectre of kinslaying and chaos for a character who was dedicated to fighting chaos. While I was trying to decide what to do, one of the PCs suggesting trying to invoke the power of a local holy spot they hadn't explored at all. So rather than seriously disrupting the game, I allowed a Resurrection to happen. It was fudging, but a less offensive one, I hope. > Devin again: >> The fundamental question becomes then, when do you decide to fudge? The >> problem I find with fudging is that it becomes a crutch for many DMs in >> that they use it to smooth out all of the wrinkles in a scenario. It gets >> to the point where I know how every scenario is going to turn out....we >> have a rough time of whatever but just barely make out. While that is >> technically the ideal outcome of a scenario, when it begins to become the >> outcome of every scenario, it loses its lustre. > > Ho, ho, if only I knew how every scenario would work out before I ran it. > I've had PCs ruining scenarios by being too clever, by being stupid, by > fumbling rolls, by criticalling rolls, by making friends with enemies and > killing allies. Hardly any went exactly as I had planned. Quoite a few went > entirely wrong, but spawned many even more interesting sessions. The trick is > to mbe flexible and to be able to run with anidea as it occurs. One of my favorite examples of this came during a Call of Cthulhu scenario. In the space of three hours, the PCs had alienated virtually all of their potential allies, accidentally killed a priest who had important information for them (and then tried to make it look like a suicide), persuaded a character whose main function was to bail them out if they got into trouble that they were dangerously unstable lunatics, and then moved into the mansion owed by the evil nobleman whom they suspected of being an insane cultist, which he was. One of the PCs paid for that mistake with his life, but it's remained a story that the players love to tell. Andrew E. Larsen From DevinC at aol.com Thu Mar 11 13:56:36 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:56:36 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 12 Message-ID: <5BD08B38.4A4700C2.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/10/2004 8:24:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, aelarsen at mac.com writes: > One of my favorite examples of this came during a Call of Cthulhu > scenario. In the space of three hours, the PCs had alienated virtually all > of their potential allies, accidentally killed a priest who had important > information for them (and then tried to make it look like a suicide), > persuaded a character whose main function was to bail them out if they got > into trouble that they were dangerously unstable lunatics, and then moved > into the mansion owed by the evil nobleman whom they suspected of being an > insane cultist, which he was. One of the PCs paid for that mistake with his > life, but it's remained a story that the players love to > tell. > > Andrew E. Larsen Heh. There was a CoC scenario in an old White Dwarf where, if you did this very specific and certain set of things, a gate opens up to the nether realms and the scenario states point blankly that the world ends. Guess what we, the investigators, happened to do completely blindly.... So much for that campaign. The GM even asked if we wanted him to fudge it back so that the gate never opened. We said "no way!". We wanted the distinction of having destroyed the world...even if it meant ending the campaign. Devin From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Thu Mar 11 20:04:52 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:04:52 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> References: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <40502BB4.1060703@padrigu.gu.se> DevinC at aol.com wrote: >peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > >>as we all know, rule number one in fudging (which you as a >>GM never do of course) the players must never know about it. :-) >> >> > >And there's the rub. After so many years of playing, I have yet to meet a single DM who fudges where I couldn't tell fairly early on that fudging was going on. I may simply have a good innate sense of recognizing fudge. > My biggest problem with fudging/cheating/etc is that it is impossible to be fair. If I fudge a damage roll against a PC in a fight, how can I kill off another PC in a fight later on? This doesn?t mean that it has never happened, but I cheat very, very rarely. I rather prefer not to put myself in to a situation of having to cheat. I think Bjorn's (?) example of not actually rolling for the three bow men in an earlier post is a good way of avoiding those kind of situations. /Peter J From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Thu Mar 11 20:10:53 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:10:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40502D1D.3000300@padrigu.gu.se> Andrew Larsen wrote: >I recently had a minor crisis in my RQ campaign. A Uroxi PC frenzied during a combat. Another PC (who was his cousin) tried to bring him out of the frenzy, but failed to. The Uroxi responded by attacking his would-be helper, hit him in the abdomen, and did maximum damage, which was enough to kill him outright. (No question of fudging, since I wasn't rolling any of the dice.) This was a serious problem. In addition to being out of a major PC, this also raised the spectre of kinslaying and chaos for a character who was dedicated to fighting chaos. While I was trying to decide what to do, one of the PCs suggesting trying to invoke the power of a local holy spot they hadn't explored at all. So rather than seriously disrupting the game, I allowed a Resurrection to happen. It was fudging, but a less offensive one, I hope. > In my book, this is not fudging or cheating the dice, it is being creative. What is really good in your story above is that the use of the local holy spot was on the initiative of a PC and when you allowed the PC:s to use the holy spot, it is a typical example of good Game mastering.. /Peter J From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:29:03 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:29:03 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging Message-ID: That's clever, allso used in Warhammer, and some other games as well. (shadowrun beeing one of them) >From: "Tom Zunder" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:01:03 -0000 > >I too have had PCs die pointlessly due to a string of fumbles, or some >nonsense. > >I tend to use hero points. They can be used by players to retake rolls or >even just >bend what happens. It's fudging, under player control. > > >-- >Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk >ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as email) >http://tavern.elric.org.uk >http://www.zunder.org.uk > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:30:09 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:30:09 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >As far as the "stupidity = no fudge" argument, the problem is that as long >as a player knows he has played to a certain level of adequacy, he can then >determine their is no lethal risk to him. > >Devin Good point. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:31:16 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:31:16 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: > > As we all know, rule number one in fudging (which you as a > > GM never do > > of course) the players must never know about it. :-) > >And there's the rub. After so many years of playing, I have yet to meet a >single DM who fudges where I couldn't tell fairly early on that fudging was >going on. I may simply have a good innate sense of recognizing fudge. > >Devin Try not to! "let go of your fudge-spotting abilities, and focus on the setting" _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:36:23 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:36:23 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd that during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! >From: Rich Allen >I *like* the fact that in RQ, my character can die at any time, in any >situation, with little rhyme or reason. I don't think it's a bad GM who >allows the dice to dictate the flow of the game. As some of you have said, >if you're having fun, you're doing it right. > >I remember one RQ session in particular, I had *three* PCs die within about >four hours. I loved it, I had a great time and the deaths all made sense >in the context of the game. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:28:05 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:28:05 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: I actually did that in RQ, and my brother does it in CoC. Not so I could fudge, but so the players stopped talking about wether they could coutinue a fight or not. "I'm down to 1 hp in my arm, so I'll run now" I liked to rather describe the pain you recieved, and altered it related to how used you were to damage. A conan -character would take serious damage before starting to describe loads of pain, while a fat priest in a monastery would have a broken nose described as the end of him. This way, I managed people to act on the realistic fear of dying, in stead of cooldly monitoring the hit-points >I once knew a GM that wouldn't let the /players/ know what their current >hit >points were. > >Phil Hibbs _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:41:13 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:41:13 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent?/HoardGenerator? Message-ID: >the "baker's dozen"? -Well, I have an example of the opposite (your kind of) player, the "Donkeytorcherer" A fresh player got bored after your allotted 5 minutes of realistic PC/NPC interaction, playing in a medium town in Sartar. He then decided he wanted to plunder a magicians shop (like the one in apple lane). He realized that he needed diversion, so he set fire to a donkey parked outside the shop.... At that point, I wanted to pick up my stuff and leave... _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 11 21:43:54 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:43:54 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: For me, that works in strategygames, like Warhammer fantasy battles, Advanced Squadleader, Harpoon, etc. In roleplaying, I prefere the rules to lie in the background, beeing as descreete as possible. >From: DevinC at aol.com >My players all know, to a man woman and child that I won't fudge dice. >Thus, for every combat they are on edge. They have told me that my stance >on not fudging makes my combat more tense and more exciting than those with >GMs they know or think do fudge. >In our session before last the PCs were jumped by a very tough group of >mercenaries. One guy, already low on hit points, got criticaled by a battle >axe. As it turned out, the damage done took him to -9 hp, which in D&D >terms is 1 away from death. > >I can guarantee if I had rolled that damage behind the screen, he would >have had at least some place in his mind wondering if I had fudged it. But >out in the open, he watched me roll the 20 and confirm the critical. He >then watched me roll the damage. And he knew I didn't have precise tabs on >how many hp he had left. It was all the ebb and flow of battle. > >Devin _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Mar 11 21:45:29 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:45:29 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >I actually did that in RQ, and my brother does it in CoC. Not so I could >fudge, but so the players stopped talking about wether they could coutinue a >fight or not. "I'm down to 1 hp in my arm, so I'll run now" I liked to >rather describe the pain you recieved, and altered it related to how used >you were to damage. A conan -character would take serious damage before >starting to describe loads of pain, while a fat priest in a monastery would >have a broken nose described as the end of him. This way, I managed people >to act on the realistic fear of dying, in stead of cooldly monitoring the >hit-points Most of the current mob I play D&D with use the "time of Day" Metaphore - Full health is Dawn, at death's door (-1 to -9 HP in D&D) is sunset. I'm considering thenext time I run forcing them to make Heal checks before they can use that description, but given how fundamentally confused D&D is about what a hit point represents, I'm not sure it's worth it. Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Thu Mar 11 22:30:31 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:30:31 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40504DD6.5020704@padrigu.gu.se> You never killed a single PC??? Thats pretty amazing. I try to hold the body count down but during the last two years or so my campaign have had at three permanent deaths if I remember correctly. Two of them were Humakti warriors that could not be brought back and the third was a Uroxi that was mostly a trouble maker according to the others so they didn't even try a DI to ressurect him. The campaign before that sort of came to a freeze after all but one in the party was killed in one of the most unorganized stormings of an enemy camp I've ever experienced as a GM (or player). The characters choose to attack their foes uphill in a place where I told them that they had to make two climb rolls to get up. Of course they managed to miss their climbing rolls in a way that made them reach the top of the hill one at a time only to be chopped down by the waiting NPC:s. I must admit that they had done stupid things in the past but this still baffled me... The really funny part in all this is that they started their way to the camp through a ravine but triggered the trap (which btw didn't hurt anyone) and after that decided it was safer to climb the hill. Had they just pushed on through the ravine they would probably all had survived (apart from the "Wide open, foe automatically hits"-fumbling Humakti who took a 20 hits critically to his chest). Nobody complained though. They knew they had done something really stupid. /Peter Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting > to see how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to > copy from you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard > to kill PC's, you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every > time I start on a new campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, > killing characters that dies instead of fudging. A hack and slasher > like you must find it very wierd that during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, > I've never killed a PC! > > >> From: Rich Allen >> I *like* the fact that in RQ, my character can die at any time, in >> any situation, with little rhyme or reason. I don't think it's a bad >> GM who allows the dice to dictate the flow of the game. As some of >> you have said, if you're having fun, you're doing it right. >> >> I remember one RQ session in particular, I had *three* PCs die within >> about four hours. I loved it, I had a great time and the deaths all >> made sense in the context of the game. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. > Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rico at ricosweb.com Fri Mar 12 01:58:18 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:58:18 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200431175818.239671@laptop> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:36:23 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see > how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from > you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, > you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new > campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies > instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd that > during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! I don't like to kill off PC's when I'm the GM either, but I don't fudge the die rolls when it happens. The example I gave where I lost three PCs was when I was a player, not the GM. :) The games ran by that particular GM were strictly by the book, no house rules at all. They were a lot of fun, too! I've never been in a situation, as a GM, where a sudden/unexpected PC death caused an inturruption in the story, because I improvise about 95% of the game. Even those rare times when the party must explore a *dungeon* (shudder) it's usually done by me mapping out a few rooms ahead of the party, on the fly. That leads to me designing a large room suitable for camping at the end of the session, or if the PCs have had a suitably tough battle I can end the map or lead it off into the next part of the campaign. It works for me. :) I don't have a problem with changing (or creating on the spot) something to make it easier on the players before they've encountered it. And better yet, making it tougher if they're having too easy a time of it. I *do* have a big problem with changing something after it has already happened. I think that's the crux of this discussion. Rich From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Mar 12 03:04:49 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:04:49 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <21027121.1079021089764.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Rich, You've hit upon the crux indeed. I also prefer to be a bit more add-hoc in setting up adventures and was rather good at it (if I say so myself) back when I was playing every weekend many, many years ago. I also really dislike changing things after they've happened and will only do so 1) if the mistake was obviously mine, 2) the players make a good case for the change, and 3) it's caught before any significant events in campaign have occurred because of the mistake. I've found that I actually have to spend more adventure development time the less time my group has to play simply because I now tend to forget some of the rules my players remember. I'm saying it's the lack of play time, not age. Yeah! Yeah, that's the ticket! *muttermutter* I do have to say that the lack of play time has forced me to sit down and document/streamline all my house rules that I've gathered over the years. It's actually made for a tighter, faster game flow. Using a laptop optimized for graphics display and rules reference during play also helps. Now THAT is dream come true! David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Rich Allen Sent: Mar 11, 2004 8:58 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:36:23 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see > how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from > you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, > you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new > campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies > instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd that > during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! I don't like to kill off PC's when I'm the GM either, but I don't fudge the die rolls when it happens. The example I gave where I lost three PCs was when I was a player, not the GM. :) The games ran by that particular GM were strictly by the book, no house rules at all. They were a lot of fun, too! I've never been in a situation, as a GM, where a sudden/unexpected PC death caused an inturruption in the story, because I improvise about 95% of the game. Even those rare times when the party must explore a *dungeon* (shudder) it's usually done by me mapping out a few rooms ahead of the party, on the fly. That leads to me designing a large room suitable for camping at the end of the session, or if the PCs have had a suitably tough battle I can end the map or lead it off into the next part of the campaign. It works for me. :) I don't have a problem with changing (or creating on the spot) something to make it easier on the players before they've encountered it. And better yet, making it tougher if they're having too easy a time of it. I *do* have a big problem with changing something after it has already happened. I think that's the crux of this discussion. Rich _______________________________________________ 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 carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 03:40:22 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:40:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Origins of RuneQuest In-Reply-To: <00f201c4065a$d0534d40$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <20040311164022.37468.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> It was definately RQ3. I also refereed the first public demo of RQ3 at Origins '84, the day before I did the same for my Mythworld. Apparently enough of my contributions got in that while I didn't get a credit line in RQ3 books, I did get permission to use the Gloranthan critters for the Mythworld Bestiary, and they are still there in the revised (expanded) version of Mythworld currently in testplaying. Unlike certain (unnamed) game systems which require a totally new tooling up ever decade (or less), we will have a single small booklet which will enable players of the original Mythworld to make the changes necessary to continue playing under the expanded system. This will include the minor rule changes, plus all the expansion material (religions in the Spell book, critters in the Bestiary, artifacts in the Outfitter, etc. Unfortunately, we have no estimated date of release for the new one, so you can still get the old version for $35.00 (+ $5.00 overseas) from 1127 Cedar, Bonham, TX 75418, and update with the expansion book. Paul Cardwell --- Steve Perrin wrote: > I'm not sure Paul isn't talking about RQ4... > > We had a lot of input from a lot of people on RQ3. > Some advice we took was > probably the wrong advice, and a bunch of that > probably came internally > (like from me). > > I know Paul has been playing the game a long time, > so he might have been > corresponding with us about RQ3, but there was never > a chance that someone > from outside the office was going to have the final > say in the direction of > the game. As it was, I think too many people had a > say even from within the > office. > > But I was spending a lot of time on projects like > Superworld and Elfquest, > so some of the decision-making on RQ3 passed me by. > It's really Greg and > Sandy's game, based on what I had done before and > what I added for that > edition. > > And that's about as much history as I can come up > with at this late > notice... > > Steve Perrin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hibbs, Phil" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:28 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Origins of RuneQuest > > > > Paul Cardwell: > > >Actually, Mythworld is even more "realistic", and > > >indeed missed being the basis for RQ3 partly by > being > > >too detailed in its realism for Greg's taste. > > > > Is this true, Steve? Care to give the kids a > history lesson? :-) > > > > Phil Hibbs > > > > > > > ======================================================= > > This message contains information that may be > privileged or confidential > and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young > Group. It is intended > only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you > are not the intended > recipient, you are not 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. > > > ======================================================= > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 04:16:28 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:16:28 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls References: <14DE08BD.2FDD639A.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <049101c4078c$987f1e20$47904d44@DCNL6S01> A GM can fudge and still keep players on edge. To overrule dice whenever a player death is indicated would indeed reduce the perceived risk of the game and spoil it for players who are skilled tacticians. Nothing risked, nothing (worthwhile) gained. But fudging, when applied sparingly and discreetly, can season a game for reasons already mentioned. As a rule, a fudging GM will sit back and watch as players' favorite PCs die horribly and irrevocably; however, a good fudge--implemented to allow a reasonable change in fate, and only rarely--can prevent a session from ending before the pizza has even been delivered. Conversely, a GM who never fudges can still bore players. Once again, it's all about discretion: a lousy non-fudging GM will become known as the Player Slayer, while a good one will simply be known as a good GM--same as a good fudging GM. As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose an NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC is. For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll of 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how often he hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the other hand, I am just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ""RuneQuest rules discussion."" Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In a message dated 3/10/2004 6:35:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, jellen at ameritech.net writes: > So Devin, are you saying that, under no circumstances whatsoever, would you > as GM fudge a roll? Not even if you were trying to introduce your child or > significant other to the game, and they took a critical to > the head in their > first melee? Yes, I am saying exactly that. And this having run a 9 year RQ campaign, then a 10 year 2nd ed D&D campaign and now in the midst of a going on 2 year 3rd ed D&D campaign. My players all know, to a man woman and child that I won't fudge dice. Thus, for every combat they are on edge. They have told me that my stance on not fudging makes my combat more tense and more exciting than those with GMs they know or think do fudge. Even then, in RQ and 2nd ed D&D I'd roll behind the screen because...well that's how it was always done. But in 3rd ed, I finally decided...screw it, I'll roll all attack rolls and saves and damage right out in the open. In our session before last the PCs were jumped by a very tough group of mercenaries. One guy, already low on hit points, got criticaled by a battle axe. As it turned out, the damage done took him to -9 hp, which in D&D terms is 1 away from death. I can guarantee if I had rolled that damage behind the screen, he would have had at least some place in his mind wondering if I had fudged it. But out in the open, he watched me roll the 20 and confirm the critical. He then watched me roll the damage. And he knew I didn't have precise tabs on how many hp he had left. It was all the ebb and flow of battle. Devin From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 04:27:42 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:27:42 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging References: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> <40502BB4.1060703@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <049a01c4078e$295a9810$47904d44@DCNL6S01> You're arguing that if a GM fudges once on behalf of a player, he should always intervene to spare that or any other PCs life. But the pro-fudgers among us are saying that fudging should be used with discretion. Yes, I might fudge to spare Zelligar's life if the player has been contributing to keeping the game fun, and if Zelligar didn't just imperil himself for no good reason, and if the outcome of my non-intervention would be a dead Zelligar and a bored player for the rest of the session. On the other hand (true story), I did not intervene when one of my AD&D players got very drunk and had his wizard stick his wand of fire into his mouth and deliberately discharged, killing himself and half the party (and Raise Dead doesn't work on ashes). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Johansson" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:04 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? My biggest problem with fudging/cheating/etc is that it is impossible to be fair. If I fudge a damage roll against a PC in a fight, how can I kill off another PC in a fight later on? This doesn?t mean that it has never happened, but I cheat very, very rarely. I rather prefer not to put myself in to a situation of having to cheat. I think Bjorn's (?) example of not actually rolling for the three bow men in an earlier post is a good way of avoiding those kind of situations. /Peter J From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 04:28:38 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:28:38 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 12 References: <40502D1D.3000300@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <049f01c4078e$4aaf7620$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Agreed: great job on behalf of both player and GM. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Johansson" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 12 Andrew Larsen wrote: >I recently had a minor crisis in my RQ campaign. A Uroxi PC frenzied during a combat. Another PC (who was his cousin) tried to bring him out of the frenzy, but failed to. The Uroxi responded by attacking his would-be helper, hit him in the abdomen, and did maximum damage, which was enough to kill him outright. (No question of fudging, since I wasn't rolling any of the dice.) This was a serious problem. In addition to being out of a major PC, this also raised the spectre of kinslaying and chaos for a character who was dedicated to fighting chaos. While I was trying to decide what to do, one of the PCs suggesting trying to invoke the power of a local holy spot they hadn't explored at all. So rather than seriously disrupting the game, I allowed a Resurrection to happen. It was fudging, but a less offensive one, I hope. > In my book, this is not fudging or cheating the dice, it is being creative. What is really good in your story above is that the use of the local holy spot was on the initiative of a PC and when you allowed the PC:s to use the holy spot, it is a typical example of good Game mastering.. /Peter J From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 04:49:02 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:49:02 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <200431175818.239671@laptop> Message-ID: <04cc01c40791$24314e80$47904d44@DCNL6S01> I don't think it is. Fudging = overruling a die roll before announcing the results of that roll to the players. Wishy-washy GMing = saying, "forget what I said earlier; here's what actually happened." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Allen" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? ...I *do* have a big problem with changing something after it has already happened. I think that's the crux of this discussion. Rich From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Mar 12 05:07:46 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:07:46 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging In-Reply-To: <049a01c4078e$295a9810$47904d44@DCNL6S01> References: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> <40502BB4.1060703@padrigu.gu.se> <049a01c4078e$295a9810$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Message-ID: <4050AAF2.4030407@padrigu.gu.se> Actually, I was trying to raise an issue that sometimes bother me after fudging a roll. If a save one character once in an everday combat situation, do I have to save all characters in similiar situations in the future? How do I as a GM legitimize my actions, not to the players, since they will never know if I moved a critical hit from the head to the left arm, but to myself. Or in short: it bothers me somewhat that I might be favourising some players... Fairness is a key issue to me when being a GM and it irritates me quite a lot when I am a player if a PC/player is treated in an unfair way by the GM. I don't believe however that strict compliance to the rules and the dices is the best way of dealing with this, hence the occasional fudge... I'm just worried over the fairness factor. Regarding your AD&D story below, that was hilarious, although I guess that half of the party that died didn't think so. :-) /Peter J and/or Ellen wrote: >You're arguing that if a GM fudges once on behalf of a player, he should >always intervene to spare that or any other PCs life. But the pro-fudgers >among us are saying that fudging should be used with discretion. Yes, I >might fudge to spare Zelligar's life if the player has been contributing to >keeping the game fun, and if Zelligar didn't just imperil himself for no >good reason, and if the outcome of my non-intervention would be a dead >Zelligar and a bored player for the rest of the session. On the other hand >(true story), I did not intervene when one of my AD&D players got very drunk >and had his wizard stick his wand of fire into his mouth and deliberately >discharged, killing himself and half the party (and Raise Dead doesn't work >on ashes). > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Johansson" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:04 AM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > >My biggest problem with fudging/cheating/etc is that it is impossible to >be fair. If I fudge a damage roll against a PC in a fight, how can I >kill off another PC in a fight later on? This doesn?t mean that it has >never happened, but I cheat very, very rarely. > >I rather prefer not to put myself in to a situation of having to cheat. >I think Bjorn's (?) example of not actually rolling for the three bow >men in an earlier post is a good way of avoiding those kind of situations. > > /Peter J > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 06:21:34 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:21:34 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <32319EA1.3BD89A77.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 5:31:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > Try not to! "let go of your fudge-spotting abilities, and > focus on the > setting" I can't I play RPGs for a variety of reasons, only one of which is storytelling/experiencing. I also play: 1. To experience emotions and intensity I cannot or would rather not experience in real life 2. To enjoy the tactical aspects of RP combat (heresy I know to some of you, but as a grognard wargamer, I enjoy the tactical aspects of combat). 3. To experience a tense and thrilling time 4. To enjoy the company of friends to work towards a concerted goal. Fudging is antithetical to #1 and #3 IMO. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 06:23:57 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:23:57 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <755BFA12.1CAB82CB.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 5:45:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: > Most of the current mob I play D&D with use the "time of Day" Metaphore - > Full health is Dawn, at death's door (-1 to -9 HP in D&D) is sunset. I'm > considering thenext time I run forcing them to make Heal checks before they > can use that description, but given how fundamentally > confused D&D is about > what a hit point represents, I'm not sure it's worth it. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton Yeah, what the heck does it mean when a fighter with 100 hit points takes 10 points of damage? To many minds it means he wasn't even scratched, just winded a bit from the maneuvers necessary to parry the attack. This is where RQ bests D&D, in the intuitive and graphic depiction of combat. In RQ, you know exactly what 4 hit points to the right arm means. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 06:26:32 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:26:32 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <7213BC12.37BEA994.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 11:04:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, jurrubin at earthlink.net writes: > Rich, > > You've hit upon the crux indeed. I also prefer to be a bit more add-hoc in setting up adventures and was rather good at it (if I say so myself) back when I was playing every weekend many, many years ago. > > I also really dislike changing things after they've happened and will only do so 1) if the mistake was obviously mine, 2) the players make a good case for the change, and 3) it's caught before any significant events in campaign have occurred because of the mistake. > > I've found that I actually have to spend more adventure development time the less time my group has to play simply because I now tend to forget some of the rules my players remember. I'm saying it's the lack of play time, not age. Yeah! Yeah, that's the ticket! > > *muttermutter* > > I do have to say that the lack of play time has forced me to sit down and document/streamline all my house rules that I've gathered over the years. It's actually made for a tighter, faster game flow. > > Using a laptop optimized for graphics display and rules > reference during play also helps. Now THAT is dream come true! > > David Smart Interesting the different GMing styles. For example, I meticulously and scrupulously prepare every detail of a scenario ahead of time. I write it up as fully as any D&D or RQ module you've seen published...maps, stats, even boxed text. Devin From bick10 at comcast.net Fri Mar 12 06:32:27 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:32:27 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <031120041932.3833.1885@comcast.net> > Bjorn Stolen > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see > how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from > you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, > you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new > campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies > instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd that > during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! Don't worry about it Bjorn. I would worry myself about it too. Killing PC's is not the goal in my games either. I find it more interesting and challanging to give them a fight that tests them, leaves them poor in HP and MP. I will tell you the easiest way to kill a PC is to let them perform the really stupid stunt. Now I try to be a helpful GM. After all, we live in this world and play in another. But sometimes Players just won't listen. Not long ago, the group decided to pry open a crypt which they KNEW was trapped. I told them they did not have the proper tools and should go find some. Nope, they pushed on. Ended up lowering a PC into the pit with a spring door closing, cutting the rope, sending the PC into the bottom. Normally an adventure would die on the spikes, but I thought it would be fun plug the drain and let him fight to stay afloat while the others worked frantically to get him out. Nope, he had to make that special DEX roll to grab small side tunnel on the way down. Break into the inner sanctum, lose an even up fight with a ghost, then finally drown when the ghost controlled him into the water at the bottom of the pit. That was a much more satisfying PC death than a PC that dies from a simple crit early in the night, early in the fight. Jim Bickmeyer From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 06:34:55 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:34:55 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls Message-ID: <73D01C27.6C18E3BC.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, jellen at ameritech.net writes: > Conversely, a GM who never fudges can still bore players. Once again, it's > all about discretion: a lousy non-fudging GM will become known as the Player > Slayer, while a good one will simply be known as a good GM--same as a good > fudging GM. Interestingly, I never fudge and have not had a problem with player deaths in D&D. In 12 years od D&D I have killed 3 PCs, and one of those was raised from the dead. In RQ before that, yes, there were many deaths. So, as a sort of nod to the post that started this thread, I think it is far easier not to fudge in D&D than in RQ. > > As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose an > NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC is. > For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll of > 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I > believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how often he > hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by > observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You > might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the > players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the > other hand, I am > just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. Interestingly, I used to think that way. Then I made the decision to roll in the open purely on non-fudging issue, but a funny thing happened....I slowly realized that rolling in the open is more realistic not less. Example: A measely, plain seeming trollkin makes 4 attacks over 4 rounds against you. 2 are special hits, 1 a critical, and 1 a normal hit. None are misses. Let's say in reality, this trollkin has a 35% attack and the DM just rolled really well. What should the player presume? In a rolling-behind-the-screen situation, the players (and by proxy their PCs) are going to assume that this is some chaos ubber trollking runelord. But, it is clear in an absolute sense that this trolling just got blindingly lucky. Why would the PCs draw their runelord conclusion from that? The trollking is not, presumably, using complex combat maneuvers that display amazing intuitive fighting sense, exotic fighting styles, or displays of deftness. The little runt is basically closing his eyes and swinging as hard as he can and is getting lucky. I feel that any decent adventurer (in this case the term means someone who has been exposed to combat enough to recognize a 35% amateur from a 95% runelord) should pretty much be able to tell instantly whether a foe is fighting with complex and unique fighting style or is flailing around, irrespective of the actual dice rolls. Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 06:38:14 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:38:14 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging Message-ID: <18E3AB85.076CEF8B.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 1:07:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se writes: > Actually, I was trying to raise an issue that sometimes bother me after > fudging a roll. If a save one character once in an everday combat > situation, do I have to save all characters in similiar situations in > the future? How do I as a GM legitimize my actions, not to the players, > since they will never know if I moved a critical hit from the head to > the left arm, but to myself. Or in short: it bothers me somewhat that I > might be favourising some players... Fairness is a key issue to me when > being a GM and it irritates me quite a lot when I am a > player if a > PC/player is treated in an unfair way by the GM. This is why at the start of this thread I asked the question "how does a GM decide when to fudge"? Any answer one gives is likely to be fairly generalized and vague, meaning it can somewhat depend on how you felt getting up in the morning that day, whether you had a fight with your boyfriend, personal likes and dislikes of the GM towards indivudual players, etc. Further, whether consciously or unconsciously, I believe such an attitude tends to focus players less on what THEY would do or want to do and more on what they perceive the GM wants them to do....because doing something that in the DM's mind is stupid loses you your fudge safety net. Devin From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 07:02:07 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:02:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Cannot Fudging just as well be, many other things than ignoring a dice-result? I Fudge in many ways from time to time. I once fudged in a werewof-campagin (white-wolf). The players came to a holy spot where they actually encountered the Fenris wolf (a really powerful spirit in my setting). Allthough the players were werewolves, and thus potential allies of Fenris, they somehow managed to act so stupid that I decided Fenris should teach them a lesson, so he trashed them good, and stackted them under his forepaw. That was my (the GM) way of telling the players ingame that they had acted rather stupid. Now I didn't roll any dice during this encounter, and I was later told that I should have rolled some dices just to give the players the impression that there was a brawl... Now why did I not do this one within the rules? -Becaus I had to make a choise: Had they insulted the Fenriswolf? -Yes. Did I want to end the campagin there, and have all the characters making new ones? -No. >From: "J and/or Ellen" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:49:02 -0600 > >I don't think it is. Fudging = overruling a die roll before announcing the >results of that roll to the players. Wishy-washy GMing = saying, "forget >what I said earlier; here's what actually happened." _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 07:05:33 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:05:33 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging Message-ID: Good point. I allso have theese dilemmas, and that's why I before every session decide that I don't want to fudge any rolls next time. When I advocate the use of fudging, it's on a purely principal basis; that it has its use from time to time, but that it should not be done much. I find fudging especially tempting when I improvise encounters, often not even having made up the stats or skills of the opponents, just deciding on total HP, which weapons, armor and skills they have. >From: Peter Johansson >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:07:46 +0100 > >Actually, I was trying to raise an issue that sometimes bother me after >fudging a roll. If a save one character once in an everday combat >situation, do I have to save all characters in similiar situations in the >future? How do I as a GM legitimize my actions, not to the players, since >they will never know if I moved a critical hit from the head to the left >arm, but to myself. Or in short: it bothers me somewhat that I might be >favourising some players... Fairness is a key issue to me when being a GM >and it irritates me quite a lot when I am a player if a PC/player is >treated in an unfair way by the GM. > >I don't believe however that strict compliance to the rules and the dices >is the best way of dealing with this, hence the occasional fudge... I'm >just worried over the fairness factor. > >Regarding your AD&D story below, that was hilarious, although I guess that >half of the party that died didn't think so. :-) > > /Peter _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 07:16:33 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:16:33 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls Message-ID: WOW, it's so fun to see how different we roleplay, Devin!!! My way of giving players hints on how good NPC's are, is purely based on the experience of the PC. If it's the watchman checking out the inn, i give him much more hint's on who's a proe, and who's a wannabee/groupie, than when I describe the situation to the postman. If someone with, say 80% in any combat skills are up against enemies, I let him know fairly early in the fight wether the opposition is a"orc nr. 7 from the left"-type of enemy or an "Aragorn"-type of enemy. If it's the farmers son beeing in his first combat ever, I try to describe the situation as dramatically and lethal as possible. I still mean that people sitting in a sofa calculating dice results to analyze the potential threat from an NPC have much more to do in a war/boardgame, than in a roleplaygame, but then again; we're different, and I wish you as much fun with your dice-maniacs-and-no-fugers-games as I have with my games. >From: DevinC at aol.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com ("RuneQuest rules discussion.") >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:34:55 -0500 > >In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jellen at ameritech.net writes: > > > Conversely, a GM who never fudges can still bore players. Once again, >it's > > all about discretion: a lousy non-fudging GM will become known as the >Player > > Slayer, while a good one will simply be known as a good GM--same as a >good > > fudging GM. > >Interestingly, I never fudge and have not had a problem with player deaths >in D&D. In 12 years od D&D I have killed 3 PCs, and one of those was raised >from the dead. > >In RQ before that, yes, there were many deaths. > >So, as a sort of nod to the post that started this thread, I think it is >far easier not to fudge in D&D than in RQ. > > > > > As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose >an > > NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC >is. > > For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll >of > > 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I > > believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how >often he > > hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by > > observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You > > might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the > > players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the > > other hand, I am > > just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. > >Interestingly, I used to think that way. Then I made the decision to roll >in the open purely on non-fudging issue, but a funny thing happened....I >slowly realized that rolling in the open is more realistic not less. > >Example: > >A measely, plain seeming trollkin makes 4 attacks over 4 rounds against >you. 2 are special hits, 1 a critical, and 1 a normal hit. None are misses. > >Let's say in reality, this trollkin has a 35% attack and the DM just rolled >really well. > >What should the player presume? > >In a rolling-behind-the-screen situation, the players (and by proxy their >PCs) are going to assume that this is some chaos ubber trollking runelord. >But, it is clear in an absolute sense that this trolling just got >blindingly lucky. Why would the PCs draw their runelord conclusion from >that? The trollking is not, presumably, using complex combat maneuvers that >display amazing intuitive fighting sense, exotic fighting styles, or >displays of deftness. The little runt is basically closing his eyes and >swinging as hard as he can and is getting lucky. > >I feel that any decent adventurer (in this case the term means someone who >has been exposed to combat enough to recognize a 35% amateur from a 95% >runelord) should pretty much be able to tell instantly whether a foe is >fighting with complex and unique fighting style or is flailing around, >irrespective of the actual dice rolls. > >Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the >results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a >miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough >for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From rico at ricosweb.com Fri Mar 12 07:17:49 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:17:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <04cc01c40791$24314e80$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Message-ID: <2004311131749.691477@laptop> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:49:02 -0600, J and/or Ellen wrote: > I don't think it is. Fudging = overruling a die roll before announcing the > results of that roll to the players. Wishy-washy GMing = saying, "forget > what I said earlier; here's what actually happened." If you are changing the result of a die roll, you are changing something that has already happened, by definition. If you roll your dice in the open, like me, then it's obvious you are changing a result after the fact. Just because you might roll your dice behind a screen doesn't change that fact. In my (not so humble) opinion you may as well just ignore the dice and simply decide if the PC is hit, where and by how much. If you aren't going to abide by the die roll every single time, why even bother? ;) Rich Allen From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri Mar 12 07:27:46 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:27:46 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ond/Aand Rules Message-ID: <410-220043411202746937@earthlink.net> As requested here is the typed up Ond/Aand (Sorry Bjorn, I'm using the common convention for spelling it for convenience sake) rules that includes my resurection rules (see bullet 10). Outraged & moralistic screams (LOL) of "fudging" I'm sure will arise but it is as it is & I don't consider a formal method like this to be fudging. If anyone wants this in MSWord format or can't read this in the html format please email me & I'll send it to you in a readable format. I hope all of you enjoy this & find it useful: Ond/Aand: Breath of the Gods ? Based on the Old Norse lore of luck & life. Hamingja is your luck & the magical breath is its expression. 7 elements (called Breaths): Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Sun, Moon, & Luck Each breath is associated with an element as in the chart below. Elements SunMoonLuck/SpiritForest/EarthWind /AirYeast/FireOcean/Water CharacteristicStrengthAppearancePowerConstitutionIntelligenceSizeDexterity AttributesAgility, Manip.Comm., KnowledgeMagic Pts, Magic, Luck rollsHP, Percep.Comm., Know., Magic, Manip., Percep.HP, Dam., SR.,SR., Agility, Manip., Stealth SpecieHumanAlfarAllTroll & DwarfDwarfTroll & HumanAlfar WorldMidgardVanaheimHelJotunheim, SvartalfheimAsgardMuspelheimLjossalfheim, DeityFrigga, SunnaFreyr, ManiFreyja/OdhinnFreyrOdhinnThorrFreyja Attributes are built from the characteristics thus each attribute is built from a combination of Ond Breaths. Focus only on the primary & secondary components. Also deities are often associated with one or more Onds. For example: Volund (Weyland), God of the Forge, is associated with Fire/Yeast in the Nordic Mythos. Gain Ond like a power gain roll related to an appropriate Breath. The chance for rolling for an Ond increase is at the discretion of the GM based on actions. For example reading a tome that focuses on a certain Ond, performing a heroic action, completing a difficult ritual magic, a divine spell, performing a service or ritual to the spirits or a Deity. The Ond roll is in the appropriate Ond. As in the example above: performing a ritual armoring enchantment on a helm with the aid of Volund the PC would have a chance at a Fire Ond roll. Luck Ond gains are often awarded when the PC gets away with something really lucky. Sacrifice Ond to have a chance at upping a characteristic, or attribute, even above race limits. Sorcery uses it to enhance certain enchantings (perhaps even to give characteristics to object) Sacrifice: Each point of Ond sacrificed gives 10% chance of raising an attribute up to 120%. Two points of Ond sacrificed gives 10% chance of raising a characteristic above that. Each point of Ond sacrificed gives a 5% chance of raising a characteristic up to species maximum & each 2 points sacrificed gives 6% to raise it above species maximum. Outside of the normal listed Runequest 3 methods of raising an attribute, raising a characteristic or attribute can only be done by sacrificing the corresponding type of Ond. Any Ond can be used as a divine sacrifice for a resurrection chance at the permanent loss of 1d6+1 Ond & 1d3+1 Power. The PC can combine different Onds for this roll. Then roll a 10% x the amount of Ond lost chance of immediate resurrection at 1d4 HP. Power & Ond then can be recovered in the normal fashion. If the character does not have sufficient Ond as determined by the above method then the character can enter a duel on the God plane for a chance to prove themselves before the Gods & win resurrection. At the GM?s discretion this can take place immediately or at the end/pause of the adventure. The duel can either be at full value spirit combat, or at 50% values for a physical combat. The GM chooses an appropriate matching opponent. Any criticals scored during the combat add 10% of the character?s total hit-points back upon resurrection. Thus it is possible for a character to do a real Gandalf here. If the character fails this final chance of resurrection the character is assumed to have been taken back to his maker. Oh well, the Gods must have really wanted this one back home or to climb on the wheel of life for another reincarnation again. Luck Ond, can be used without sacrifice as a modifier for luck rolls It can also be sacrificed to change any roll that the PC desires. Sven Lugar freyrvanic at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~freyrvanic/ Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 07:29:12 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:29:12 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Evaluating Skill of Melee Foes References: <73D01C27.6C18E3BC.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <050a01c407a7$84146b00$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Okay, SCA members: how well are you able to evaluate your opponents in combat? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ""RuneQuest rules discussion."" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, jellen at ameritech.net writes: > Conversely, a GM who never fudges can still bore players. Once again, it's > all about discretion: a lousy non-fudging GM will become known as the Player > Slayer, while a good one will simply be known as a good GM--same as a good > fudging GM. Interestingly, I never fudge and have not had a problem with player deaths in D&D. In 12 years od D&D I have killed 3 PCs, and one of those was raised from the dead. In RQ before that, yes, there were many deaths. So, as a sort of nod to the post that started this thread, I think it is far easier not to fudge in D&D than in RQ. > > As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose an > NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC is. > For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll of > 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I > believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how often he > hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by > observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You > might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the > players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the > other hand, I am > just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. Interestingly, I used to think that way. Then I made the decision to roll in the open purely on non-fudging issue, but a funny thing happened....I slowly realized that rolling in the open is more realistic not less. Example: A measely, plain seeming trollkin makes 4 attacks over 4 rounds against you. 2 are special hits, 1 a critical, and 1 a normal hit. None are misses. Let's say in reality, this trollkin has a 35% attack and the DM just rolled really well. What should the player presume? In a rolling-behind-the-screen situation, the players (and by proxy their PCs) are going to assume that this is some chaos ubber trollking runelord. But, it is clear in an absolute sense that this trolling just got blindingly lucky. Why would the PCs draw their runelord conclusion from that? The trollking is not, presumably, using complex combat maneuvers that display amazing intuitive fighting sense, exotic fighting styles, or displays of deftness. The little runt is basically closing his eyes and swinging as hard as he can and is getting lucky. I feel that any decent adventurer (in this case the term means someone who has been exposed to combat enough to recognize a 35% amateur from a 95% runelord) should pretty much be able to tell instantly whether a foe is fighting with complex and unique fighting style or is flailing around, irrespective of the actual dice rolls. Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. Devin From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 07:20:43 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:20:43 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging References: <6725D79F.0131129D.00047AF1@aol.com> <40502BB4.1060703@padrigu.gu.se><049a01c4078e$295a9810$47904d44@DCNL6S01> <4050AAF2.4030407@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <04fb01c407a6$553133f0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Getting meta, fudging is done best when it's favoring the game, regardless of whether a PC is being blessed or screwed. Sometimes it favors a PC, as when the GM overrules a die roll to spare an unfortunate character's life; sometimes it works to the detriment of a PC, as when the GM overrules the weather software in order to slow down the party's journey with heavy rain, thereby allowing events to transpire at the party's destination in the party's absence. Inconveniencing the party with a GM-forced deluge may have spared them from the slaughter that an army of Broo inflicted on the village that the party's heading for--screwing the party on one level, favoring them (and, much more importantly, the game) on another. Minutes after the fireball fiasco, the rest of the party died while invisibly limping to the dungeon exit past some hell hounds--very bad idea, given their canine sense of smell. Thus ended a 2?-year (real-time) campaign playing the Giants series of modules. It was sad to end it, but given that we still joke about the fireball fiasco decades later, it was ultimately a good ending. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Johansson" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging Actually, I was trying to raise an issue that sometimes bother me after fudging a roll. If a save one character once in an everday combat situation, do I have to save all characters in similiar situations in the future? How do I as a GM legitimize my actions, not to the players, since they will never know if I moved a critical hit from the head to the left arm, but to myself. Or in short: it bothers me somewhat that I might be favourising some players... Fairness is a key issue to me when being a GM and it irritates me quite a lot when I am a player if a PC/player is treated in an unfair way by the GM. I don't believe however that strict compliance to the rules and the dices is the best way of dealing with this, hence the occasional fudge... I'm just worried over the fairness factor. Regarding your AD&D story below, that was hilarious, although I guess that half of the party that died didn't think so. :-) /Peter J and/or Ellen wrote: >You're arguing that if a GM fudges once on behalf of a player, he should >always intervene to spare that or any other PCs life. But the pro-fudgers >among us are saying that fudging should be used with discretion. Yes, I >might fudge to spare Zelligar's life if the player has been contributing to >keeping the game fun, and if Zelligar didn't just imperil himself for no >good reason, and if the outcome of my non-intervention would be a dead >Zelligar and a bored player for the rest of the session. On the other hand >(true story), I did not intervene when one of my AD&D players got very drunk >and had his wizard stick his wand of fire into his mouth and deliberately >discharged, killing himself and half the party (and Raise Dead doesn't work >on ashes). > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Peter Johansson" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:04 AM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > > >My biggest problem with fudging/cheating/etc is that it is impossible to >be fair. If I fudge a damage roll against a PC in a fight, how can I >kill off another PC in a fight later on? This doesn?t mean that it has >never happened, but I cheat very, very rarely. > >I rather prefer not to put myself in to a situation of having to cheat. >I think Bjorn's (?) example of not actually rolling for the three bow >men in an earlier post is a good way of avoiding those kind of situations. > > /Peter J > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 07:45:42 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:45:42 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging References: <18E3AB85.076CEF8B.00047AF1@aol.com> Message-ID: <051301c407a9$d2343200$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Doesn't that fit into the category of taoism? And haven't you ever had days when you swear that God is out to get you? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ""RuneQuest rules discussion."" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] More on Fudging ...Further, whether consciously or unconsciously, I believe such an attitude tends to focus players less on what THEY would do or want to do and more on what they perceive the GM wants them to do....because doing something that in the DM's mind is stupid loses you your fudge safety net. Devin From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 08:03:02 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:03:02 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: <2004311131749.691477@laptop> Message-ID: <052d01c407ac$3e896ea0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Dice are merely tools for decision-making, like when you toss a coin; nothing happens until the GM says it does. A PC can roll for damage, but that doesn't mean that the full amount (or any) is going to be suffered by his opponent. Why, you ask, do I bother to roll dice if I'm just going to overrule certain results anyway? Because I'm only going to overrule *certain* results (e.g. critical to the head) on *certain* occasions (e.g. five minutes into the game). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Allen" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:49:02 -0600, J and/or Ellen wrote: > I don't think it is. Fudging = overruling a die roll before announcing the > results of that roll to the players. Wishy-washy GMing = saying, "forget > what I said earlier; here's what actually happened." If you are changing the result of a die roll, you are changing something that has already happened, by definition. If you roll your dice in the open, like me, then it's obvious you are changing a result after the fact. Just because you might roll your dice behind a screen doesn't change that fact. In my (not so humble) opinion you may as well just ignore the dice and simply decide if the PC is hit, where and by how much. If you aren't going to abide by the die roll every single time, why even bother? ;) Rich Allen From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Mar 12 08:05:53 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:05:53 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Evaluating Skill of Melee Foes Message-ID: <27880856.1079039153729.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Not that I'm SCA or anything but... When it's all said and done, who's dead and who's alive? David Smart -----Original Message----- From: J and/or Ellen Sent: Mar 11, 2004 2:29 PM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: [RQ-Rules] Evaluating Skill of Melee Foes Okay, SCA members: how well are you able to evaluate your opponents in combat? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ""RuneQuest rules discussion."" Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, jellen at ameritech.net writes: > Conversely, a GM who never fudges can still bore players. Once again, it's > all about discretion: a lousy non-fudging GM will become known as the Player > Slayer, while a good one will simply be known as a good GM--same as a good > fudging GM. Interestingly, I never fudge and have not had a problem with player deaths in D&D. In 12 years od D&D I have killed 3 PCs, and one of those was raised from the dead. In RQ before that, yes, there were many deaths. So, as a sort of nod to the post that started this thread, I think it is far easier not to fudge in D&D than in RQ. > > As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose an > NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC is. > For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll of > 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I > believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how often he > hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by > observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You > might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the > players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the > other hand, I am > just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. Interestingly, I used to think that way. Then I made the decision to roll in the open purely on non-fudging issue, but a funny thing happened....I slowly realized that rolling in the open is more realistic not less. Example: A measely, plain seeming trollkin makes 4 attacks over 4 rounds against you. 2 are special hits, 1 a critical, and 1 a normal hit. None are misses. Let's say in reality, this trollkin has a 35% attack and the DM just rolled really well. What should the player presume? In a rolling-behind-the-screen situation, the players (and by proxy their PCs) are going to assume that this is some chaos ubber trollking runelord. But, it is clear in an absolute sense that this trolling just got blindingly lucky. Why would the PCs draw their runelord conclusion from that? The trollking is not, presumably, using complex combat maneuvers that display amazing intuitive fighting sense, exotic fighting styles, or displays of deftness. The little runt is basically closing his eyes and swinging as hard as he can and is getting lucky. I feel that any decent adventurer (in this case the term means someone who has been exposed to combat enough to recognize a 35% amateur from a 95% runelord) should pretty much be able to tell instantly whether a foe is fighting with complex and unique fighting style or is flailing around, irrespective of the actual dice rolls. Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. Devin _______________________________________________ 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 11:58:49 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:58:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls In-Reply-To: <20040311172758.D3186222719@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040312005849.71958.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> J and/or Ellen: > A GM can fudge and still keep players on edge. To overrule dice whenever a > player death is indicated would indeed reduce the perceived risk of the > game > and spoil it for players who are skilled tacticians. Nothing risked, > nothing > (worthwhile) gained. But fudging, when applied sparingly and discreetly, > can > season a game for reasons already mentioned. As a rule, a fudging GM will > sit back and watch as players' favorite PCs die horribly and irrevocably; > however, a good fudge--implemented to allow a reasonable change in fate, > and > only rarely--can prevent a session from ending before the pizza has even > been delivered. It's very difficult to die irrevocably. Being killed in Slave Bracelets is one way; being crucified is another (each day on the Death Rune counts as a day dead for Resurrect purposes - 7 days and you can't come back); being dismembered and having your head removed is another; being destoryed by chaos is another; being totally destroyed is another. Anything else and Resurrect/DI works wonders. If a party can't bring your body back to a temple after death then they are not much of a party in the first place. > As for rolling dice, I never allow players to see NPC rolls. To expose an > NPC roll is to reveal to the players approximately how skilled the NPC is. > For example, if Trogdor the Guard manages to critically hit with a roll of > 56, the players would know they're not dealing with a green recruit. I > believe that players should estimate a foe's skill by observing how often > he > hits and how well (i.e. frequency of special and critical hits), not by > observing dice rolls. The latter method would detract from realism. You > might say that it's not fair for Trogdor's rolls to be hidden from the > players while I as GM get to see everyone's rolls; on the other hand, I am > just rolling for Trogdor, I'm not cheering for him. Now, we had the simple idea that unless someone was trying to hide how good they are, people could tell the approximate skill of an opponent. If someone can just aout hold the end of a sword and wave it at an opponent then his fighting style is different to a seasoned veteran with a high skill. A blind man should be able to recognise someone with a skill that allows a 56 to critical (1120%). Devin: > > So Devin, are you saying that, under no circumstances whatsoever, would > you > > as GM fudge a roll? Not even if you were trying to introduce your child > or > > significant other to the game, and they took a critical to > > the head in their > > first melee? > > Yes, I am saying exactly that. And this having run a 9 year RQ campaign, > then a 10 year 2nd ed D&D campaign and now in the midst of a going on 2 > year > 3rd ed D&D campaign. > > My players all know, to a man woman and child that I won't fudge dice. > Thus, > for every combat they are on edge. They have told me that my stance on not > fudging makes my combat more tense and more exciting than those with GMs > they know or think do fudge. I'd agree, don't fudge dice rolls, but leave openings to get the character back again. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 12:18:02 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:18:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040311200218.C839B222747@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040312011802.20645.qmail@web9607.mail.yahoo.com> Devin: > Interesting the different GMing styles. > > For example, I meticulously and scrupulously prepare every detail of a > scenario ahead of time. I write it up as fully as any D&D or RQ module > you've seen published...maps, stats, even boxed text. I used to do this until time after time my players ruined my brilliant scenario by doing things they weren't supposed to. Then I hit on the idea of sketching out the scenario and improvising. This worked a treat and the players did not know when they were n the scenario or in something new. Then I stopped writing the scenario down at all and they were even more convinced that I had prepared a scenario that al,loweed them to do strange things, when in fact I was wingin mst of them. I've still got a folder full of the Tower of Lead writeup that I did only for the PCs to take one look at the tower and say "we can't go in there, we are not powerful enough", turn around and go home. It took them three real years before they went back, by which time they were so powerful they ended up agreeing to ally the tower's leader and destroying it. Rick: > Not long ago, the group decided to pry open a crypt which they KNEW was > trapped. I told them they did not have the proper tools and should go find > some. Nope, they pushed on. Ended up lowering a PC into the pit with a > spring door closing, cutting the rope, sending the PC into the bottom. > Normally an adventure would die on the spikes, but I thought it would be > fun plug the drain and let him fight to stay afloat while the others worked > frantically to get him out. Nope, he had to make that special DEX roll to > grab small side tunnel on the way down. Break into the inner sanctum, lose > an even up fight with a ghost, then finally drown when the ghost controlled > him into the water at the bottom of the pit. What would you do when an experienced RQ player runs an experienced Storm Bull Rune Lord who has fought vampires in the past and carefully looks into a room in a Vivamort temple with a mirror on the end ogf a stick, who then declares the room to be empty of vampires when he sees three empty thrones on a raised area? Do you tell them not to be so silly, let them walk through the door to certain death (each throne had a vampire mage sitting on it with their bodygaurds assembled in front of them) or drop them hints as to what they have done? I dissolved into a fit of giggles and that gave the game away. Bjorn Stolen: > I once fudged in a werewof-campagin (white-wolf). The players came to a > holy > spot where they actually encountered the Fenris wolf (a really powerful > spirit in my setting). Allthough the players were werewolves, and thus > potential allies of Fenris, they somehow managed to act so stupid that I > decided Fenris should teach them a lesson, so he trashed them good, and > stackted them under his forepaw. That was my (the GM) way of telling the > players ingame that they had acted rather stupid. Now I didn't roll any > dice > during this encounter, and I was later told that I should have rolled some > dices just to give the players the impression that there was a brawl... Now > why did I not do this one within the rules? -Becaus I had to make a choise: > > Had they insulted the Fenriswolf? -Yes. Did I want to end the campagin > there, and have all the characters making new ones? -No. Now, that's not really fudging. Werewolf is a highly narrative game anyway, so itgoes in the spirit of the game and, also, there are times in any RPG where the GM says what is happening, without rolling dice. This mostly happens when gods or ery big dragons are involved. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 12:30:21 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:30:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040310175049.D56FF222720@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040312013021.76068.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn: > I feel that dices are a distraction to the illusion the GM and the players > are trying to create, and prefere not to roll in the open for that reason > more than so I can cheat. So, does this mean that all your players also roll their dice in secret so as not to distract from the story? Sounds intersting, nobody can see what was rolled. Almost makes the point for not rolling dice at all. Simon (So appalled you couldn't believe it :-) ) ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 12:48:46 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:48:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs In-Reply-To: <20040311104125.2247622272A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040312014846.71063.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn: > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see > how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from > you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, > you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new > campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies > instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd > that > during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! Once again there's killing a PC dead and killing a PC who comes back. A resurrected PC is not really dead. I have never killed a PC in such a way that he could not come back. I've only heard of it once in our extended multi-GM campaign and that was a PC who did it. But dead and DI/Resurrec - pah, I've done that loads and loads and loads of times. Dead does not necessarily mean dead. You can even do this at low level. One scenario we had a party of 5 or 6 PCs who attaked a dragonewt caravan and things went very badly indeed with all the PCs bar one dying. He managed to slay the final dragonewt, picked up his friends, put them in the back of one of the wagons, went off to the nearest Chalana Arroy Temple and got them all resurrected, paying a deposit with the contents of the caravan and romising loads of extra cash afterwards. This left us with loads of debt, no bound spirits and a hatred of dragonewts. Then we became initiates. So, even in low level campaigns PCs can be resurrected when the GM is sympathetic. Bjorn: > >the "baker's dozen"? > -Well, I have an example of the opposite (your kind of) player, the > "Donkeytorcherer" > A fresh player got bored after your allotted 5 minutes of realistic PC/NPC > interaction, playing in a medium town in Sartar. He then decided he wanted > to plunder a magicians shop (like the one in apple lane). He realized that > he needed diversion, so he set fire to a donkey parked outside the shop.... Sounds very inventive, full marks to him. What was the 5 minutes of PC/NPC interaction? Something to move the plot along? Getting information? Setting up a useful NPC ally or plot device? Or were they just buying bread? > At that point, I wanted to pick up my stuff and leave... Why? Because he did something rash? Better to have the sherrif come along, hit him with a big stick, put him in jail and punish him severely. That way he would learn the lesson of doing things at the right time and in the right place. GMs, with the obvious exception of myself, should never be petulant or childish, so walking out would be the absolutely wrong thing to do. Having a hissy fit, that's better, picking on that PC or player for the next 2 years, that's better, having someone set the PC's horse alight each and every scenario, that's better. Walking out, that's not good at all. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri Mar 12 12:50:33 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:50:33 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ond/Aand house rule Message-ID: <410-22004351215033656@earthlink.net> Having realized that the email structure totally wasted the nice little chart I did up (it looked great on screen when I typed it into the email) I'm enclosing the link to my home page that has the rules listed. Hopefully it will look all hunky-dory now. http://home.earthlink.net/~freyrvanic/RQ3-Ond.html thanks & feel free to check out the rest of the website: I'm the wierd looking bugger in the Vendel Grave find #14 helm & chainmail. Sven Lugar freyrvanic at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~freyrvanic/ Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Mar 12 13:30:16 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:30:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs In-Reply-To: <20040312014846.71063.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040312023016.66332.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Dead does not necessarily mean dead. I got one for you. An illuminated Ogre Chalana Arroy sorceress was caught blatantly breaking her vows and tried to lie about it during her attempt to become a Priestess. The character was placed in slave bracelets, beheaded, quartered, her spirit bound to her skull which was ground to dust and scattered to the four winds in the middle of Prax. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 12 14:38:29 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:38:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <2E75DEF6.6A86CFDF.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:18:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, soltakss at yahoo.com writes: > I used to do this until time after time my players ruined my brilliant > scenario by doing things they weren't supposed to. Then I hit on the idea of > sketching out the scenario and improvising. This worked a treat and the > players did not know when they were n the scenario or in something new. Then > I stopped writing the scenario down at all and they were even more convinced > that I had prepared a scenario that al,loweed them to do strange things, when > in fact I was wingin mst of them. > > I've still got a folder full of the Tower of Lead writeup that I did only for > the PCs to take one look at the tower and say "we can't go in there, we are > not powerful enough", turn around and go home. It took them three real years > before they went back, by which time they were so powerful > they ended up > agreeing to ally the tower's leader and destroying it. That's why I design scenarios only a session in advance, and at the end of a session, if we have wrappe dup one scenario, I introduce the next or ask the players what they want to do next, so that I already know going in to designing the scenario that the players will not turn it down. Devin From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Mar 12 17:39:25 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:39:25 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? References: Message-ID: <010201c407fc$d330cbc0$68417442@wizard> I have actually killed very few RQ PCs, even when I was playing it steadily. I have actually had more deaths playing Champions, a game notorious for being hard to kill someone in. In fact, the author of the original rules told me that he designed the basic combat rules after killing a bunch of D&D characters and then asking himself why he was taking such a delight in it. Of course, I killed three (I think) of those characters because the player was tired of them and wanted a change. Some of the others were entirely unintentional. Generally a case of having overrated the PC and underrated the opposition. One character I essentially killed twice. I put him out of action the first time because the player was going to New York to do Mormon missionary work. When he came back, we "revived" the character, but then he got caught without his protection and died, valiantly. Ah well. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > Asy you'd probably guess, I disagree with you. But it's interresting to see > how others like to play their games. The one thing I'd like to copy from > you, though is the ability to kill PC's. I find it very hard to kill PC's, > you may call me a whimp, but that's how it is. Every time I start on a new > campagin, I tell myself to be a strickt PC, killing characters that dies > instead of fudging. A hack and slasher like you must find it very wierd that > during my 12 years of GM'ing RQ, I've never killed a PC! > > > >From: Rich Allen > >I *like* the fact that in RQ, my character can die at any time, in any > >situation, with little rhyme or reason. I don't think it's a bad GM who > >allows the dice to dictate the flow of the game. As some of you have said, > >if you're having fun, you're doing it right. > > > >I remember one RQ session in particular, I had *three* PCs die within about > >four hours. I loved it, I had a great time and the deaths all made sense > >in the context of the game. > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Fri Mar 12 19:43:34 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:43:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <20040312013021.76068.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040312013021.76068.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40517836.8050103@padrigu.gu.se> That's an interesting question. My players roll the dice in open but I, as the GM, never check the result. I guess there is some kind of checking going on between the players though. Sometimes players ask me to check when they are rolling for experience, particularly the Defense Bonus (RQ2) when you are supposed to roll under your INT. I also check (or rather watch) the very rare DI rolls because of the excitement involved in those situations. /Peter J Simon Phipp wrote: >Bjorn: > >>I feel that dices are a distraction to the illusion the GM and the players are trying to create, and prefere not to roll in the open for that reason more than so I can cheat. >> >> >So, does this mean that all your players also roll their dice in secret so as not to distract from the story? Sounds intersting, nobody can see what was rolled. Almost makes the point for not rolling dice at all. > >Simon (So appalled you couldn't believe it :-) ) > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Mar 12 19:50:51 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:51 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: >Yeah, what the heck does it mean when a fighter with 100 hit points takes 10 points of damage? To many minds it >means he wasn't even scratched, just winded a bit from the maneuvers necessary to parry the attack. > >This is where RQ bests D&D, in the intuitive and graphic depiction of combat. In RQ, you know exactly what 4 hit >points to the right arm means. Yes. "Ouch!" mostly, with a side order of "Somebody shoot that bl**ody Trollkin!" ;-) Cheers, Nick Middleton From jellen at ameritech.net Fri Mar 12 21:03:25 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:03:25 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Secret Rolls References: <20040312005849.71958.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <05a801c40819$42b2df80$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Fair enough. But why apply that rule to melee with nonhumans? An octopus, a ghoul, or even a troll is going to use combat techniques foreign to those of the typical PC. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Fudging & Secret Rolls ...Now, we had the simple idea that unless someone was trying to hide how good they are, people could tell the approximate skill of an opponent. If someone can just aout hold the end of a sword and wave it at an opponent then his fighting style is different to a seasoned veteran with a high skill. A blind man should be able to recognise someone with a skill that allows a 56 to critical (1120%). From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 22:50:20 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:50:20 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: -Because for some of us, the GM has just as much in common with a moviedirector as an EXE-file in a computerstrategygame >In my (not so humble) opinion you may as well just ignore the dice and >simply decide if the PC is hit, where and by how much. If you aren't going >to abide by the die roll every single time, why even bother? ;) > >Rich Allen _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 22:53:13 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:53:13 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Evaluating Skill of Melee Foes Message-ID: >Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the >results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a >miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough >for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. > >Devin To me, what you describe here is the essense of GM'ing. If it all comes down to the dicerolling, why can't the GM just hand over the campagin to the players, with stats and everything, leave, and let them do the dicerolling all together? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 23:02:08 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:02:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs Message-ID: >Bjorn: > > >the "baker's dozen"? > > -Well, I have an example of the opposite (your kind of) player, the > > "Donkeytorcherer" > > A fresh player got bored after your allotted 5 minutes of realistic >PC/NPC > > interaction, playing in a medium town in Sartar. He then decided he >wanted > > to plunder a magicians shop (like the one in apple lane). He realized >that > > he needed diversion, so he set fire to a donkey parked outside the >shop.... > >Sounds very inventive, full marks to him. What was the 5 minutes of PC/NPC >interaction? Something to move the plot along? Getting information? Setting >up a useful NPC ally or plot device? Or were they just buying bread? > > > At that point, I wanted to pick up my stuff and leave... > >Why? Because he did something rash? Better to have the sherrif come along, >hit him with a big stick, put him in jail and punish him severely. That way >he would learn the lesson of doing things at the right time and in the >right >place. > >GMs, with the obvious exception of myself, should never be petulant or >childish, so walking out would be the absolutely wrong thing to do. Having >a >hissy fit, that's better, picking on that PC or player for the next 2 >years, >that's better, having someone set the PC's horse alight each and every >scenario, that's better. Walking out, that's not good at all. > >Simon This might sound a bit arrogant, but to me, it fealt totally unrealistic. (he was supposed to play this sneaky thief-kind of character; not much sneaky by litting up a donkey, not to say rather inhumane...) He had just made his character, and the GM had two choises, either getting him arrested/killed, or letting him get away with it. It's a bit like if someone attends to a karaoke-night in a pub, and then someone come crashing in with his own ghettoblaster and starts playing his music the rest of the evening. Isn't there a phrase in english called "stealing the show"? _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 22:57:06 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:57:06 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: Well I admit to the BLASPHEMY OF ROLLING ALL DICES MYSELF!! NO ROLLS FOR THE PLAYERS AT ALL MOAH-HA-HA!!! >From: Simon Phipp >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:30:21 +0000 (GMT) > >Bjorn: > > > I feel that dices are a distraction to the illusion the GM and the >players > > are trying to create, and prefere not to roll in the open for that >reason > > more than so I can cheat. > >So, does this mean that all your players also roll their dice in secret so >as >not to distract from the story? Sounds intersting, nobody can see what was >rolled. Almost makes the point for not rolling dice at all. > >Simon (So appalled you couldn't believe it :-) ) > > > > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" >your friends today! Download Messenger Now >http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Mar 13 01:37:30 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:37:30 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200431273730.610560@laptop> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:53:13 +0000, Bjorn Stolen wrote: >>Now, of course, a good GM can take the time to describe in vivid detail the >>results of every swing, hit or miss, to clue the players in on whether a >>miss or hit was lucky or deserved, but to be frank, there is usually enough >>for the GM to handle during combat without the onus of that as well. >> >>Devin > > To me, what you describe here is the essense of GM'ing. If it all comes down > to the dicerolling, why can't the GM just hand over the campagin to the > players, with stats and everything, leave, and let them do the dicerolling > all together? I have the feeling that you're exaggerating to make a point, but I'll take the bait anyway. Dice rolling is indeed a very small part of the GM's job, but it is an essential one in those RPGs that are designed to use dice rolling to determine the results of actions that do not have a certain outcome. The GM needs to describe the environment, in detail when necessary. The GM needs to decide where the NPCs are, what they are doing, and why. The GM needs to relate information to the players that they should only know during game play, not before. These things, among many others, require absolutely no dice rolling. If you like to play RQ without putting the characters into situations where the outcome isn't pre-determined, then by all means throw the dice away. :) But in situations where the outcome of an action is less than 100% certain, there has to be a way to determine success or failure. I maintain that the results of the determination should be final unless there is a game mechanic in place that allows changing the results. I like the idea of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as published doesn't have that so I don't see its relevancy to this discussion. Rich Allen From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Sat Mar 13 02:02:21 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:02:21 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? Message-ID: <410-2200435121522178@earthlink.net> ..snip... > > But in situations where the outcome of an action is less than 100% certain, there has to be a way to determine success or failure. I maintain that the results of the determination should be final unless there is a game mechanic in place that allows changing the results. I like the idea of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as published doesn't have that so I don't see its relevancy to this discussion. > > Rich Allen I interjected the Ond rules at the request of a discussion participant. They were mentioned briefly as my response to the high fatality rate in RQ in order to have a set non-arbitrary method of dealing with character loss. In effect it is an extension of the Divine Intervention rules because it fleshes out what happens, & allows for others who don't have that particular spell but are devotees to access it. I submitted an early form of it, in fact, during the original playtesting of RQ1, but it was seen as unnecessary because the very earliest set that Zack & I received didn't have species limits & nobody had noticed how lethal RQ was. But you are correct, it's not in the published version, but I do try to be polite & civil when a polite request is asked of me. From rico at ricosweb.com Sat Mar 13 02:21:58 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:21:58 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: <410-2200435121522178@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200431282158.532258@laptop> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:02:21 -0800, Sven Lugar wrote: > I interjected the Ond rules at the request of a discussion participant. > They were mentioned briefly as my response to the high fatality rate in RQ > in order to have a set non-arbitrary method of dealing with character loss. > In effect it is an extension of the Divine Intervention rules because it > fleshes out what happens, & allows for others who don't have that > particular spell but are devotees to access it. I submitted an early form > of it, in fact, during the original playtesting of RQ1, but it was seen as > unnecessary because the very earliest set that Zack & I received didn't > have species limits & nobody had noticed how lethal RQ was. But you are > correct, it's not in the published version, but I do try to be polite & > civil when a polite request is asked of me. I apologize, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that Ond and luck points weren't relevant to the discussion of fudging dice rolls. They are very relevant to the discussion on how to avoid killing off PCs!! :) If you have a set of rules, like yours, spliced into a game and they are used to change the outcome of a die roll, then you are not fudging, you're playing by the rules you've agreed to play by. Fudge: (verb) to arbitrarily decide a new result of the roll of a die when the original result is undesirable. :) Rich Allen From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Sat Mar 13 02:35:55 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:35:55 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? Message-ID: <410-220043512153555406@earthlink.net> Thank you, for your consideration. You are a gentleman. I'm in total agreement with your definition which is why I've only had to fudge about a dozen times in all the years I've played. I was a bit tardy with replying to Nick's original request because I'm still recovering from a system crash & had to locate the file. tusen takk, (1000 thanks) Sven > [Original Message] > From: Rich Allen > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 3/12/2004 7:23:36 AM > Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:02:21 -0800, Sven Lugar wrote: > > I interjected the Ond rules at the request of a discussion participant. > > They were mentioned briefly as my response to the high fatality rate in RQ > > in order to have a set non-arbitrary method of dealing with character loss. > > In effect it is an extension of the Divine Intervention rules because it > > fleshes out what happens, & allows for others who don't have that > > particular spell but are devotees to access it. I submitted an early form > > of it, in fact, during the original playtesting of RQ1, but it was seen as > > unnecessary because the very earliest set that Zack & I received didn't > > have species limits & nobody had noticed how lethal RQ was. But you are > > correct, it's not in the published version, but I do try to be polite & > > civil when a polite request is asked of me. > > I apologize, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that Ond and luck points weren't relevant to the discussion of fudging dice rolls. They are very relevant to the discussion on how to avoid killing off PCs!! :) If you have a set of rules, like yours, spliced into a game and they are used to change the outcome of a die roll, then you are not fudging, you're playing by the rules you've agreed to play by. > > Fudge: (verb) to arbitrarily decide a new result of the roll of a die when the original result is undesirable. > > :) > > Rich Allen > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Mar 13 02:42:08 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:42:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? Message-ID: > I have the feeling that you're exaggerating to make a point, but I'll take the bait anyway. Well, we each play the game in our own fashion, and I don't any of this (fascinating though it is) will radically change anyone's playing style. But in the interest of general debate... >Dice rolling is indeed a very small part of the GM's job, but it is an essential one in those RPGs that are >designed to use dice rolling to determine the results of actions that do not have a certain outcome. > >The GM needs to describe the environment, in detail when necessary. And how is this not "arbitrary" and therefore "fudging" given it is under my sole control? >The GM needs to decide where the NPCs are, what they are doing, and why. And how is this not "arbitrary" and therefore "fudging" given it is under my sole control? (Can you spot a theme emerging here?) >The GM needs to relate information to the players that they should only > know during game play, not before. And how is this not "arbitrary" and therefore "fudging" given it is under my sole control? OK, clumsily banging away at a point on my part I know... >These things, among many others, require absolutely no dice rolling. If you like to play RQ without putting >the characters into situations where the outcome isn't predetermined, then by all means throw the dice away. >:) Since I am already arbitrarily deciding _everything_ else about the PC's environment, opponents and circumstances, I don't see a problem with occasionally altering the outcome of dice rolls the players never saw, nor with relying on dice to help determine which of a subset of options I have selected are used (saves me agonising over every detail). So I use dice, but very occasionally as GM exercise my prerogative to adjust a result (before the players are aware of it) that will in my judgement be to the games detriment. For those that care I would estimate (depending on system and style) that can be as often as once per four hour session in D&D and similar "Heroic" games down to as low as once or twice per 3-6 month "campaign" in something low-key and gritty like CoC or RuneQuest. >But in situations where the outcome of an action is less than 100% certain, there has to be a way to >determine success or failure. Yes, but (unless I am much mistaken) there is no exhaustive list of combat modifiers that predefines _all_ possible circumstances in combat, it's the GM's job to adjudicate on the added (or reduced) difficulty of a particular situation. So again, I'm the source of arbitrary (in the sense that I'm the final authority) ad hoc adjustments to combat values, so again I (as GM) have privileged involvement in the final determination of events. > I maintain that the results of the determination should be final unless there is a game mechanic in > place that allows changing the results. AH HAH! So ONCE I have made a decision, I shouldn't just change my mind (unless there is a VERY good reason)? That I can see (it's pretty much what I do) but its good GMing practice rather than "not-fudging" in my book. Dice are a prop or tool. Like encounter tables, settings, miniatures and character sheets they are an element of the game which is intended to help make the game work (i.e. make it enjoyable for all concerned). If they hinder the game, I will ignore them or change the way I use them. > I like the idea of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. > But RQ as published doesn't have that so I don't see its relevancy to this discussion. Err, it's not directly, but I had asked Sven about having a look at in more detail as it had arisen earlier in the thread... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Mar 13 02:54:59 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:54:59 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? Message-ID: >Fudge: (verb) to arbitrarily decide a new result of the roll of a die when the original > result is undesirable. Grr! NOW someone offers a definition , after I've rambled on incoherently... mutter... grumble... I think, (he said putting his sensible hat back on) that those of us who DO tweak the odd dice roll would base or case on the "result is undesirable" bit: certainly in my case what I try and avoid is letting pure random chance wreck the game by inflicting pointless uninteresting situations on all of us, whether it's not letting a kobold ambush kill all the PC's, deciding on different weather to control the PC's arrival time at a particular location or deciding (rather than rolling) how much intelligence an NPC's spies have successfully gathered... I don't think any of us are advocating a definition of "undesirable" that is merely "I don't like it." Or at least, I hope not! As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play MMPORG's, and how many of the anti-fudge members? Cheers, Nick Middleton From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Mar 13 03:13:33 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:13:33 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? References: <200431273730.610560@laptop> Message-ID: <062401c4084c$f7c70ad0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> This group exists to discuss RQ rules. I don't recall any parameters limiting discussion to official rules. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Allen" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? ...I like the idea of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as published doesn't have that so I don't see its relevancy to this discussion. Rich Allen From aelarsen at mac.com Sat Mar 13 03:09:40 2004 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:09:40 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <20040312152213.C1565222706@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: Peter Johansson > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Message-ID: <40517836.8050103 at padrigu.gu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > That's an interesting question. My players roll the dice in open but I, > as the GM, never check the result. I guess there is some kind of > checking going on between the players though. Sometimes players ask me > to check when they are rolling for experience, particularly the Defense > Bonus (RQ2) when you are supposed to roll under your INT. I also check > (or rather watch) the very rare DI rolls because of the excitement > involved in those situations. I generally trust my players to be honest in their rolls, but a while ago I ran into an unusual situation. I had a female player whose character, Horsa, was constantly getting these amazing rolls (about 305 of her rolls were impales, and an additional 20% were criticals; all out misses were quite rare). But on the few occasions that I watched her dice rolls, she was always reporting the actual numbers she was rolling. I chalked it up to luck until another player took me aside and pointed out that her rolls were statistically impossible (he was a math geek and had started charting her rolls for a probability study). Eventually, we realized what she was doing. In any given percentile roll, she was always reading the lower die as the 10s position and the higher die as the 1s position. Andrew E. Larsen From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Mar 13 03:34:25 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:34:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? In-Reply-To: <40517836.8050103@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <20040312163425.84331.qmail@web12404.mail.yahoo.com> I guess I better toss in a point or two in the discussion of open or closed rolls, fudging, etc. One of the few rule changes in the revised Mythworld is to specify which skills are rolled by the referee (because the character does not immediately know whether they made it or not) - all others are rolled by the player. Most of these ref rolls are perception skills (is the PC hearing correctly, did the movement seen in the brush wind or an enemy, etc.), language comprehension, pack cargo (discovered as missed when the contents spill out later), etc. A bit more paperwork for the ref, but a bit more realistic. Of course, the ref still rolls for NPCs (unless fortuate enough to have an assistant for that - very rare). Fudging only occurs when the whole story will collapse if allowed (a fumble knocks out a mining timber resulting in a collapse of the tunnel and the whole band being crushed to death). Needless to say, this has come up well under once a year since first testplaying in 1983 - and never that particular example. If it had, I would have alerted the group to the fact so they could have broken off combat and tried their run roll. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sat Mar 13 03:46:06 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:46:06 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: <062401c4084c$f7c70ad0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> References: <200431273730.610560@laptop> <062401c4084c$f7c70ad0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> Message-ID: <4051E94E.6020706@sbcglobal.net> I agree; house rules are perfectly on-topic. Remember the lengthy and IMNSHO tedious hit location discussion recently? Both are house rules, both relevant to RQ. Guy J and/or Ellen wrote: >This group exists to discuss RQ rules. I don't recall any parameters >limiting discussion to official rules. > >--J > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rich Allen" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:37 AM >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? > > >...I like the idea of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as >published doesn't have that so I don't see its relevancy to this discussion. > >Rich Allen > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 rico at ricosweb.com Sat Mar 13 03:43:06 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:43:06 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20043129436.187734@laptop> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:54:59 +0000, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play MMPORG's, > and how many of the anti-fudge members? I regularly play Dark Age of Camelot, and will be playing World of Warcraft when it's available. :) Hmm, come to think of it, anti-fudge describes me very well, as I don't like the confectionary version either (much too sweet for me). I'll take a good fudge brownie any day though! LOL Rich Allen From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Mar 13 03:59:37 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:59:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: <410-2200435121522178@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040312165937.97672.qmail@web41501.mail.yahoo.com> I appreciate your posting of your house rule variant. I think this list would be a waste of my time if people were banned from discussing thier house rules, or custom modifications people have made to their games. I hardly ever play any game without some home cutomization of it. Even the well written RQ system. Rich's attitude came across as a little condecending and IMO uncalled for. I misunderstood his intention I apologize. I welcome your non-canon supplementation. Continuing on this topic of overruling a dice role... Do you see RPing as a game of chance? A plotted story? A game of choices and consequences? I see it as the combination of the three. If you go along with every random dice role, with out human evaluation of the result and possible moderation thereof, then you are playing a game of chance. If you as a GM devise a well developed plot that the characters play a set specific part in and you decide the outcome of, then you are just a narrator/storyteller. I think a GM should provide multiple possible plot lines as options, let the characters freely choose their actions and let the results be the logical out come of the choices made by the players. Sometime the dice play a role in the out come, somtimes GM fiat plays a role in the outcome, but either decision making option should be the "appropriate" result of the players choice/action. The GM, not the dice, as a thinking evaluating human being determines what is an "appropriate" result. The dice and the game system are just tools to help the GM moderate outcomes, they are not chains to prevent the GM from moderating an extreme random dice result. Gregory Huelsenbeck --- Sven Lugar wrote: > ..snip... > > > > But in situations where the outcome of an action > is less than 100% > certain, there has to be a way to determine success > or failure. I maintain > that the results of the determination should be > final unless there is a > game mechanic in place that allows changing the > results. I like the idea > of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as > published doesn't have > that so I don't see its relevancy to this > discussion. > > > > Rich Allen > > I interjected the Ond rules at the request of a > discussion participant. > They were mentioned briefly as my response to the > high fatality rate in RQ > in order to have a set non-arbitrary method of > dealing with character loss. > In effect it is an extension of the Divine > Intervention rules because it > fleshes out what happens, & allows for others who > don't have that > particular spell but are devotees to access it. I > submitted an early form > of it, in fact, during the original playtesting of > RQ1, but it was seen as > unnecessary because the very earliest set that Zack > & I received didn't > have species limits & nobody had noticed how lethal > RQ was. But you are > correct, it's not in the published version, but I do > try to be polite & > civil when a polite request is asked of me. > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 13 04:08:19 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:08:19 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Levels: Is there a BRP/RQ-based equivalent? Message-ID: <52D5D151.7102C29E.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/12/2004 1:39:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, steve at perrinworlds.com writes: > I have actually had more deaths playing Champions, a game notorious for > being hard to kill someone in. In fact, the author of the original rules > told me that he designed the basic combat rules after killing a bunch of D&D > characters and then asking himself why he was taking such a > delight in it. It ain't that hard to kill PCs in Champions if they are built wrong. I know because my first character in that game forgot to take the defense against Killing Attacks. First lucky doofus with a tommy gun took her out. Live and learn....amend that.....Die and learn. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 13 04:11:26 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:11:26 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Evaluating Skill of Melee Foes Message-ID: <3E5BFA21.52168FF7.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/12/2004 6:53:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, stolenbjorn at hotmail.com writes: > To me, what you describe here is the essense of GM'ing. If it all comes down > to the dicerolling, why can't the GM just hand over the campagin to the > players, with stats and everything, leave, and let them do > the dicerolling > all together? Simply put, because in the middle of an intense combat, there is a lot to do and things move slowly enough eithout having to micro describe every swing...which is basically what would be required. Instead, I'd rather roll out in the open, make a one-phrase description, and move on. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 13 04:14:52 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:14:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? Message-ID: <6FACAFFC.64BAC036.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/12/2004 10:54:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com writes: > As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list > members play MMPORG's, > and how many of the anti-fudge members? > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton I used to play Dragonrealms MMORPG quite regularly before I got tired of it. Devin From jgould at io.com Sat Mar 13 04:31:35 2004 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:31:35 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: <20043129436.187734@laptop> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.1.20040312112405.04240a08@webmail.io.com> At 09:43 AM 3/12/2004 -0700, you wrote: >On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:54:59 +0000, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play MMPORG's, > > and how many of the anti-fudge members? > >I regularly play Dark Age of Camelot, and will be playing World of >Warcraft when it's available. :) >Hmm, come to think of it, anti-fudge describes me very well, as I don't >like the confectionary version either (much too sweet for me). I'll take >a good fudge brownie any day though! LOL I've heard it said that one of the draws of MMORPG's is the "perfectly consistent gamemaster". That would seem to fit pretty well with the "anti-fudge" philosophy. I tend to the Roger Rabbit style. I'll break the rules, but only if it's funny. I've never MMORPG'd myself, more from the lack of Mac clients than anything else. Half of my RQ group works for Sony designing Star Wars: Galaxies, and they keep trying to get me to go to the Dark Side. And I'm still waiting to get in on the WoW beta ... -- "Dammit" Jim Gould jgould at io.com http://www.io.com/~jgould http://www.britanniamanor.org "For +3 Endurance, I'd wear my own underwear on over my armor." - Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Mar 13 12:06:28 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:06:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs/Dice are evil? In-Reply-To: <20040312033850.4622322270D@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040313010628.13628.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Leon: > --- Simon Phipp wrote: > > Dead does not necessarily mean dead. > > I got one for you. > > An illuminated Ogre Chalana Arroy sorceress was caught > blatantly breaking her vows and tried to lie about it > during her attempt to become a Priestess. > > The character was placed in slave bracelets, beheaded, > quartered, her spirit bound to her skull which was > ground to dust and scattered to the four winds in the > middle of Prax. Yep, that'd do it. Slave Bracelets and dismembering is good, best to be sure. Devin: > That's why I design scenarios only a session in advance, and at the end of > a session, if we have wrappe dup one scenario, I introduce the next or ask > the players what they want to do next, so that I already know going in to > designing the scenario that the players will not turn it down. I try to plan a campaign in advance, with a potential timeline and fit in some scenarios along the way. However, most of my scenarios towards the end of the campaign were purely reacting to PC actions - they were driving the campaign. Bjorn: > This might sound a bit arrogant, but to me, it fealt totally unrealistic. > (he was supposed to play this sneaky thief-kind of character; not much > sneaky by litting up a donkey, not to say rather inhumane...) He had just > made his character, and the GM had two choises, either getting him > arrested/killed, or letting him get away with it. It's a bit like if > someone > attends to a karaoke-night in a pub, and then someone come crashing in with > his own ghettoblaster and starts playing his music the rest of the evening. > Isn't there a phrase in english called "stealing the show"? I am always uncomfortable with [hrases like "he was supposed to play this sneaky thief-kind of character", surely a player plays the character how he wants to. If the PC is an initiate of a thief god or steals things then he is probably a thief. Unless he is playing in a tournament game or convention game with pre-generated characters and goals then there shouldn't be any restrictions on how he wants to play the character. It's more like someone being taken to a karaoke club and being told that he has to sing romantic ballads when he really wants to sing heavy metal, when he sings Ace of Spades, someone in his group tells him that he is "supposed to mbe singing romantic ballads". Of course, setting fire to donkeys in karaoke bars is probably not a good idea :-) On the subject of dice rolling, there comes a point in any narrative where the rersults of actions have to be determined. In RQ, this happens through rolling dice. It may be possible to reduce the rolling of dice by judging the outcome of certain actions - a Great GTroll vs Trollkin fight probably needn't be rolled; a mighty hero seducing a farmgirl probably will succeed. However, there are many situations where dice rolling is required. In my experience, it doesn't affect the dramatic element of the game. Andrew Larsen: > I generally trust my players to be honest in their rolls, but a while > ago I ran into an unusual situation. I had a female player whose > character, > Horsa, was constantly getting these amazing rolls (about 305 of her rolls > were impales, and an additional 20% were criticals; all out misses were > quite rare). But on the few occasions that I watched her dice rolls, she > was always reporting the actual numbers she was rolling. I chalked it up to > luck until another player took me aside and pointed out that her rolls were > statistically impossible (he was a math geek and had started charting her > rolls for a probability study). Eventually, we realized what she was > doing. > In any given percentile roll, she was always reading the lower die as the > 10s position and the higher die as the 1s position. We used to call this "lowest high" and used it to highlight certain players' ability to roll dice well. In the end, we made sure that the same players rolled the same dice in the same way, so I always used the Black Die high and Blue low, or the player had to declare which was high before he rolled. Nick Middleton: > As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play MMPORG's, > and how many of the anti-fudge members? I would if I knew what a MMPORG was :-( Devin: > It ain't that hard to kill PCs in Champions if they are built wrong. I know > because my first character in that game forgot to take the defense against > Killing Attacks. First lucky doofus with a tommy gun took her out. Not having played Champions for a very, very long time, does ths mean that everyone takes a core set of powers in order to survive? Sounds restrictive to me. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Mar 13 14:40:08 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:40:08 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs/Dice are evil? References: <20040313010628.13628.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007d01c408ac$f2f2ebe0$68417442@wizard> Champions is just like RuneQuest. You can go without armor and other protection, but you are likely to wind up dead. In this way it is somewhat counter-genre, where ostensibly unarmorned folk like Batman and Spiderman get along just fine, but it is fairly realistic. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:06 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs/Dice are evil? > > Devin: > > It ain't that hard to kill PCs in Champions if they are built wrong. I know > > because my first character in that game forgot to take the defense against > > Killing Attacks. First lucky doofus with a tommy gun took her out. > > Not having played Champions for a very, very long time, does ths mean that > everyone takes a core set of powers in order to survive? Sounds restrictive > to me. > > Simon > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" > your friends today! Download Messenger Now > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Mar 13 14:53:32 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:53:32 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? References: Message-ID: <06d301c408ae$c1501840$47904d44@DCNL6S01> I'm pro-fudge and played EQ for about a year until starting pre-med in January. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? ...As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play MMPORG's, and how many of the anti-fudge members? Cheers, Nick Middleton From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Mar 13 14:55:24 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:55:24 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Cheating Player References: Message-ID: <06da01c408af$03f51970$47904d44@DCNL6S01> So how'd you handle it? --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Larsen" To: "Rq-Rules List" Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:09 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 ... I generally trust my players to be honest in their rolls, but a while ago I ran into an unusual situation. I had a female player whose character, Horsa, was constantly getting these amazing rolls (about 305 of her rolls were impales, and an additional 20% were criticals; all out misses were quite rare). But on the few occasions that I watched her dice rolls, she was always reporting the actual numbers she was rolling. I chalked it up to luck until another player took me aside and pointed out that her rolls were statistically impossible (he was a math geek and had started charting her rolls for a probability study). Eventually, we realized what she was doing. In any given percentile roll, she was always reading the lower die as the 10s position and the higher die as the 1s position. Andrew E. Larsen From jellen at ameritech.net Sat Mar 13 15:00:29 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:00:29 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? References: <20040312165937.97672.qmail@web41501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <06e501c408af$b97e7cf0$47904d44@DCNL6S01> I think Gregory has just eloquently, accurately, and completely expressed my thoughts on the issue. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "grogthing" To: ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Dice are evil? I appreciate your posting of your house rule variant. I think this list would be a waste of my time if people were banned from discussing thier house rules, or custom modifications people have made to their games. I hardly ever play any game without some home cutomization of it. Even the well written RQ system. Rich's attitude came across as a little condecending and IMO uncalled for. I misunderstood his intention I apologize. I welcome your non-canon supplementation. Continuing on this topic of overruling a dice role... Do you see RPing as a game of chance? A plotted story? A game of choices and consequences? I see it as the combination of the three. If you go along with every random dice role, with out human evaluation of the result and possible moderation thereof, then you are playing a game of chance. If you as a GM devise a well developed plot that the characters play a set specific part in and you decide the outcome of, then you are just a narrator/storyteller. I think a GM should provide multiple possible plot lines as options, let the characters freely choose their actions and let the results be the logical out come of the choices made by the players. Sometime the dice play a role in the out come, somtimes GM fiat plays a role in the outcome, but either decision making option should be the "appropriate" result of the players choice/action. The GM, not the dice, as a thinking evaluating human being determines what is an "appropriate" result. The dice and the game system are just tools to help the GM moderate outcomes, they are not chains to prevent the GM from moderating an extreme random dice result. Gregory Huelsenbeck --- Sven Lugar wrote: > ..snip... > > > > But in situations where the outcome of an action > is less than 100% > certain, there has to be a way to determine success > or failure. I maintain > that the results of the determination should be > final unless there is a > game mechanic in place that allows changing the > results. I like the idea > of luck points, or Ond, or whatever else. But RQ as > published doesn't have > that so I don't see its relevancy to this > discussion. > > > > Rich Allen > > I interjected the Ond rules at the request of a > discussion participant. > They were mentioned briefly as my response to the > high fatality rate in RQ > in order to have a set non-arbitrary method of > dealing with character loss. > In effect it is an extension of the Divine > Intervention rules because it > fleshes out what happens, & allows for others who > don't have that > particular spell but are devotees to access it. I > submitted an early form > of it, in fact, during the original playtesting of > RQ1, but it was seen as > unnecessary because the very earliest set that Zack > & I received didn't > have species limits & nobody had noticed how lethal > RQ was. But you are > correct, it's not in the published version, but I do > try to be polite & > civil when a polite request is asked of me. > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Mar 15 19:42:08 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:42:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re:Wimpy GMs/Dice are evil? Message-ID: >Nick Middleton: >> As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play >>MMPORG's, >> and how many of the anti-fudge members? > >I would if I knew what a MMPORG was :-( Massively Multi-Player Online Roleplaying Games, stuff like Evercrack. I was wondering if the "no-fudging" GM'swere the sort of folk who preferred those sorts of games (where ones options are limited to a set which can be parsed by a computer, thus requiring No human adjudication). It was just a thought... Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 16 00:33:03 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:33:03 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 3, Issue 18 Message-ID: This is for me a good illustration as to what side effects the Roleplaystyles that put too much emphasis on the dices can experience. It's not wrong to never fudge, in many ways I admire those that manage that, what conserns me, is the focus of the roleplaygame that to mee seems to be a bit too much focussed on "who's winning", and not the world you pretend to play in. Dicerolling needs to be 100% followed in a boardgame with two sides (and no deutral judge); it needs not in a roleplaysession, as players might start to evolve the wrong focus. > I generally trust my players to be honest in their rolls, but a while >ago I ran into an unusual situation. I had a female player whose >character, >Horsa, was constantly getting these amazing rolls (about 305 of her rolls >were impales, and an additional 20% were criticals; all out misses were >quite rare). But on the few occasions that I watched her dice rolls, she >was always reporting the actual numbers she was rolling. I chalked it up to >luck until another player took me aside and pointed out that her rolls were >statistically impossible (he was a math geek and had started charting her >rolls for a probability study). Eventually, we realized what she was >doing. >In any given percentile roll, she was always reading the lower die as the >10s position and the higher die as the 1s position. > >Andrew E. Larsen > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Mar 16 01:08:57 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:08:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] MMPORGs (now I feel dirty ...) In-Reply-To: <20040315134445.61B26222715@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040315140857.25269.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton: > >> As an aside, I wonder how many of the pro-fudge list members play > >>MMPORG's, > >> and how many of the anti-fudge members? > > > >I would if I knew what a MMPORG was :-( > > Massively Multi-Player Online Roleplaying Games, stuff like Evercrack. > > I was wondering if the "no-fudging" GM'swere the sort of folk who preferred > those sorts of games (where ones options are limited to a set which can be > parsed by a computer, thus requiring No human adjudication). It was just a > thought... Ah, no, perish the thought. I like my roleplaying up close and personal, in shoutable range so I can point at people as we are arguing. I played some postal games ages ago, but they were too slow and you couldn't poke the other players if they were annoying you, so I gave them up. Games by email suffer from the same problem, but I suppose you could spam irritating players ... Anyway, I'm not in the anti-fudge camp, I just don't fudge dice rolls or stop PCs dying just because the dice say so. As a GM, I am allowed to cheat anywhere else, just not when rolling dice. Simon (Always a GM, never a player) ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Mar 16 03:00:53 2004 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:00:53 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating Player In-Reply-To: <20040315134445.61B26222715@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: Simon Phipp > > Andrew Larsen: >> I generally trust my players to be honest in their rolls, but a while >> ago I ran into an unusual situation. I had a female player whose >> character, >> Horsa, was constantly getting these amazing rolls (about 305 of her rolls >> were impales, and an additional 20% were criticals; all out misses were >> quite rare). But on the few occasions that I watched her dice rolls, she >> was always reporting the actual numbers she was rolling. I chalked it up to >> luck until another player took me aside and pointed out that her rolls were >> statistically impossible (he was a math geek and had started charting her >> rolls for a probability study). Eventually, we realized what she was >> doing. >> In any given percentile roll, she was always reading the lower die as the >> 10s position and the higher die as the 1s position. > > We used to call this "lowest high" and used it to highlight certain players' > ability to roll dice well. In the end, we made sure that the same players > rolled the same dice in the same way, so I always used the Black Die high and > Blue low, or the player had to declare which was high before he rolled. All of the other players were quite good about being consistent. All the players used a standard color determination, except one who always read whichever die was leftmost as the 10s (and he was the most scrupulously honest guy I've ever met, so I knew I could trust him). > From: "J and/or Ellen" > So how'd you handle it? Well, it was a fairly awkward situation. She was the wife of the guy whose house we were playing in, and challenging her on it meant possibly alienating not only her but her husband, who was an excellent gamer (although I suspect that he saw what she was doing). By the time we were sure that she was doing it, the campaign was close to wrapping up, because the characters were close to their ultimate goal of altering the Red Goddess (not _quite_ as grandiose as it sounds). So I just let the campaign play out and then found a reason to not start a new campaign with her in it. Not the best solution, admittedly, but it avoided the potential ugliness and I'm still friends with the couple (I just don't game with her). > From: "Bjorn Stolen" > This is for me a good illustration as to what side effects the > Roleplaystyles that put too much emphasis on the dices can experience. It's > not wrong to never fudge, in many ways I admire those that manage that, what > conserns me, is the focus of the roleplaygame that to mee seems to be a bit > too much focussed on "who's winning", and not the world you pretend to play > in. Dicerolling needs to be 100% followed in a boardgame with two sides (and > no deutral judge); it needs not in a roleplaysession, as players might start > to evolve the wrong focus. That was part of what was so frustrating about what she was doing. My campaigns normally emphasize story-telling and character stuff over the dice rolling (although there was a fair amount of combat). But she was insisting on taking a power-gamer mentality, and often ignored it when I put character bits out for her. She was completely unable to get into the spirit of the heroquests her character wound up doing, and had very little idea of what should have mattered to her character. At one point, she bartered away a minor holy item (a pair of boots she'd brought back from a cult heroquest). Admittedly she got something she wanted in exchange, but I was startled by how easily she gave up something that ought to have been sacred to her. The worst part of it was that she was also fudging on her experience rolls--consequently, she was almost as good at everything as the other PC's were at their main specialties. 5 PCs, one for each Lightbringer, and she was playing the Issarion. But she was as good a fighter as the Orlanthi, almost as good at First Aid as the Chalanan, and had almost the same level Knowledge skills as the Lankhor Mhyte. By the end of the campaign it had become really obvious to everyone that she was cheating on exp. rolls. Fortunately, the other players were enough into the story-telling and liked the character bits and heroquests I was arranging for them, that they were willing and able to overlook what she was doing. I made sure that she wasn't able to usurp anyone else's limelight. And they all agreed that confronting her was more trouble than it was worth. And despite the problems, the other players still say that they loved the campaign and found it really satisfying. But enough about this. It was three years ago. Just to change the subject, what do people think about the Heroquest supplements that are being issued? Andrew E. Larsen From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 16 04:55:45 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:55:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating Player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040315175545.4678.qmail@web41115.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > > So how'd you handle it? > So I just > let the campaign play > out and then found a reason to not start a new > campaign with her in it. Not > the best solution, admittedly, but it avoided the > potential ugliness and I'm > still friends with the couple (I just don't game > with her). We had this situation happen several times and in each case a different solution came up. In one case the persons birthday came up and we gave them as a present a new set of black and white (for visibility) dice with the tens actually printed, so it was imposible to switch. In another case the DM blatently isolated the character in the middle of a fight, killed the character and had his souls destroyed as well. The person had to roll up a new character and was so far behind that no matter how much they cheated, they could not catch up. My favorate method however is "death by doing too well". Basically it works like this: A character starts doing much better than he should (due to cheating). NPCs take note of the characters abilities and the character is recruited to do the most dangerous part of the mission, or winds up going toe to toe against the toughest opponent by himself. Even if he manages to survive this just makes him seem more and more powerful and thus making the next chalenge this much harder. With this treatment the character usually does not live long. A heroic death swiftly follows. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com From bick10 at comcast.net Tue Mar 16 05:21:14 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:21:14 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating Player Message-ID: <031520041821.18342.7b15@comcast.net> > --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > So how'd you handle it? > > So I just > > let the campaign play > > out and then found a reason to not start a new > > campaign with her in it. Not > > the best solution, admittedly, but it avoided the > > potential ugliness and I'm > > still friends with the couple (I just don't game > > with her). Ahh, the ol' cheating dice rolling trick. I had a similar situation. My big problem was practice rolls. Easily solved with, the only roll that counted was the one immediately after I told them to. All others were null and void. "But I rolled a crit!" "Doesn't count until I call for you to roll." For experience checks I made everyone get up, give me their sheet, I figured their increase chance and roll for it right in front of me. Baby sitting more than GM'ing. One reason I stopped running RQ with that group. Jim Bickmeyer - Much better group now. From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Mar 16 05:54:22 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:54:22 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] MMPORGs (now I feel dirty ...) In-Reply-To: <20040315140857.25269.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040315140857.25269.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4055FBDE.5060908@inetnebr.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > >Anyway, I'm not in the anti-fudge camp, I just don't fudge dice rolls or stop >PCs dying just because the dice say so. As a GM, I am allowed to cheat >anywhere else, just not when rolling dice. > > I dont distinguish... You are very nearly glorifying dice, like the people who named thre game system after a dice size. your dice are given more power than your decisions you appear to be assuming they cannot behave "unfairly" or contrary to the fun of the game.. wow... your dice must be magic. A GM can line up a room full of bad guys and it isnt called "cheating" or similarly can bring cavalry to aid the players and its not called "cheating" as long as the cavalry or bevy of baddies make sense and fit with the story but the dice are assumed to always make sense and fit with the story? Or do you feel obliged to fix what the dice do wrong... with non dice methods... Lance Dyas From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 16 06:13:40 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:13:40 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating Player Message-ID: I liked theese options :) Must remember to use them if I ever let the players roll the dices ;) >From: Leon Kirshtein >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cheating Player >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:55:45 -0800 (PST) > >--- Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > So how'd you handle it? > > So I just > > let the campaign play > > out and then found a reason to not start a new > > campaign with her in it. Not > > the best solution, admittedly, but it avoided the > > potential ugliness and I'm > > still friends with the couple (I just don't game > > with her). > >We had this situation happen several times and in each >case a different solution came up. > >In one case the persons birthday came up and we gave >them as a present a new set of black and white (for >visibility) dice with the tens actually printed, so it >was imposible to switch. > >In another case the DM blatently isolated the >character in the middle of a fight, killed the >character and had his souls destroyed as well. The >person had to roll up a new character and was so far >behind that no matter how much they cheated, they >could not catch up. > >My favorate method however is "death by doing too >well". Basically it works like this: A character >starts doing much better than he should (due to >cheating). NPCs take note of the characters abilities >and the character is recruited to do the most >dangerous part of the mission, or winds up going toe >to toe against the toughest opponent by himself. Even >if he manages to survive this just makes him seem more >and more powerful and thus making the next chalenge >this much harder. > >With this treatment the character usually does not >live long. A heroic death swiftly follows. > >Leon > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue Mar 16 12:52:23 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:52:23 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New HeroQuest supplements [was: Re: Cheating Player] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40565DD7.40700@chromebob.com> Andrew Larsen wrote: [lots of snipping] > But enough about this. It was three years ago. Just to change the > subject, what do people think about the Heroquest supplements that are being > issued? > > Andrew E. Larsen i own three; the Imperial Lunar Handbook, the supplement for Dragon Pass, and the latest i've found is the Masters of Luck and Death... i'll tell you; it's hard for me to see where there are any game stats in these books! i like the content and general layout. it's nice to see that Glorantha has kind of grown a touch beyond the 'Gregging' phase. i purchased these books because i like reading about Glorantha. my group and i no longer game in this setting. we're busy building worlds and settings just for ourselves. of the three, my favorite so far has been the Masters of Luck and Death. for those who might not know, it's a guide / idea book for running hero bands. what i really like about it is the fact that the hero bands represented are organized by which runes guide individual bands. there are the fighting bands, then there are healers, sages, magicians, followers of the harmony rune, etc, etc... there are quite a few innovative ideas in it. several of which i'm stealing outright for those worlds and settings mentioned before. how 'bout the rest of the list? has anyone else read them? -- gerall kahla - the celestial mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 18 06:28:30 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:28:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control In-Reply-To: <20040311104125.2247622272A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040317192830.289.qmail@web21105.mail.yahoo.com> The recent conversation about fudging rolls made me wonder, how many GMs give the players the mechanism to fudge game results? I'm not talking about cheating, but instead a game mechanism that allows the player to control destiny somewhat. I've seen this done with cards (everyone gets a couple of cards at the start with plot devises that can complicate, simplify or change results). My approach is to give every player a few "Game Points" for roleplaying each adventure. Usually 1-5 points, depending on how well I think they've roleplayed -- it's my not-so-subtle way of reinforcing the behaviors that I like. Those game points can be used for: 1. Getting an advancement roll in any skill that the character has above 0% 2. Rerolling one roll during the game 3. Absorbing one point of damage Usually players keep a few of these on hand for the odd bad result at critical moments, but there are not so many available that everyone feels completely safe. They would also all rather use them to improve their skills rather than to save the character. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Mar 18 20:59:07 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:59:07 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control Message-ID: >I'm not talking about cheating, but instead a game >mechanism that allows the player to control destiny >somewhat. I've seen this done with cards (everyone >gets a couple of cards at the start with plot devises >that can complicate, simplify or change results). In the form of "Hero Points", I don't use them in BRP games in general, although my epic Stormbringer game had an informal system (jokingly referred to by the players and black marks) which were a record of spectacular actions (as often as not of stupidity rather than genius...) by PC's, which I blatantly took in to account when adjudicating knife-edge decisions. I'm shortly to start running a Arcana Unearthed (D&D 3e variant designed by Monte Cook) campaign, and that has a an explicit "Hero Point" mechanism to encourage/reward genuinely heroic actions. On the whole I've been wary of such rules ideas for the same reason that I prefer to role dice behind a screen most of the time: I find such rules "break the fourth wall" by drawing attention to the rules mechanics in a way that can detract from my game. By putting such a mechanism explicitly in the players hands I feel constrained (now it's in the open, I _have_ to be seen to be fair about awarding Hero Points...) and it encourages meta-game thinking by the players. If the group has set out explicitly to play a game in the style of say the A-Team, that may not be a problem, but (Robin Laws' pontificating not withstanding) I find TV/Film Action a poor metaphor for the sorts of games my groups want to play. I'd rather the players were concentrating on playing their characters, and that matters of "heroism" and "narrative" only become apparent when we all reflect after the fact, not constantly intrude in to our thinking whilst we are playing: as I said in the discussion of fudging, my games are about creating a story between myself and the players as we play, not leading them through one I have already written. So it will be interesting to see how the Hero Points in my AU game work out, but I certainly don't use them in my current CoC game and as far as I am aware the RQ game due to start when that wraps up won't have any such mechanic either... Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 18 21:57:41 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:57:41 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] forcing players to credit good roleplaying? Message-ID: I've on occations used an award -system where I give the players one experience-point that they decide who should recieve. This was in werewolf, where you have rank/status points as well as classical expe'; and in a higlhy modivied vercion of Mechwarrior that I GM'ed. Have any of you any experience with this?; and if so, what have been the reactions from the players having to officially declare a "best acter of the session"? My players hated it, they all prefere to get an equal amount of expe', and the atmosphere is somewhat aquard if I treat them differently. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Mar 18 21:52:25 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:52:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control Message-ID: I've seen games where you have "fate-points", and some games (like Warhammer) has special abilities, like beeing allowed to re-roll one result/session, but points like you use that can be used for a lot of things, I've never seen before. I use points as houserules in my RQ campagin, and will certainly open up for allowing hemn used for re rolls as well! >From: Steve Davies >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:28:30 -0800 (PST) > >The recent conversation about fudging rolls made me >wonder, how many GMs give the players the mechanism to >fudge game results? > >I'm not talking about cheating, but instead a game >mechanism that allows the player to control destiny >somewhat. I've seen this done with cards (everyone >gets a couple of cards at the start with plot devises >that can complicate, simplify or change results). > >My approach is to give every player a few "Game >Points" for roleplaying each adventure. Usually 1-5 >points, depending on how well I think they've >roleplayed -- it's my not-so-subtle way of reinforcing >the behaviors that I like. > >Those game points can be used for: >1. Getting an advancement roll in any skill that the >character has above 0% >2. Rerolling one roll during the game >3. Absorbing one point of damage > >Usually players keep a few of these on hand for the >odd bad result at critical moments, but there are not >so many available that everyone feels completely safe. > They would also all rather use them to improve their >skills rather than to save the character. > >Steve > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Thu Mar 18 22:46:22 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:46:22 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Simon Phipp conversion web pages Message-ID: Simon, Thanks for your impressive work of conversion from HW to RQ (I also take this opportunity to thank Nikk as well for its own work). But I am a bit puzzled by the creatures conversion. Regarding skills, you propose a x5% multiplier to get the RQ equivalent ? I thought it was generally accepted that the conversion was rather a x3% ? Having x5, means that charater would start with (17x5)=85% in their skills, and even 5Wx5=125% in best skill !!! It's pretty high for a starting character, even if considered as one of the best of his clan ! The same comment goes for the characteristics conversion, where I would lower the result as well : 30 to 40 in STR is already impressive enough, and I am not sure it really means much more to reach 100 or beyond ! My own conversion rules use the following assumptions : Characteristics RQcharacteristic = 10+(HWcharacteristic/3). Skills RQskill = HWskillx3% Damages (when specific weapon is not specified) ^1 => 1D3 ^2 => 1D6 ^3 => 1D6+2 ^4 => 2D6 ^5 => 2D6+2 ^6 => 3D6 Armor ^1 => 2AP ^2 => 4AP ^3 => 6AP ^4 => 8AP ^5 => 10AP ^6 => 12AP Spirits RQ POW = 10+(HWmight/3) Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Mar 19 00:39:43 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:39:43 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1079617183.4059a69fbb7de@imp.webhuset.no> > >I'm not talking about cheating, but instead a game > >mechanism that allows the player to control destiny > >somewhat. Isn't this what DI was meant for? > In the form of "Hero Points", I don't use them in BRP games in general I would say it *strongly* depends on the setting. In my Chinese game, you get qi points that are meant to duplicate what you see in HK sword movies. But then the game has three levels (historic, fantasy, epic) and you only get the qi points at the epic level. G. From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 19 02:41:54 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:41:54 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Simon Phipp conversion web pages Message-ID: <12d.3c9f078f.2d8b1d42@aol.com> Keep in mind that in HW, unlike in RQ, the PCs are starting off as powerful and important members of their community. They are already persons with immense history, magic items, and powers. Devin From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Fri Mar 19 02:58:47 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:58:47 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Powerful characters in HW Message-ID: DevinC >Keep in mind that in HW, unlike in RQ, the PCs are starting off as powerful >and important members of their community. They are already persons with immense >history, magic items, and powers. I concur, but Runelords in RQ have 90% skills, and are considered as such important members I guess. 125% in RQ is far more powerful, and even in HW environnement, starting characters should not be of that range, IMO (and should not be considered as Runelords either, as the HW rules ask for higher level than 5W skills). Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm From slposey at concentric.net Fri Mar 19 04:28:47 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:28:47 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] forcing players to credit good roleplaying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4059DC4F.3020506@concentric.net> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I've on occations used an award -system where I give the players one > experience-point that they decide who should recieve. This was in > werewolf, where you have rank/status points as well as classical expe'; > and in a higlhy modivied vercion of Mechwarrior that I GM'ed. > > Have any of you any experience with this?; and if so, what have been the > reactions from the players having to officially declare a "best acter of > the session"? My players hated it, they all prefere to get an equal > amount of expe', and the atmosphere is somewhat aquard if I treat them > differently. I can definitely see that, especially if no one's play especially stood out for the session (OTOH you may have just had real competitive players who don't like to give anything to each other, was it the same group in both cases?). I'd suggest structuring the reward such that when that occurs it can be divided equally among everyone or perhaps among several who contributed equally well. Or perhaps the reward can be put into a pool that can be held until a standout performance is made in some other session or enough accumulates to where it can be distributed equally among everyone if no standout occurs. This is not just namby-pamby "treat everyone the same" BTW: by that point usually someone's standout performance WILL have become apparent, which you can point out (but a general equal distribution won't have too much impact either). Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From administration at crashbox.com Fri Mar 19 07:12:52 2004 From: administration at crashbox.com (administration at crashbox.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:12:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. Message-ID: Dear user of Crashbox.com gateway e-mail server, Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. For further details see the attach. For security purposes the attached file is password protected. Password is "31465". Sincerely, The Crashbox.com team http://www.crashbox.com From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri Mar 19 08:25:51 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:25:51 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. Message-ID: <410-220043418212551859@earthlink.net> there was no attachement. what is this about. as far as I know the only thing I do with crash-box is get involved in the runequest chatroom. Please give me more information about this please. thank you, Sven > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 3/18/2004 12:13:01 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. > > Dear user of Crashbox.com gateway e-mail server, > > Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. > > For further details see the attach. > > For security purposes the attached file is password protected. Password is "31465". > > Sincerely, > The Crashbox.com team http://www.crashbox.com From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Mar 19 08:32:29 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. In-Reply-To: <410-220043418212551859@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040318213229.78486.qmail@web41510.mail.yahoo.com> This is a virus email.... BE glad the attachment did not attach itself. If it does...do not open it, and do not enter the password... My company was hit with this virus earlier in the week. Gregory C. Huelsenbeck --- Sven Lugar wrote: > > there was no attachement. what is this about. as far > as I know the only > thing I do with crash-box is get involved in the > runequest chatroom. Please > give me more information about this please. > thank you, > Sven > > > [Original Message] > > From: > > To: > > Date: 3/18/2004 12:13:01 PM > > Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling > warning. > > > > Dear user of Crashbox.com gateway e-mail server, > > > > Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled > because of unauthorized > access. > > > > For further details see the attach. > > > > For security purposes the attached file is > password protected. > Password is "31465". > > > > Sincerely, > > The Crashbox.com team > > http://www.crashbox.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com From talmeta at talmeta.net Fri Mar 19 08:57:09 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:57:09 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. In-Reply-To: <410-220043418212551859@earthlink.net> References: <410-220043418212551859@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <405A1B35.8060800@talmeta.net> Sven Lugar wrote: > there was no attachement. what is this about. as far as I know the only > thing I do with crash-box is get involved in the runequest chatroom. Please > give me more information about this please. Just be glad you didn't receive the virus-in-a-box attachment, and move on... :) -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - I'm so ugly...I worked in a pet shop, and people kept asking how big I'd get. From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 19 09:19:17 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:19:17 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. Message-ID: <7F28F5EE.6A0A6777.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/18/2004 3:12:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, administration at crashbox.com writes: > Dear user of Crashbox.com gateway e-mail server, > > Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. > > For further details see the attach. > > For security purposes the attached file is password protected. Password is "31465". > > Sincerely, > The Crashbox.com team > http://www.crashbox.com No file was attached. No idea why I was disabled. Devin From DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 19 09:21:05 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:21:05 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] E-mail account disabling warning. Message-ID: <052190EC.764C999D.00047AF1@aol.com> In a message dated 3/18/2004 4:25:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, freyrvanic at earthlink.net writes: > there was no attachement. what is this about. as far as I know the only > thing I do with crash-box is get involved in the runequest > chatroom. Please > give me more information about this please. > thank you, > Sven THis is the standard text from the Bagel virus. Obviously Crashbox got a virus email sent to it and we are merely receiving the stripped down version. Ignore it. Devin From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Mar 19 12:45:51 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:45:51 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <405A50CF.9010902@inetnebr.com> I just recently discovered UA and am interested in What choices you make from the tool kit represented by Unearthed Arcana... but this probably isnt the right list to discuss it on? Degree of Success Determines Damage Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>I'm not talking about cheating, but instead a game >>mechanism that allows the player to control destiny >>somewhat. I've seen this done with cards (everyone >>gets a couple of cards at the start with plot devises >>that can complicate, simplify or change results). >> >> > >In the form of "Hero Points", I don't use them in BRP games in general, >although my epic Stormbringer game had an informal system (jokingly >referred to by the players and black marks) which were a record of >spectacular actions (as often as not of stupidity rather than genius...) by >PC's, which I blatantly took in to account when adjudicating knife-edge >decisions. I'm shortly to start running a Arcana Unearthed (D&D 3e variant >designed by Monte Cook) campaign, and that has a an explicit "Hero Point" >mechanism to encourage/reward genuinely heroic actions. > >On the whole I've been wary of such rules ideas for the same reason that I >prefer to role dice behind a screen most of the time: I find such rules >"break the fourth wall" by drawing attention to the rules mechanics in a >way that can detract from my game. By putting such a mechanism explicitly >in the players hands I feel constrained (now it's in the open, I _have_ to >be seen to be fair about awarding Hero Points...) and it encourages >meta-game thinking by the players. If the group has set out explicitly to >play a game in the style of say the A-Team, that may not be a problem, but >(Robin Laws' pontificating not withstanding) I find TV/Film Action a poor >metaphor for the sorts of games my groups want to play. I'd rather the >players were concentrating on playing their characters, and that matters of >"heroism" and "narrative" only become apparent when we all reflect after >the fact, not constantly intrude in to our thinking whilst we are playing: >as I said in the discussion of fudging, my games are about creating a story >between myself and the players as we play, not leading them through one I >have already written. > >So it will be interesting to see how the Hero Points in my AU game work >out, but I certainly don't use them in my current CoC game and as far as I >am aware the RQ game due to start when that wraps up won't have any such >mechanic either... > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > -- 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 DevinC at aol.com Fri Mar 19 14:29:08 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:29:08 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control Message-ID: <1ce.1c78dbd1.2d8bc304@aol.com> In a message dated 3/18/2004 5:47:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, lancelot at inetnebr.com writes: UA is completely different from AU. Unearthed Arcana is competely different from Arcana Unearthed. Devin From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Mar 19 15:31:16 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:31:16 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GM vs Player Control In-Reply-To: <1ce.1c78dbd1.2d8bc304@aol.com> References: <1ce.1c78dbd1.2d8bc304@aol.com> Message-ID: <405A7794.6040107@inetnebr.com> Ah, Thanks for pointing that out .. more interesting things to congeal upon. AU seems like an alternate game world as well as a players handbook for d20 that isnt directly in the pocket of WOTC ... cool. DevinC at aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/18/2004 5:47:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, >lancelot at inetnebr.com writes: >from the tool >kit represented by Unearthed Arcana... but this probably isnt the >right list to discuss it on?> > >UA is completely different from AU. Unearthed Arcana is competely different >from Arcana Unearthed. > >Devin >_______________________________________________ >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 phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Mar 19 21:20:37 2004 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:20:37 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] 125% skills In-Reply-To: <20040318221938.9DD0E222743@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040318221938.9DD0E222743@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <1079691637.405ac9759b192@webmail3.leeds.ac.uk> I've never thought 125% was obscenely high. Given the rules AFAIK if I have a skill modifier of about +10 this means I will make an experience raising roll on a 90+, which is 1 in 10 times. So a grizzled rune lord or experienced priest should have some fairly high skills. Also Simon (as well as myself and others) probably uses this to reflect his own house rules, for instance where a HeroQuest gains you 1d6x5 percent in a skill when you make the raising roll. So, yes, tailoring it for your own campaign would have to take place (for instance, in my game, with the character generation system with advantages and disadvantages it is not implausible for a character to have 125% skill _relatively_ easy, especially as HeroQuests of the practice run form are quite common and can get you skill bonuses and other such goodies). YGMV I s'pose! Nikk From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Sat Mar 20 01:01:34 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:01:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Obscenely high skills Message-ID: Nikk: >I've never thought 125% was obscenely high. Given the rules AFAIK if I have a >skill modifier of about +10 this means I will make an experience raising roll >on a 90+, which is 1 in 10 times. So a grizzled rune lord or experienced priest >should have some fairly high skills. I agree that after experience, PCs and NPCs could reach that level and beyond (some of the PCs in my campaign have definitely reached that level in certain skills). But as you said, that required several sessions of game. The PCs were not created with skills of that level. That was my point. Starting with high level players is GM's own decision, depending on his/her style of game (personnaly, I am not sure RQ is best game system for that, HW or HQ being probably more adapted, but I still use RQ anyway...). If you want to regularly play heroquests as part of your game, I guess the players must have reached a certain level and HeroQuest will probably raise those skills further. Rather than increasing every time further the skills, as an alternative I also give sucessful HeroQuester certain "Hero powers", being specific feats a bit like the "Secrets" of the cults in HeroWars. Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Mar 20 12:59:19 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:59:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HeroQuest Books, MMPORGs (now I feel dirty ...), Simon Phipp conversion web pages In-Reply-To: <20040318221938.41531222746@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040320015919.16212.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Andrew Larsen: > But enough about this. It was three years ago. Just to change the > subject, what do people think about the Heroquest supplements that are > being > issued? Generally, they are very good. There are some reviews on www.geocities.com/soltakss which go into them in greater depth, but very quickly, the good ones from converting to RQ or Gloranthan Background are: Converting to RQ: HeroQuest Rulebook ILH1 Anaxial's Rooster Storm Tribe Thunder Rebels In Wintertop's Shadow All the Pavis Books Gloranthan Background: ILH1 Thunder Rebels Tarsh War Dragon Pass All the Pavis books If you only had the money to buy 5 books, then I would recommend different books depending on what you want, whether you are a Gloranthan nut and like all the background and source material or you are a RQ nut and like the feel of cults and monsters but don't give a toss about Glorantha. Glorantha Nut: Dragon Pass - A Gazateer of Kerofinela Imperial Lunar Handbook 1 (ILH1) Tarsh In Flames Thunder Rebels Uz (Unless you have RQ2 or RQ3 Trollpak) RuneQuest Nut: ILH1 Storm Tribe In Wintertop's Shadow Legacy of Pavis Masks of Pavis The Satar Rising series is also pretty good as it takes the Hero Wars along a bit, so that GMs can have an idea of what happens in the near future in Glorantha. lance dyas: > Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > >Anyway, I'm not in the anti-fudge camp, I just don't fudge dice rolls or > stop > >PCs dying just because the dice say so. As a GM, I am allowed to cheat > >anywhere else, just not when rolling dice. > > I dont distinguish... > You are very nearly glorifying dice, like the people who named thre game > system after a dice size. > your dice are given more power than your decisions you appear to be > assuming they > cannot behave "unfairly" or contrary to the fun of the game.. wow... > your dice must be magic. RQ is a dice-rolling game, pure and simple. There are rules and the rules involve rolling dice at every possible opportunity. If you are going to use dice, you may as well accept what they roll, otherwise why use them in the first place? If you are going to ignore the effects of dice in combat then why not experience? "Andrew's character has not made a POW Gain Roll for a few sessions, so we'll ignore that dice roll and give him an automatic increase" for example. That defeats the whole object of having dice rolls in the first place. My dice were magic, actually, so don;t knock them. For someone who lets the dice rule the game, I cut down on dice rolls a fair bit: 1. We never rolled for casting of Spirit and Divine Magic, they always cast successfully 2. We stopped rollinjg dice for Experience Rolls, instead I allocated a number of XPs per session which the players could trade in for experience gains 3. If the players came up with a good argument for a debate, a cunning plan, a sexy ambush or whatever, we ddn;t bother rolling dice. The PCs could persuade NPCs, bring crowds to their side, argue legal points, talk their way around guards and so on simply by acting out the interaction. Hey, that's almost like roleplaying isn't it? 4. PCs didn;t need to role dice for climbing little walls, jumping across small streams and so on. 5. Where rolling dice slowed the game down, I didn't do it. I did, however, use and insist on dice rolls for at least the following: 1. Combat 2. Spirit Combat 3. Overcoming POW with spells 4. Perception Rolls 5. Situations where I thought that a failure or fumble could have important consequences, such as walking along a narrow bridge, climbing a sheer cliff > A GM can line up a room full of bad guys and it isnt called "cheating" > or similarly can bring > cavalry to aid the players and its not called "cheating" as long as the > cavalry or bevy of baddies > make sense and fit with the story but the dice are assumed to always > make sense and fit with the story? Depending on the situation, I only very occasionally brought in the cavalry to help the party, normally only in Party-Wipe situations. If PCs died, they could be brought back to life. If they were maimed they could be healed. If tey lost all their items they were unlucky and had some extra help in following scenarios. Your ideas on cheating are not cheating in my book. They are simply extensions of the narrative. Cheating vould be forgetting that an NPC has certain powers so as not to make it as powerful, inventing powers or abilities on the fly to get over PC actions, overlooking the fact that a player has miscounted HP loss and the PC should be dead and so on. > Or do you feel obliged to fix what the dice do wrong... with non dice > methods... Generally no. However, depending on the situation, I might be persuaded that a particular result was unlucky and so moderate the consequences. Look at my website for examples of fumbles that had nasty effects. We didn't moderate them and the players took them on the chin without too much complaining. I preferred a narrative style of roleplaying with the hard edge of rolling dice and accepting the results. If things went badly, for instance if the scaenario relied on someone succeeding in a Spot Hidden/Scan and they all failed, then I would find a way around it. If the PCs cocked things up completely then I may help them out. We had the idea of "Fluorescent Arrows" which a GM would use to help the plot along or help the players work the plot out or know what to do. Alain RAMEAU: > Simon, > > Thanks for your impressive work of conversion from HW to RQ (I also take > this opportunity to thank Nikk as well for its own work). Thanks. > But I am a bit puzzled by the creatures conversion. > Regarding skills, you propose a x5% multiplier to get the RQ equivalent ? > I thought it was generally accepted that the conversion was rather a x3% ? > Having x5, means that charater would start with (17x5)=85% in their > skills, and even 5Wx5=125% in best skill !!! It's pretty high for a > starting character, even if considered as one of the best of his clan ! It depends on the skill level of your campaign. I say in the article "If your campaign is very high level with very high skills, then change the multiplication factor to 7 or 10, to give the skills a boost. The important thing is to have creatures that fit in well with the campaign." but I should say the same for low-level campaigns, perhaps to use a multiplication factor of 3. If your campaign has powerful characters with 125% then use a x3 conversion. Personally, I would say that 125% is a low-level starting Rune Lord. Stephen Martin is of the opinion that beginning HeroQuest characters are NOT beginning RQ characters as the power level is higher. So, beginning HW chaacters would have a high RQ equivalent. Devin: > Keep in mind that in HW, unlike in RQ, the PCs are starting off as powerful > and important members of their community. They are already persons with > immense > history, magic items, and powers. Yep, that's about what I think. Alain: > I concur, but Runelords in RQ have 90% skills, and are considered as such > important members I guess. 125% in RQ is far more powerful, and even in HW > environnement, starting characters should not be of that range, IMO (and > should not be considered as Runelords either, as the HW rules ask for > higher level than 5W skills). If you look at RuneMasters then 90% is nothing, if you look at Dorastor or the higher level RQ supplements then 125% is nothing as well. > The same comment goes for the characteristics conversion, where I would > lower the result as well : 30 to 40 in STR is already impressive enough, > and I am not sure it really means much more to reach 100 or beyond ! But you have to compare like with like. Very powerful Gnomes or Sylphs have STR in the hundreds as do giants and dragons. What I did was to take the creatures from Anaxial's Roster and their RQ counterparts and compare the HW stats with the RQ characteristics, then take either an approximate average or typical roll, Since these give a range of values, the GM can decide what Strength 18W means - is it 6D6+24 or 9D6+18 or somewhere in between? By the way, 18W gives an average of STR 45 or 49.5 which isn't that igh at all. > My own conversion rules use the following assumptions : > > Characteristics > RQcharacteristic = 10+(HWcharacteristic/3). So, 18W corresponds to 10 + 38/3 = 23 whereas 18W equeates to 6D6+24 or 9D6+18 an average of 45 or 49.5. These are too low, in my opinion. If you take the RQ2/RQ3 stats for creatures then they are far too low. > Skills > RQskill = HWskillx3% So, a 1W4 skill, which is very high in HW, equates to 81x3 = 243% which is very low for a very high level skill. > Damages (when specific weapon is not specified) > ^1 => 1D3 > ^2 => 1D6 > ^3 => 1D6+2 > ^4 => 2D6 > ^5 => 2D6+2 > ^6 => 3D6 Once again, I took the RQ equivalents and compared the HW ranks with the RQ damage. If you like lower damage creatures then fair enough. > > Armor > ^1 => 2AP > ^2 => 4AP > ^3 => 6AP > ^4 => 8AP > ^5 => 10AP > ^6 => 12AP These are probably right, but ^5 is metal armour, not iron armour, so should be 7m/8 points. > > Spirits > RQ POW = 10+(HWmight/3) Did I forget to include Might? Oh dear, it seems that I did. i'll have to look at equivalent might/POW to see where the values should lie. See Ya Simon Pervert Rules 250%, Listen to Players Whingeing 0% ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Mon Mar 22 21:02:09 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:02:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] HW/RQ Conversion Message-ID: Simon : >If your campaign has powerful characters with 125% then use a x3 conversion. >Personally, I would say that 125% is a low-level starting Rune Lord. >Stephen Martin is of the opinion that beginning HeroQuest characters are NOT >beginning RQ characters as the power level is higher. So, beginning HW >chaacters would have a high RQ equivalent. I would agree with this statement. I think, it all depands of the level of your game. And your own rules regarding the advantages of reaching 100% or more in a skill >But you have to compare like with like. Very powerful Gnomes or Sylphs have >STR in the hundreds as do giants and dragons. Ok for those magical entities. But a lion (or other mundane beast) in HW remains a lion anyway, so its skills shouldn't necessarily start beyond 100% in converted HW/RQ, while they have a mere 50% in basic RQ ? >So, 18W corresponds to 10 + 38/3 = 23 whereas 18W equeates to 6D6+24 or >9D6+18 an average of 45 or 49.5. >These are too low, in my opinion. If you take the RQ2/RQ3 stats for creatures >then they are far too low. You are probably right regarding creatures, but with characters, RQ have the racial maximum. A 18W is probably a possibility for a human in HW, but is already beyond the racial maximum with my conversion (23) (but I would accept it anyway). With your conversion, it reaches 45 ! It's too much for a human, IMO. >Did I forget to include Might? Oh dear, it seems that I did. i'll have to >look at equivalent might/POW to see where the values should lie. Happy to have pointed that out :-). But it was not the intent ! From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Mar 23 03:12:59 2004 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:12:59 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <20040322100207.D6366222715@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: From: Simon Phipp Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HeroQuest Books, MMPORGs (now I feel dirty ...), Simon Phipp conversion web pages To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <20040320015919.16212.qmail at web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >Andrew Larsen: >> But enough about this. It was three years ago. Just to change the >> subject, what do people think about the Heroquest supplements that are >> being >> issued? >Generally, they are very good. There are some reviews on >www.geocities.com/soltakss which go into them in greater depth, but very >quickly, the good ones from converting to RQ or Gloranthan Background are: >Converting to RQ: >HeroQuest Rulebook >ILH1 >Anaxial's Rooster >Storm Tribe >Thunder Rebels >In Wintertop's Shadow >All the Pavis Books >Gloranthan Background: >ILH1 >Thunder Rebels >Tarsh War >Dragon Pass >All the Pavis books I would add Barbarian Adventures to this. It provides a lot of excellent material for running a very clan-centric game. One of the things that I dislike about the new material though is that the cults seem so much more bland and undeveloped than traditional RQ cult write-ups. The new books usually devote about 1 large paragraph to a cult, and often isn't enough to get a real feel for the cult. There also seems to be an enormous explosion in new cults which really seems to undermine the importance of the established cults. But I'm probably just being cranky about the loss of my old RQ Glorantha. Andrew E. Larsen From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Tue Mar 23 03:33:00 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:00 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <405F153C.8020808@padrigu.gu.se> I agree, but have never dared to say so publicly before... :-) The sum of all the aspects of Orlanth and his stead is a little over the top for me. I'm too much of an RQ2 breed I guess. I love "Cults of Prax". "Storm Tribe" is pretty good as an introduction to new players though, and serves as inspiration for me at times. Some of the new cults, like Engizi, has been very useful. I have centered my latest campaing in the area north of Delecti's marsch and the players are often dealing with creatures worshipping Engizi and one of the PC:s has become an initiate of the cult. /Peter J Andrew Larsen wrote: >One of the things that I dislike about the new material though is that the cults seem so much more bland and undeveloped than traditional RQ cult write-ups. The new books usually devote about 1 large paragraph to a cult, and often isn't enough to get a real feel for the cult. There also seems to be an enormous explosion in new cults which really seems to undermine the importance of the established cults. But I'm probably just being cranky about the loss of my old RQ Glorantha. > >Andrew E. Larsen > From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Mar 23 08:41:32 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:41:32 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1079991692.405f5d8cd178b@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Andrew Larsen : > One of the things that I dislike about the new material though is that > the cults seem so much more bland and undeveloped than traditional RQ cult > write-ups. The new books usually devote about 1 large paragraph to a cult, > and often isn't enough to get a real feel for the cult. There also seems > to > be an enormous explosion in new cults which really seems to undermine the > importance of the established cults. But I'm probably just being cranky > about the loss of my old RQ Glorantha. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I bought Tarsh In Flames; it features so many cults I've never heard of. And I thought Tarshites worshipped the Seven Mothers.... Na?ve me. Gianni From MurfNMurf at aol.com Tue Mar 23 10:00:08 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:00:08 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore Message-ID: <1c5.1612681b.2d90c9f8@aol.com> Hi gang, I'm currently working on my own take on RQ creatures---adding or removing some. altering others, etc. Anyhow, I ran across a "Manticore" in the CoC Dreamlands book, then saw the somewhat different version in RQ3 (and I know theres one in RQ2, but I cant find my copy right now). Anyway, it made me curious about Manticores in general, so I decided to look them up on the Internet. I'd run across a number of game-related versions, then ran across a site using quotes from various *classical* sources. I ended up cadging quite a bit of material, and, combining it with both the RQ3 and Dreamlands stuff, and a touch of real world information on lions and other big cats, wound up with the following... Hope it comes as some use to folks. Best. -Ken- Mantikhoras The Mantikhoras has a large, bulky, lionine body covered with shaggy, blood-red hair. Its large head is the size of a lion's, but its face is not that of a wild beast but of a man. Its large mouth is packed, top and bottom, with three rows of large, razor sharp teeth and fangs. The mantikhoras ears resemble those of a man, except that they are much larger, and shaggy. It has large, blue-grey, human-like eyes, and a thick mane of hair surrounds its large head which extends down the chest between the forelegs. Mantikhoras are 1.7-3.3m in length, stand 1-1.4m at the shoulders, and can reach weights in excess of 500kg. The mantikhoras has a scaled, whip-like tail with sturdy, poisoned spines at intervals along its length. The mantikhoras can use its tail to defends itself at close quarters; or with a flick of the tail, hurl these .3m long tail spines in any direction, like an archer's arrows, to a distance of the mantikhoras STR in meters. Any place these poisoned missiles have gone to ground, a wickedly barbed bush spring up, made up of 1D6 such missiles. Attempting to handle these in any fashion requires a DEX x3 roll, or suffer poisoning. The tail of the mantikhoras has a wicked stinger attached, like that of a scorpion, which it uses to inflict poisonous stings to disable and kill its target. Mantikhoras are normally found in forests, jungles, mountains, or other desolate or remote terrains throughout the Mediterranean , Middle East and Asia. Inhabitants of these areas will often attribute a person's disappearance as a sure sign of the mantikhoras presence. The call of the mantikhoras is a thunderous, weird braying, like a trumpet blended with pipes, which can be heard to a distance of 10km. In addition, the mantikhoras is able to mimic human speech. Ordinarily solitary animals, a male may attend a female for several days for mating during breeding season, which runs from early spring into midsummer. A litter of 2-3 cubs are born after a 6 month gestation, during almost any time of year except late winter. Mantikhoras cubs remain with their mother until 1 year old. Females normally produce just 1 litter per year. The male has no role in raising the offspring. Hunters will sometimes stalk young mantikhoras while they are still without stings in their tails. While able to consume a wide range of foods, these notorious man-killers take special delight in gorging on human flesh; devouring human beings---including their clothes and any gear carried. It will lie in wait, not for a single man, but preferring to set upon two or even three men at once, and alone overcomes even that number. It is fortunate that these creatures rarely work in groups. The mantikhoras is very swift and makes very powerful leaps. It is rumored that since mantikhoras detest the smell of another mantikhoras wet blood, the surest method of traveling through their territory safely is to pour the foul-smelling liquid over oneself. Whether this actually works is unknown. Mantikhoras Characteristics Average STR 4D6+14 28 Move 11 CON 2D6+9 16 Hit Points 22 SIZ 4D6+14 28 Fatigue 44 INT 7 7 POW 3D6 10-11 DEX 2D6+3 10 _________________________________________________ Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points RH Leg 01-02 01-02 4/ 7 LH Leg 03-04 03-04 4/ 7 Tail 05-06 05 4/ 7 Hind Q 07-09 06-09 4/ 9 Fore Q 10-12 10-14 4/ 9 RF Leg 13-14 15-16 4/ 7 LF Leg 15-16 17-18 4/ 7 Head 17-20 19-20 6/ 7 _________________________________________________ Weapon SR Attack% Damage Claw 6 40+6 1D8+2D6 Bite 9 40+6 1D10+2D6 Sting 9 30+6 1D6+2D6+Poison Dart 3/9 30+6 1D6+2D3+Poison Notes: A mantikhoras may claw first, then sting 3 SR later, or attack with 2 claws simultaneously; hanging on and biting 3 SR later, or throw darts, then move in to finish off an opponent. The sting injects poison with POT equal to CON. If POT overcomes the target's CON, damage equal to POT is done directly to Total HP the 3rd melee following injection. Failure indicates the target takes damage equal to half POT. The dart's venom acts only against the Hit Location affected. If POT overcomes the target's CON, damage equal to POT is done to the location's HP during the bookkeeping phase of the Melee in which the victim is successfully exposed. Failure indicates the target takes damage equal to half POT. Skills: Hide 60-17, Sneak 70-17, Climb 80-8, Dodge 45-8, Listen 50+1, Scent 50+1, Scan 40+1. Armor: 4-point fur; 6-pt mane. From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Mar 23 09:04:37 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:04:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules] HW/RQ Conversion In-Reply-To: <20040322100207.D6366222715@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040322220438.64893.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Alain: > >But you have to compare like with like. Very powerful Gnomes or Sylphs > have > >STR in the hundreds as do giants and dragons. > > Ok for those magical entities. But a lion (or other mundane beast) in HW > remains a lion anyway, so its skills shouldn't necessarily start beyond > 100% in converted HW/RQ, while they have a mere 50% in basic RQ ? Yes, I see your point that lions, for instance, will have a Bite/Claw of 110%, which seems quite high. Perhaps non-intelligent and non-magical beasts should get x3. I'll have to look at the skills of all the Anaxial's Roster creatures. > >So, 18W corresponds to 10 + 38/3 = 23 whereas 18W equeates to 6D6+24 or > >9D6+18 an average of 45 or 49.5. > > >These are too low, in my opinion. If you take the RQ2/RQ3 stats for > creatures > >then they are far too low. > > You are probably right regarding creatures, but with characters, RQ have > the racial maximum. A 18W is probably a possibility for a human in HW, but > is already beyond the racial maximum with my conversion (23) (but I would > accept it anyway). With your conversion, it reaches 45 ! It's too much for > a human, IMO. But, from what I know of HeroWars, a normal human can't get Strong 18W - humans, by their very nature being the average, can't get Strong, Large, Quick or Small. Any who do are very unusual, in the same way that a human with STR 40 would be unusual, heroic even. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Mar 23 12:41:03 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:41:03 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore References: <1c5.1612681b.2d90c9f8@aol.com> Message-ID: <00c301c41077$f89abe60$68417442@wizard> Very nice, Ken. Added to the bestiary. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:00 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore > Hi gang, > I'm currently working on my own take on RQ creatures---adding or removing > some. altering others, etc. > Anyhow, I ran across a "Manticore" in the CoC Dreamlands book, then saw > the somewhat different version in RQ3 (and I know theres one in RQ2, but I cant > find my copy right now). Anyway, it made me curious about Manticores in > general, so I decided to look them up on the Internet. > I'd run across a number of game-related versions, then ran across a site > using quotes from various *classical* sources. > I ended up cadging quite a bit of material, and, combining it with both > the RQ3 and Dreamlands stuff, and a touch of real world information on lions and > other big cats, wound up with the following... > Hope it comes as some use to folks. > Best. > -Ken- > > > Mantikhoras > The Mantikhoras has a large, bulky, lionine body covered with shaggy, > blood-red hair. Its large head is the size of a lion's, but its face is not that > of a wild beast but of a man. Its large mouth is packed, top and bottom, with > three rows of large, razor sharp teeth and fangs. The mantikhoras ears resemble > those of a man, except that they are much larger, and shaggy. It has large, > blue-grey, human-like eyes, and a thick mane of hair surrounds its large head > which extends down the chest between the forelegs. > Mantikhoras are 1.7-3.3m in length, stand 1-1.4m at the shoulders, and can > reach weights in excess of 500kg. > The mantikhoras has a scaled, whip-like tail with sturdy, poisoned spines > at intervals along its length. The mantikhoras can use its tail to defends > itself at close quarters; or with a flick of the tail, hurl these .3m long tail > spines in any direction, like an archer's arrows, to a distance of the > mantikhoras STR in meters. > Any place these poisoned missiles have gone to ground, a wickedly barbed > bush spring up, made up of 1D6 such missiles. Attempting to handle these in any > fashion requires a DEX x3 roll, or suffer poisoning. > The tail of the mantikhoras has a wicked stinger attached, like that of a > scorpion, which it uses to inflict poisonous stings to disable and kill its > target. > Mantikhoras are normally found in forests, jungles, mountains, or other > desolate or remote terrains throughout the Mediterranean , Middle East and Asia. > > Inhabitants of these areas will often attribute a person's disappearance > as a sure sign of the mantikhoras presence. > The call of the mantikhoras is a thunderous, weird braying, like a trumpet > blended with pipes, which can be heard to a distance of 10km. In addition, > the mantikhoras is able to mimic human speech. > Ordinarily solitary animals, a male may attend a female for several days > for mating during breeding season, which runs from early spring into midsummer. > A litter of 2-3 cubs are born after a 6 month gestation, during almost any > time of year except late winter. Mantikhoras cubs remain with their mother > until 1 year old. Females normally produce just 1 litter per year. The male has no > role in raising the offspring. > Hunters will sometimes stalk young mantikhoras while they are still > without stings in their tails. > While able to consume a wide range of foods, these notorious man-killers > take special delight in gorging on human flesh; devouring human > beings---including their clothes and any gear carried. It will lie in wait, not for a single > man, but preferring to set upon two or even three men at once, and alone > overcomes even that number. It is fortunate that these creatures rarely work in > groups. > The mantikhoras is very swift and makes very powerful leaps. > It is rumored that since mantikhoras detest the smell of another > mantikhoras wet blood, the surest method of traveling through their territory safely is > to pour the foul-smelling liquid over oneself. Whether this actually works is > unknown. > > Mantikhoras > Characteristics Average > STR 4D6+14 28 Move 11 > CON 2D6+9 16 Hit Points 22 > SIZ 4D6+14 28 Fatigue 44 > INT 7 7 > POW 3D6 10-11 > DEX 2D6+3 10 > _________________________________________________ > > Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points > RH Leg 01-02 01-02 4/ 7 > LH Leg 03-04 03-04 4/ 7 > Tail 05-06 05 4/ 7 > Hind Q 07-09 06-09 4/ 9 > Fore Q 10-12 10-14 4/ 9 > RF Leg 13-14 15-16 4/ 7 > LF Leg 15-16 17-18 4/ 7 > Head 17-20 19-20 6/ 7 > _________________________________________________ > > Weapon SR Attack% Damage > Claw 6 40+6 1D8+2D6 > Bite 9 40+6 1D10+2D6 > Sting 9 30+6 1D6+2D6+Poison > Dart 3/9 30+6 1D6+2D3+Poison > > Notes: A mantikhoras may claw first, then sting 3 SR later, or > attack with 2 claws simultaneously; hanging on and biting 3 SR later, > or throw darts, then move in to finish off an opponent. > The sting injects poison with POT equal to CON. If POT overcomes the > target's CON, damage equal to POT is done directly to Total HP the 3rd melee > following injection. Failure indicates the target takes damage equal to half POT. > The dart's venom acts only against the Hit Location affected. If POT > overcomes the target's CON, damage equal to POT is done to the location's HP > during the bookkeeping phase of the Melee in which the victim is successfully > exposed. Failure indicates the target takes damage equal to half POT. > > Skills: Hide 60-17, Sneak 70-17, Climb 80-8, Dodge 45-8, Listen 50+1, Scent > 50+1, Scan 40+1. > > Armor: 4-point fur; 6-pt mane. > _______________________________________________ > 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 jgould at io.com Tue Mar 23 15:37:54 2004 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:37:54 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore In-Reply-To: <1c5.1612681b.2d90c9f8@aol.com> References: <1c5.1612681b.2d90c9f8@aol.com> Message-ID: > Hi gang, > I'm currently working on my own take on RQ creatures---adding or removing >some. altering others, etc. > Anyhow, I ran across a "Manticore" in the CoC Dreamlands book, then saw >the somewhat different version in RQ3 (and I know theres one in RQ2, >but I cant >find my copy right now). Anyway, it made me curious about Manticores in >general, so I decided to look them up on the Internet. > I'd run across a number of game-related versions, then ran across a site >using quotes from various *classical* sources. > I ended up cadging quite a bit of material, and, combining it with both >the RQ3 and Dreamlands stuff, and a touch of real world information >on lions and >other big cats, wound up with the following... > Hope it comes as some use to folks. > Best. > -Ken- > > > Mantikhoras > The Mantikhoras has a large, bulky, lionine body covered with shaggy, >blood-red hair. Its large head is the size of a lion's, but its face >is not that >of a wild beast but of a man. Its large mouth is packed, top and bottom, with >three rows of large, razor sharp teeth and fangs. The mantikhoras >ears resemble >those of a man, except that they are much larger, and shaggy. It has large, >blue-grey, human-like eyes, and a thick mane of hair surrounds its large head >which extends down the chest between the forelegs. > Mantikhoras are 1.7-3.3m in length, stand 1-1.4m at the shoulders, and can >reach weights in excess of 500kg. > The mantikhoras has a scaled, whip-like tail with sturdy, poisoned spines >at intervals along its length. The mantikhoras can use its tail to defends >itself at close quarters; or with a flick of the tail, hurl these >.3m long tail >spines in any direction, like an archer's arrows, to a distance of the >mantikhoras STR in meters. > Any place these poisoned missiles have gone to ground, a wickedly barbed >bush spring up, made up of 1D6 such missiles. Attempting to handle >these in any >fashion requires a DEX x3 roll, or suffer poisoning. > The tail of the mantikhoras has a wicked stinger attached, like that of a >scorpion, which it uses to inflict poisonous stings to disable and kill its >target. > Mantikhoras are normally found in forests, jungles, mountains, or other >desolate or remote terrains throughout the Mediterranean , Middle >East and Asia. Thanks. I used this in last night's campaign and it went over rather well. Jim G. From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Tue Mar 23 19:18:04 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:18:04 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] No Strong Heros ? Message-ID: Simon >But, from what I know of HeroWars, a normal human can't get Strong 18W - >humans, by their very nature being the average, can't get Strong, Large, >Quick or Small. Any who do are very unusual, in the same way that a human >with STR 40 would be unusual, heroic even. I am not sure HW forbid such talents for human. On the contrary, I am pretty ceratin to have seen HW character description with Strong or Tough and similar physical talents, which, by essence, could be improved later on with hero points ? But may be there is a limitation for this kind of talents ? But I don't know HW enough to be sure of that ? Can anyone in the list help us on this one ? From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Mar 23 21:47:04 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:47:04 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838A@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> I think that the best thing to have come out of the whole HQ thing for RQ people is that the Lunar Empire is eventually being developed beyond the Seven Mothers. :-) Of course they worship the Seven Mothers there - that's the Empire's colonial converters - like the Jesuits - first in and probably first out. I like the expansion of knowledge about the Empire - the Imperial Lunar Hanbook that details the various areas in the Empire opens up whole new areas for players to ruin and the next Lunar supplement will provide more detail on the cults of the Empire. Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had only the Seven Mothers?? -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of Gianni Sent: Mon 22/03/2004 21:41 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Cc: Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Quoting Andrew Larsen : > One of the things that I dislike about the new material though is that > the cults seem so much more bland and undeveloped than traditional RQ cult > write-ups. The new books usually devote about 1 large paragraph to a cult, > and often isn't enough to get a real feel for the cult. There also seems > to > be an enormous explosion in new cults which really seems to undermine the > importance of the established cults. But I'm probably just being cranky > about the loss of my old RQ Glorantha. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I bought Tarsh In Flames; it features so many cults I've never heard of. And I thought Tarshites worshipped the Seven Mothers.... Na?ve me. 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 From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Mar 23 21:49:05 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:49:05 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] No Strong Heros ? Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838B@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> One of the facets of HW/HQ was that all abilities are open to development and so it would be quite possible for a human to have Strong 18W. Of course he would be extraordinary and that ability would be verging on magical - but it would be possible to have it. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of RAMEAU Alain Sent: Tue 23/03/2004 08:18 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Cc: Subject: [RQ-Rules] No Strong Heros ? Simon >But, from what I know of HeroWars, a normal human can't get Strong 18W - >humans, by their very nature being the average, can't get Strong, Large, >Quick or Small. Any who do are very unusual, in the same way that a human >with STR 40 would be unusual, heroic even. I am not sure HW forbid such talents for human. On the contrary, I am pretty ceratin to have seen HW character description with Strong or Tough and similar physical talents, which, by essence, could be improved later on with hero points ? But may be there is a limitation for this kind of talents ? But I don't know HW enough to be sure of that ? Can anyone in the list help us on this one ? _______________________________________________ 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 jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Mar 23 23:43:37 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:43:37 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books References: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838A@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Message-ID: <406030F9.2000207@earthlink.net> Given the religious intolerance of the Empire, no. David Smart stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk wrote: >Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had only the Seven Mothers?? > > From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Mar 24 01:21:45 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:21:45 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838A@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> References: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838A@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Message-ID: <1080051705.406047f9bb7ff@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk: > Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had only > the Seven Mothers?? Agreed. But I was specifically writing about Tarsh, not the Heartlands. Gianni From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Mar 24 04:42:00 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:42:00 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838C@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Even in Tarsh - cults form the complete basis for life in Glorantha and cover every aspect of life. The Seven Mothers do a fair job of the basic roles but they don't capture everything. The cult of Hon-Eel that allows the growing of maize is a good example of Gloranthan myth affecting Gloranthan reality and provides a very good indicator of how the Empire infiltrates society by stealth - like the Golden Arches maize indicates that Imperial culture is infiltrating the local one. There are a wealth of cults practised in the Empire - they are really only intolerant of the Raging Storm - they try to subdue Orlanth because he is a focus for rebellion. Violence is always an option - what civilisation would hold that as a central truth?? :-) Heortling society obviously but the Empire is supposed to be more sophisitcated than that. Like the Christian faith they infiltrate - sending proselytisers into new lands with temptations - teaching people to read and providing food to the hungry and all it takes is to commit yourself to the Goddess. The second step - and Tarsh is well into the second step - is to replace the Old Gods with familiar sounding ones. Orlanth can be replaced by Doberdun (the Faithful Storm from the Solar pantheon) just like Christmas replaced many pagan winter festivals and Easter replaced the spring ones the locals can carry on with very similar motions living their life oblivious to the political machinations of empires, kings and priests. Obviously you don't have to acknowledge the newly published complexity - it can be much easier to make things simple both for the GM and for players as their isn't so much to take in. But it does provide a new rich background to roleplay in Glorantha - something I personally have been waiting for since they announced RQIII. Stephen -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of Gianni Sent: Tue 23/03/2004 14:21 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Cc: Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Quoting stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk: > Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had only > the Seven Mothers?? Agreed. But I was specifically writing about Tarsh, not the Heartlands. 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 From MurfNMurf at aol.com Fri Mar 26 10:28:26 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:28:26 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Midsouth Con Message-ID: <57.2986eff3.2d94c51a@aol.com> Hi gang, Any U.S. list members going to be at Midsouth Con in Memphis this weekend? Best -Ken- From MurfNMurf at aol.com Fri Mar 26 13:12:48 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:12:48 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] LAMAIE repost Message-ID: Hi gang, Sent this in a while ago, but it apparently hasn't shown up, so I decided to resend it :) Yet another altering of a RQ monster. As I did with the Mantikhoras previously, I added a few bits I found on a site listing some ancient sources. I'd found that there were several different types of creatures which could all be grouped under the Lamiae (singular Lamia) heading. The Empousai (singular Empousa) were human looking, except it had 1 brass leg and 1 donkey leg, but that struck me as just *silly*, so I made it have 2 bronze legs instead (as if that somehow made it less silly?). It was set on eating travelers, and could be run off with insulting language, which I also dropped from my write-up. The Mormolykeia (singular Mormo) was a monster that scared and devoured children, and if I'm remembering a description I'd read, it was the scaly centaurish one (though I might've gotten that wrong) They all seemed to be fond of killing off guys in the sack. Anyway, here ya go! Thought it might be of some interest. -Ken Murphy- Lamia Lamiae is a general term for several different blood and flesh eating horrors which disguise themselves as beautiful women. Lamiae resemble beautiful women to just below the hips, but from there on some have the bodies of gigantic serpents, while others have legs which appear to be made of bronze and have hair of flames. Other lamiae are more centaur-like; possessing scaly, lionine bodies with heavy, bear-like, clawed forelegs, while others appear to be normal females in every way. Lamiae are able to create and maintain illusions allowing them to appear as normal women. A lamia may also use its powers to create an entirely convincing reality to decoy with such delights those whom they mean to devour in their feasts; goblets of gold and silver, wine-bearers, cooks and food, and a retinue of servant are entirely possible. Lamiae are devoted to satisfying their monstrous appetites; both for carnal pleasures and the flesh of human beings. To merely sate their hunger, Lamiae will crawl through windows and devour sleeping children, or eat travelers in the wilds. To satisfy both needs, a lamia visits the intended victim during the night. While it is entirely possible for a lamia to suck the blood from a victim and eat their flesh during that very night, some Lamiae become infatuated, or even actually fall in love with their intended victim, and end up repeatedly visiting the individual nightly for weeks, months, or even longer . Ultimately, the individual is being fattened up with pleasures before the Lamia's ravenous hunger eventually wins out, and she decides to drain and devour the body. Each melee spent with a prospective victim, the lamia can attempt to overcome the victim's INT with her MP. Success indicates the suitor remains hopelessly infatuated with her for a number of days equal to her APP. Failure indicates the victim will be immune to the effects of her Love Trance for that entire day. Should the infatuated victim ever see the lamia in her true form, an attempt may be made to shake off her influence by successfully overcoming her MP with INT. Lamiae are found throughout the Mediterranean; sometimes in the wild, ruins and other remote places, but most often in human settlements; infesting a neighborhood and devouring good-looking, healthy young people. If a lamia is killed, it should be taken beyond the city boundaries, and, after having had the proper ceremony performed over it, be burned. Nothing would be gained by burying the creature in the ground within the city boundaries, as it would just come back to life again soon after. A lamia loses 1D6 Fatigue points per day, but does not lose Fatigue points through exertion or combat. Lamiae do not regenerate Fatigue points normally. Lamia Characteristics Average STR 2D6+6 13 Move 3 CON 1D6+12 15-16 Hit Points 15 SIZ 3D6+3 13-14 Fatigue 29 INT 4D6 14 MP 2D6+6 DEX 4D6 14 APP 3D6+8 18-19 _________________________________________________ (Snake Bodied Version) Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points Tail 01-06 01-05 4/ 5 Abdomen 07-10 06-10 4/ 5 Chest 11-12 11-15 1/ 6 R Arm 13-15 16-17 1/ 4 L Arm 16-18 18-19 1/ 4 Head 19-20 20 1/ 5 _________________________________________________ (Bronze-legged Version. Can be used as plain human Version as well, but legs will have 1Ap and 5 HP) Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points R Leg 01-04 01-03 8/ -- L Leg 05-08 04-06 8/ -- Abdomen 09-11 07-10 1/ 5 Chest 12 11-15 1/ 6 R Arm 13-15 16-17 1/ 4 L Arm 16-18 18-19 1/ 4 Head 19-20 20 1/ 5 _________________________________________________ (Centaur-like Version) Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points RH Leg 01-02 01 4/ 5 LH Leg 03-04 02 4/ 5 Hind Q 05-06 03-06 4/ 6 Fore Q 07-08 07-10 4/ 6 RF Leg 09-10 11 4/ 5 LF Leg 11-12 12 4/ 5 Chest 13-14 13-17 4/ 6 R Arm 15-16 18 4/ 4 L Arm 17-18 19 4/ 4 Head 19-20 20 4/ 5 _________________________________________________ Weapon SR Attack% Damage Claw 7 40+10 1D6+1D4 Constrict 10 90 2D4 Bite 7 40+10 1D6+STR drain. Notes: When hit by the constriction attack, a victim is held in the lamia's coils and automatically takes damage each melee held. Armor protects only until cumulative damage exceeds AP, at which point it is crushed and broken. None of the lamia 's natural attacks can be used without dropping her illusory appearance. Constriction damage is equal to twice the lamia's damage bonus (minimum of 1D6). On a successful bite, the lamia will hang on, draining 1pt of STR (blood) from the victim each melee thereafter. Each point of STR drained provides the lamia with 1D6+6 Fatigue points. When drained of all blood and reduced to zero STR, the victim will die, at which time the lamia receives 1D6 MP. Skills: Hide 90+0, Sneak 90+0, Scan 60+7, Size-up Suitable Suitor 80+7, Fast Talk 60+9, Courtesan 90+9. Armor: The snake body has 4-pt scales; the bronze legs have 8-pts of solid metal; 1-pt tough muscle and skin everywhere else. Magic: The lamia's illusion spell costs 1MP per day to maintain her human appearance, and another 2MP for creating atmosphere. It can be dispelled as if it were a 4-point magic spell. The lamia's attacks and love charm cost no MP to use. Many lamia know Sorcery. Both defensive and dispelling magics are useless against the lamia's love-trance. Each time the lamia has intercourse with her intended victim, she absorbs 1D6 Fatigue points. From MurfNMurf at aol.com Fri Mar 26 13:55:20 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:55:20 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore Message-ID: <5b.4a7ca8b9.2d94f598@aol.com> Hi gang, Both Steve Perrin and Jim Gould commented on my recent version of the manticore. Jim commented: >Thanks. I used this in last night's campaign and it went over rather well Oh really? And just how did the thing do in combat? Did the hurled venom-coated darts do well? Was it hell on wheels to kill, or easy potatoes? I worked the thing up, but haven't had the oppertunity to actually run the thing up against anyone yet, so I'm curious :) Best. -Ken Murphy- "If I were a Sea Otter, I'd have to eat 200 Quarterpounders a day just to stay alive!" ---An unattributed comment overheard while my daughter was watching Animal Planet--- From jgould at io.com Fri Mar 26 14:59:43 2004 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:59:43 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore In-Reply-To: <5b.4a7ca8b9.2d94f598@aol.com> References: <5b.4a7ca8b9.2d94f598@aol.com> Message-ID: > Hi gang, > Both Steve Perrin and Jim Gould commented on my recent version of the >manticore. > Jim commented: >>Thanks. I used this in last night's campaign and it went over rather well > > Oh really? And just how did the thing do in combat? Did the hurled >venom-coated darts do well? Was it hell on wheels to kill, or easy potatoes? > I worked the thing up, but haven't had the oppertunity to actually run the >thing up against anyone yet, so I'm curious :) I had it doing hit-and-run tactics. It was doing pretty well until the players got their missile-weapon-fu going, then it went down fairly fast. The hit-location-effect darts were effective at adding to the tension level as PC's were rendered ineffective. Next time, they'll face more than one. :) JG From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Mar 26 15:45:43 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:45:43 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] LAMAIE repost References: Message-ID: <017501c412ed$43a36f70$68417442@wizard> Very nice, Ken. These are good creatures for the Alternate Earth project, as was the Manticore you sent along. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:12 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] LAMAIE repost > Hi gang, > Sent this in a while ago, but it apparently hasn't shown up, so I decided > to resend it :) > > Yet another altering of a RQ monster. > As I did with the Mantikhoras previously, I added a few bits I found on a > site listing some ancient sources. I'd found that there were several different > types of creatures which could all be grouped under the Lamiae (singular > Lamia) heading. The Empousai (singular Empousa) were human looking, except it had > 1 brass leg and 1 donkey leg, but that struck me as just *silly*, so I made it > have 2 bronze legs instead (as if that somehow made it less silly?). It was > set on eating travelers, and could be run off with insulting language, which I > also dropped from my write-up. The Mormolykeia (singular Mormo) was a monster > that scared and devoured children, and if I'm remembering a description I'd > read, it was the scaly centaurish one (though I might've gotten that wrong) > They all seemed to be fond of killing off guys in the sack. > Anyway, here ya go! > Thought it might be of some interest. > -Ken Murphy- > > Lamia > Lamiae is a general term for several different blood and flesh eating horrors > which disguise themselves as beautiful women. > Lamiae resemble beautiful women to just below the hips, but from there on > some have the bodies of gigantic serpents, while others have legs which > appear to be made of bronze and have hair of flames. Other lamiae are more > centaur-like; possessing scaly, lionine bodies with heavy, bear-like, clawed forelegs, > while others appear to be normal females in every way. > Lamiae are able to create and maintain illusions allowing them to appear > as normal women. A lamia may also use its powers to create an entirely > convincing reality to decoy with such delights those whom they mean to devour in their > feasts; goblets of gold and silver, wine-bearers, cooks and food, and a > retinue of servant are entirely possible. > Lamiae are devoted to satisfying their monstrous appetites; both for > carnal pleasures and the flesh of human beings. > To merely sate their hunger, Lamiae will crawl through windows and devour > sleeping children, or eat travelers in the wilds. > To satisfy both needs, a lamia visits the intended victim during the > night. While it is entirely possible for a lamia to suck the blood from a victim > and eat their flesh during that very night, some Lamiae become infatuated, or > even actually fall in love with their intended victim, and end up repeatedly > visiting the individual nightly for weeks, months, or even longer . Ultimately, > the individual is being fattened up with pleasures before the Lamia's ravenous > hunger eventually wins out, and she decides to drain and devour the body. > Each melee spent with a prospective victim, the lamia can attempt to > overcome the victim's INT with her MP. Success indicates the suitor remains > hopelessly infatuated with her for a number of days equal to her APP. Failure > indicates the victim will be immune to the effects of her Love Trance for that entire > day. > Should the infatuated victim ever see the lamia in her true form, an > attempt may be made to shake off her influence by successfully overcoming her MP > with INT. > Lamiae are found throughout the Mediterranean; sometimes in the wild, > ruins and other remote places, but most often in human settlements; infesting a > neighborhood and devouring good-looking, healthy young people. > If a lamia is killed, it should be taken beyond the city boundaries, and, > after having had the proper ceremony performed over it, be burned. Nothing would > be gained by burying the creature in the ground within the city boundaries, as > it would just come back to life again soon after. > A lamia loses 1D6 Fatigue points per day, but does not lose Fatigue points > through exertion or combat. Lamiae do not regenerate Fatigue points normally. > > Lamia > Characteristics Average > STR 2D6+6 13 Move 3 > CON 1D6+12 15-16 Hit Points 15 > SIZ 3D6+3 13-14 Fatigue 29 > INT 4D6 14 MP 2D6+6 > DEX 4D6 14 > APP 3D6+8 18-19 > _________________________________________________ > (Snake Bodied Version) > > Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points > Tail 01-06 01-05 4/ 5 > Abdomen 07-10 06-10 4/ 5 > Chest 11-12 11-15 1/ 6 > R Arm 13-15 16-17 1/ 4 > L Arm 16-18 18-19 1/ 4 > Head 19-20 20 1/ 5 > _________________________________________________ > (Bronze-legged Version. Can be used as plain human Version as well, but legs > will have 1Ap and 5 HP) > > Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points > > R Leg 01-04 01-03 8/ -- > L Leg 05-08 04-06 8/ -- > Abdomen 09-11 07-10 1/ 5 > Chest 12 11-15 1/ 6 > R Arm 13-15 16-17 1/ 4 > L Arm 16-18 18-19 1/ 4 > Head 19-20 20 1/ 5 > _________________________________________________ > (Centaur-like Version) > Hit Location Melee (D20) Missile (D20) Points > > RH Leg 01-02 01 4/ 5 > LH Leg 03-04 02 4/ 5 > Hind Q 05-06 03-06 4/ 6 > Fore Q 07-08 07-10 4/ 6 > RF Leg 09-10 11 4/ 5 > LF Leg 11-12 12 4/ 5 > Chest 13-14 13-17 4/ 6 > R Arm 15-16 18 4/ 4 > L Arm 17-18 19 4/ 4 > Head 19-20 20 4/ 5 > _________________________________________________ > > Weapon SR Attack% Damage > Claw 7 40+10 1D6+1D4 > Constrict 10 90 2D4 > Bite 7 40+10 1D6+STR drain. > > Notes: When hit by the constriction attack, a victim is held in the lamia's > coils and automatically takes damage each melee held. Armor protects only until > cumulative damage exceeds AP, at which point it is crushed and broken. None > of the lamia 's natural attacks can be used without dropping her illusory > appearance. Constriction damage is equal to twice the lamia's damage bonus (minimum > of 1D6). > On a successful bite, the lamia will hang on, draining 1pt of STR (blood) > from the victim each melee thereafter. Each point of STR drained provides the > lamia with 1D6+6 Fatigue points. When drained of all blood and reduced to zero > STR, the victim will die, at which time the lamia receives 1D6 MP. > > Skills: Hide 90+0, Sneak 90+0, Scan 60+7, Size-up Suitable Suitor 80+7, Fast > Talk 60+9, Courtesan 90+9. > > Armor: The snake body has 4-pt scales; the bronze legs have 8-pts of solid > metal; 1-pt tough muscle and skin everywhere else. > > Magic: The lamia's illusion spell costs 1MP per day to maintain her human > appearance, and another 2MP for creating atmosphere. It can be dispelled as if it > were a 4-point magic spell. The lamia's attacks and love charm cost no MP to > use. Many lamia know Sorcery. > Both defensive and dispelling magics are useless against the lamia's > love-trance. > Each time the lamia has intercourse with her intended victim, she absorbs > 1D6 Fatigue points. > _______________________________________________ > 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 steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Mar 26 15:47:23 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:47:23 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore References: <5b.4a7ca8b9.2d94f598@aol.com> Message-ID: <017a01c412ed$7dc0e840$68417442@wizard> Actually, I intend to use a variation on the Manticore in my GMFANGS game (check Skotos.net for the rules, if you can find them. I am developing them) a week from Saturday. I just happen to have an appropriate Manticore figure... Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Manticore > Hi gang, > Both Steve Perrin and Jim Gould commented on my recent version of the > manticore. > Jim commented: > >Thanks. I used this in last night's campaign and it went over rather well > > Oh really? And just how did the thing do in combat? Did the hurled > venom-coated darts do well? Was it hell on wheels to kill, or easy potatoes? > I worked the thing up, but haven't had the oppertunity to actually run the > thing up against anyone yet, so I'm curious :) > Best. > -Ken Murphy- > > "If I were a Sea Otter, I'd have to eat 200 Quarterpounders a day just to > stay alive!" > ---An unattributed comment overheard while my daughter was watching Animal > Planet--- > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Mar 26 18:04:57 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:04:57 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Manticore Message-ID: <7d.49f86e61.2d953019@aol.com> In a message dated 3/25/2004 10:00:05 PM Central Standard Time, jgould at io.com writes: I had it doing hit-and-run tactics. It was doing pretty well until the players got their missile-weapon-fu going, then it went down fairly fast. The hit-location-effect darts were effective at adding to the tension level as PC's were rendered ineffective. Next time, they'll face more than one. :) Cool :) -Ken- From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Mar 26 20:41:30 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:41:30 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] No Strong Heros ? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFA@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Alain.RAMEAU: >But may be there is a limitation for this kind of >talents ? But I don't know HW enough to be sure of that ? No, there is no limit in the rules, but the GM could decide to impose double improvement costs due to there being no substantial relationship to the previous game session. If the player comes up with some suitable excuse for having heroic strength, such as having a bear-god strapped to his back, then the cost would be normal. All at GM's discretion, which some people don't like due to being traumatised by bad GMs at an early age. 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 phil.hibbs at cgey.com Fri Mar 26 20:43:47 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:43:47 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> stephenmcg: >Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had only the Seven Mothers?? David Smart: >Given the religious intolerance of the Empire, no. Intolerance? But the Lunar Way incorporates all religions that accept her unity! Only rebellious Orlanth, who wishes to destory the world, must be tamed. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not 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 gianni at basicrps.com Fri Mar 26 20:49:07 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:49:07 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <1080294547.4063fc9380e5f@imp.webhuset.no> Hello all > >Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had > only the Seven Mothers?? > Intolerance? But the Lunar Way incorporates all religions that accept her > unity! Agreed. I see the Lunar Empire much as the equivalent of the Roman Empire after it took up Christanity as its state religion: the various pagan cults were reinterpreted as saints, so that all the peoples of the Empire could recognise the state religion as their own. Also, much as the Empire has followers of the Red, White, Blue Moon, etc., the Roman Empire had Arian, Nestorian, Catholic Christians. The Seven Mothers duplicate the Lightbringers. So why the new cults in Tarsh in Flames? Gianni From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Mar 26 23:41:38 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:41:38 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <40642502.4030604@earthlink.net> Bah! The "Lunar Way" is for weak girly-men, as shown by their placating of Chaos and the way their magic is affected by the phases of the moon. There are no gods; sorcery is the only truth. David Smart Hibbs, Phil wrote: >Intolerance? But the Lunar Way incorporates all religions that accept her >unity! Only rebellious Orlanth, who wishes to destory the world, must be >tamed. > > From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Sat Mar 27 02:06:20 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:06:20 -0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838E@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> That is the problem with equating Gloranthan cultures to real world ones - especially when it comes to religion! :-) The Gods in Glorantha are actively involved in the world - unlike our own - and so it isn't really possible to suborn them to different names. Unless of course you can prove mythically that that was their name after all through heroquest. As far as I can see the Empire is only Lunarised at the top - many of the people lower down the totem pole worship the Gods they used to. Even in Pavis they weren't seeking to stop worship of Pavis the God but marry him to the Goddess and merge him into the Lunar Pantheon. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of Gianni Sent: Fri 26/03/2004 09:49 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Cc: Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Hello all > >Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire had > only the Seven Mothers?? > Intolerance? But the Lunar Way incorporates all religions that accept her > unity! Agreed. I see the Lunar Empire much as the equivalent of the Roman Empire after it took up Christanity as its state religion: the various pagan cults were reinterpreted as saints, so that all the peoples of the Empire could recognise the state religion as their own. Also, much as the Empire has followers of the Red, White, Blue Moon, etc., the Roman Empire had Arian, Nestorian, Catholic Christians. The Seven Mothers duplicate the Lightbringers. So why the new cults in Tarsh in Flames? 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 From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Mar 27 02:04:13 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:04:13 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838E@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> References: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A4802730250838E@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Message-ID: <1080313452.4064466d0464b@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk: > That is the problem with equating Gloranthan cultures to real world ones - > especially when it comes to religion! :-) > > The Gods in Glorantha are actively involved in the world - unlike our own - This is a 21st century POW.... In the ancient world, people really believed that gods DID speak to their priests. G. From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Mar 27 02:49:34 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:49:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97EFB@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040326154934.92920.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> > David Smart: > >Given the religious intolerance of the Empire, no. > > Intolerance? But the Lunar Way incorporates all > religions that accept her > unity! Only rebellious Orlanth, who wishes to > destory the world, must be > tamed. If fact I would venture to say that the Lunar Empire is very tolerant of other cults as much as teh Romans were in the RW. After all they even attempted to marry over dieties into their pantheon. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 27 04:57:09 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:57:09 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <12b.3db8b840.2d95c8f5@aol.com> In a message dated 3/26/2004 7:46:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, gianni at basicrps.com writes: Ah, the debate that touched of the initial firestorm on the Gloranthan mailing list all those years ago....well since I started it there, I guess in the words of Val Kilmer: "I'm your Huckleberry" While ancient persons did believe the priests spoke with their gods, that is still an entire level of difference from YOU speaking with your god. In all aspects of Gloranthan life, the gods' manifestations are significantly more evident than in ancient times. Certainly, when a solar eclipse happened on ancient earth, it was an almost certain sign to all who witnessed it of the manifestation of some divine power. But in Glorantha, you have every single manifestation of such things that ancient Earthers had, PLUS a slew of manifestations that no ancient Earther ever had, such as: DI Divine Magic Resurrection Manifesting Spirits I am sure I could name a hundred more. Devin From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Mar 27 06:27:26 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:27:26 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <032620041927.19041.4064841E0007B6C900004A612200750744FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> In a message dated 3/26/2004 7:46:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, > gianni at basicrps.com writes: > that gods DID speak to their priests.> I agree with you... In our modern day sensibilities we try to claim that they just used gods to explain away natural events. But they really believed in their gods. > Devin > Ah, the debate that touched of the initial firestorm on the Gloranthan > mailing list all those years ago....well since I started it there, I guess in > the words of Val Kilmer: > > "I'm your Huckleberry" Sorry, that reference is lost on me. Zoom right over my head. > While ancient persons did believe the priests spoke with their gods, that is > still an entire level of difference from YOU speaking with your god. I am assuming that you mean by "...YOU speaking with your god." you mean the ancient people speaking to their gods. In RQ gods, there is many ways to play the gods and all can be reflected by RW worships. As I see a couple of basic ways of talking to gods are; 1. only the priests/imitates can speak to and for the gods. 2. any worshiper can commune with the gods. Thus, with RQ gods there can be entire levels of speaking/praying/communicating to gods. I'm avoiding the Glorantha angle on the gods discussion, except for specific examples. Too many people are too set in their Glorantha ways. ie. Monomyth, many myth, hate all Glorantha myth... > [snip] But in Glorantha, you have every single > manifestation of such things that ancient Earthers had, PLUS a slew of > manifestations that no ancient Earther ever had, such as: I will now dispute your examples. No malice intended. Just trying to shoot holes. > DI First I need to define DI: I see DI as a god answering the call of one of their flock. Ancient: I remember an arrow being directed by the god Apollo to kill an inventible hero in his Achilles heals. Modern: Many people sure try for one. And on Unsolved Mystery there are examples of people that were the survivor of a plane crash, suffering no harm. Sounds like a successful DI roll to me. > Divine Magic Ancient: Priests cast spells to provide bountiful harvests. Also the South American Indians used their gods magic to raise the sun over the horizon every morning. Modern: Didn't the Catholic church admit to exercising demons? That would count as Divine Magic use in my rules interruption. > Resurrection Ancient: Specifically mentioned in the Christian Bible as having happened. Also Greek had one hero almost pull it off by leading his true love out of Hades. Modern: I have to admit, I'm a little pushed for an example here. I don't consider Near Death Experience as Resurrection. And Dawn of the Dead doesn't count. But somewhere I think someone claims to have died and been raised. > Manifesting Spirits Ancient: Spirits were thought to be everywhere. I seem to recall that a man should be hung at cross roads so that his ghost have to follow the roads and not come back to haunt his executioners. Modern: I have personally experience the cold chill on the nape of the neck. It's possible the Father-in-Law hung around for a while. Jim Bickmeyer - still spooked by the occasional bump in the night. From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 27 07:02:28 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:02:28 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <1d9.1d4cbb6e.2d95e654@aol.com> In a message dated 3/26/2004 11:27:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, bick10 at comcast.net writes: First I need to define DI: I see DI as a god answering the call of one of their flock. Ancient: I remember an arrow being directed by the god Apollo to kill an inventible hero in his Achilles heals. Modern: Many people sure try for one. And on Unsolved Mystery there are examples of people that were the survivor of a plane crash, suffering no harm. Sounds like a successful DI roll to me. Those are rationalizations. If you wish to run DI as subtly as the ancient and modern examples you gave...then you are correct. However, if a DI is going to teleport you and your companions out of harm's way (ala traditional RQ2 DI) then your ancient and modern examples don't hold a candle to the RQ DI. In my experience, RQ DI's are far far less subtle and prone to question than your ancient and modern examples. Having one's wounds miracolously healed or arm reattached is much more a marked and un-rationalizable instance of godly intervention. In addition, your ancient example takes an instance out of ancient literature. Who ever said there wasn't a TRADITION of godly intervention in ancient earth? The bible is full of them. But there is an extreme difference between my or anyone's reading about the Red Sea parting in a text and actually watching it happen. In an RQ world, the average person sees godly stuff happen all the time. > Divine Magic Ancient: Priests cast spells to provide bountiful harvests. Also the South American Indians used their gods magic to raise the sun over the horizon every morning. Modern: Didn't the Catholic church admit to exercising demons? That would count as Divine Magic use in my rules interruption. Again, if your RQ divine magic runs to that sort of stuff great. That hardly compares to calling a shaft of fire down from the sun to strike your foes, calling up a physical shield of magic to ward blows, changing your shape, seperating your spirit from its body, shooting a lightning bolt out of your wrist at an enemy, flying through the air, teleporting to a distant hilltop, teleporting to your temple, detecting lies, shall I go on? > Resurrection Ancient: Specifically mentioned in the Christian Bible as having happened. Also Greek had one hero almost pull it off by leading his true love out of Hades. Modern: I have to admit, I'm a little pushed for an example here. I don't consider Near Death Experience as Resurrection. And Dawn of the Dead doesn't count. But somewhere I think someone claims to have died and been raised. There is a difference between hearing about something happen and having the vast majority of persons witness it firsthand. The sum total of witnesses to Lazarus was maybe half a dozen right? And even more importantly, Lazarus was dying of a disease. Now show me where he had his head chopped off and his liver sliced and his entrails disemboweled yet managed to rise up and you mgiht have something. In RQ, I would have to imagine almost everyone would know of some person who was slaughtered on the field of battle and was resurrected. In all of Christiandom, you can point to two examples....Lazarus and Christ. In other cultures, claims of resurrection are also rare. They have to be. Too much actual death occurred to allow myths of resurrection to be so prevalent. > Manifesting Spirits Ancient: Spirits were thought to be everywhere. I seem to recall that a man should be hung at cross roads so that his ghost have to follow the roads and not come back to haunt his executioners. Modern: I have personally experience the cold chill on the nape of the neck. It's possible the Father-in-Law hung around for a while. Woo...and those two examples are just as concrete as someone summoning up a spirit and learning a tangible spell from it. Sorry, but while you can point to some very slim examples of shared concepts with the real world, the actual manifestation of those concepts in RQ is exponentially beyond anything you can point to in real life in terms of both effect and verifiability by the common masses. Devin From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Mar 27 07:57:08 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:57:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <032620042057.957.4064992400037C19000003BD2200734830FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> Basically Devin and I seemed to disagree of the strength of the gods to RQ and RW. Maybe. I merely was trying to point out that there was some correlation to the RW myth, religions and beliefs to RQ. It seemed to me that you were saying that it is not possible. Yes, RQ divine is more powerful than what is documented in RW. {Although the plane crash survivor could have been teleported to safety just before the complete destruction of the plane.} The power and frequency of RQ magic is one of the things that makes the game so much fun for me. In short Devin, I don?t think we are disagreeing over semantics. We are just looking into the same room from different windows. The view from my window has the RW example expanded and extrapolated to greater effect to the game. > Woo...and those two examples are just as concrete as someone summoning up a > spirit and learning a tangible spell from it. Were you giving a nod to my points or disagreeing? Just asking. Jim From DevinC at aol.com Sat Mar 27 09:20:47 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:20:47 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books Message-ID: <126.3d26dc7b.2d9606bf@aol.com> In a message dated 3/26/2004 12:57:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, bick10 at comcast.net writes: Basically Devin and I seemed to disagree of the strength of the gods to RQ and RW. Maybe. I merely was trying to point out that there was some correlation to the RW myth, religions and beliefs to RQ. It seemed to me that you were saying that it is not possible. Yes, RQ divine is more powerful than what is documented in RW. {Although the plane crash survivor could have been teleported to safety just before the complete destruction of the plane.} The power and frequency of RQ magic is one of the things that makes the game so much fun for me. In short Devin, I don?t think we are disagreeing over semantics. We are just looking into the same room from different windows. The view from my window has the RW example expanded and extrapolated to greater effect to the game. > Woo...and those two examples are just as concrete as someone summoning up a > spirit and learning a tangible spell from it. Were you giving a nod to my points or disagreeing? Just asking. I don't disagree that RQ happenings can be equated qualitatively to RW happenings. After all, RQ is grounded in RW archetypes. But that wasn't the original point of the thread that got me going. My point is that in a world where the existence of gods and magic is so prevalent and so verifiable at all points, people are going to react differently than they do in real life. In the RQ world, worship of a god can get me magic. I can come back from the dead. I can request and sometimes get DI. I can be plagued my manifestating spirits of reprisal if I go against my god. In other words, not just the lucky Jesuses and Moseses and Mohammeds get access to this stuff. In RQ everyone does. All the time. That's got to make a difference. That's got to make some sort of impression on the behaviours and attitudes of individuals and societies in RQ that takes them well beyond RW archetypes. That's what I am trying to say. Devin From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Mar 27 17:17:54 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:17:54 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] LAMAIE repost In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40651C92.1060203@inetnebr.com> MurfNMurf at aol.com wrote: > Hi gang, > Sent this in a while ago, but it apparently hasn't shown up, so I decided >to resend it :) > > Yet another altering of a RQ monster. > As I did with the Mantikhoras previously, I added a few bits I found on a >site listing some ancient sources. I'd found that there were several different >types of creatures which could all be grouped under the Lamiae (singular >Lamia) heading. The Empousai (singular Empousa) were human looking, except it had >1 brass leg and 1 donkey leg, but that struck me as just *silly*, so I made it >have 2 bronze legs instead (as if that somehow made it less silly?). It was >set on eating travelers, and could be run off with insulting language, which I >also dropped from my write-up. > Warp it a little have the monster get infuriated in a wild shaky way.. by insults... and have it lose accuracy etc when in this state Have bits of lore around that point out this vulnerability... -- 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 comogatas at yahoo.com Sun Mar 28 06:15:54 2004 From: comogatas at yahoo.com (Eddy) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:15:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Comparing RQ/Fantasy to Reality/History Message-ID: <20040327201554.32723.qmail@web40501.mail.yahoo.com> This is for the discussion about relating Gloranthan cultures to real world mythology. An important aspect to remember is that Gods and magic are real in Glorantha or any fantasy setting. Although certainly possible, I have yet to see a campaign/game/genre/book/story in which the Gods or magic were creations of the individual mind or group conciousness, and certainly not in which they could be simply dismissed with philosophy or educated disbelief. In our reality we have accepted that ancient cultures worshipped many Gods and pantheons and that these people believed in magic; however our advancing education allows us to argue that these beliefs are in the realm of mythology and Christianity and Islam (and other monotheistic religions) accept no other Gods from other religions, period. In a fantasy setting, Gods and magic are real, period. No matter how subtle or obvious, they are not deniable, and their existence is not arguable. Neither Gods nor magic can be dismissed from existence by disbelief. I can see disbelief being used as protection from both, but that wouldn't erase either from existence. In my earlier example, if either the Gods or magic are simply complex figments of a vast social/goup conciousness, it's hard (as in you would look pretty silly) to argue that their effects are not magical or divine. In reality, we can use science, logic and education to teach others that we simply cannot control the weather, no matter how hard we pray. It's arguable, but I'll place my bet on science every single time and I know most everyone else will, even if there are a few holdouts. In a fantasy world, if it requires prayer to bring rain, you pray, I pray, we all pray. No one argues against it. That's an example of how any fantasy culture would be different from a real world culture. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. From trevor.ellis at btinternet.com Mon Mar 29 22:40:27 2004 From: trevor.ellis at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?TREVOR=20ELLIS?=) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:40:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: <20040329124027.30222.qmail@web86311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I've had a nagging fear that sorcery spells are not really all they're cracked up to be. The fact that 1pt damage had a reasonable change of getting through Resist Damage 4 seemed a great weakness. Consider two people wearing 2pt Leather and each being attacked by a Broadsword (1D8+1), one having Protection 4 and thew other Resist Damage 8. The chance of a normal hit doing damage through the Armor and Protection is 38% (3 * 1/8). But for against the Resist Damage 8 it is 35% (1/8 * .25 + 1/8 * .3 + 1/8 * .4 etc). Modifying each possible D8 die roll by the actual damage done (change of roll * change of penetration * damage that penetrates) give the person with Protection 4 a risk rating of 0.75 but the person with Damage Resist 8 a risk rating of 1.757. Therefore spending 8 MP on Sorcery gives one a defense that is only half as effective as the spending only 4 MP on Spirit Magic. In the above example Resist Magic 13 is needed to gain an equivalent defense to that of Protection 4. Does anyone out there have house rule variations that makes scorcery a sane choice? Trevor Ellis From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 29 23:32:59 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:32:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: HQ books In-Reply-To: <20040327061934.4AFE22226BF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040329133259.19051.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Stephen: > That is the problem with equating Gloranthan cultures to real world ones - > especially when it comes to religion! :-) I have a simple rule when it comes to using cults in RQ: Deities exist, can be worshipped and contacted and can grant magic to their worshippers. Whether it is Glorantha, Alternate Earth or any other setting, I follow that simple rule. It sure beats any debating about whether gods are real and what benefits they gave in the RW. I am not dealing with the real world, but with a modified version for a Fantasy Role-Playing Game called RuneQuest that accepts that deities exist and grant magic. If I want to play a game where gods don't exist or exist and can't be contacted or whatever, then I will play a different game or adapt RQ to take out the cults. Anything else results in sterile arguments about how all religions are rubbish or how gods were walking around in the real world every day. Neither of which interests me from a RPG point of view. I have my own beliefs which I tend to keep to myself and not let them influence the way I play RQ. If I want a religious experience, I'll go to Church (or to Temple). If I want a religious discussion, I can easily find one. If I want a philosophical discussion I'll go to some society or other. If I want RQ Rules discussions I'll subscribe to this mailing list. I don't want to see the first three things on the RQ Rules Discussion List. Ever. > The Gods in Glorantha are actively involved in the world - unlike our own - > and so it isn't really possible to suborn them to different names. Unless > of course you can prove mythically that that was their name after all > through heroquest. Well, in Glorantha, the God Learners tried to do exactly that and succeded to a certain extent, before that the First Council reconciled the myths as well. However, it is better to have regional pantheons to sit alongside the major ones. > As far as I can see the Empire is only Lunarised at the top - many of the > people lower down the totem pole worship the Gods they used to. Even in > Pavis they weren't seeking to stop worship of Pavis the God but marry him > to the Goddess and merge him into the Lunar Pantheon. Every single area of Glorantha has its own set of local deities which are often unique to that area. Then there are deities that are worshipped in the surrounding areas, deities that are worshipped by similar peoples and deities that are worshipped everywhere. Also, different people may worship different aspects of the same deity. So, in Tarsh we have the local deities, such as the Shaker Twins, Sorana Tor and the Founder of the Dynasty, whose name escapes me. The deities worshipped in the surrounding areas include various Thunder Brothers. Deities worshipped b y similar peoples include most of the Lightbringers and the Lunar cults. Deities worshipped everywhere include various versions of Orlanth. Also, in Tarsh they worship the Bloody Earth cults such as Maran Gor in her various aspects. Someone (can't find who): > Did you never wonder that Prax had so many cults but the HUGE Empire > had only the Seven Mothers?? In the same way as Prax only had Daka Fal, Eiritha and Waha as native cults but now has loads of Spirit Cults and extra cults. Pavis originally had Pavis, Flintnail, Lanbril and Black Fang, but looking at the various P&BR Companions, there are many different cults in Pavis. What normally happens is this: 1. Someone looks at an area and writes up the main cults 2. Someone else looks again and writes up more cults in detail, fleshing out the main cults and adding subcults, associate cults and extra cults 3. Someone takes a particular sub-section of the area and writes up extra cults for that sub-section 4. We end up with an area with very many cults This has happened with Prax, Troll Lands, Chaos Cults, Lunar Empire, Sartar, Tarsh and the West. It will happen with other areas very soon, so that eventually we will have a dizzying mix of cults for each area. See Y'all Simon ___________________________________________________________ WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Mar 29 23:23:56 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:23:56 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: >Does anyone out there have house rule variations that makes scorcery a sane >choice? > >Trevor Ellis Sane choise #1: You come from a region where even thinking about spirit magic is disdained upon. Sane choise #2: You have to actually know the lvl4 spirit spell to use it. And if you have it, you've spent 4 points of your free int. Personally, the first reason is the one I prefere. Roleplaying is about trying to imagine a different setting, different cultures interacting, etc; not about making the ultimate character. When I wake up in the morning, my first thought isn't to train 8 hours on swordplay, so that I can gain a higher percentage in sword attack than my friends, and it shouldn't be for the characters, either ;) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Mar 29 23:42:11 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:42:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] No Strong Heros ? In-Reply-To: <20040326021305.A8D2E2226FE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040329134211.5577.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Alain Rameau: > Simon > >But, from what I know of HeroWars, a normal human can't get Strong 18W - > >humans, by their very nature being the average, can't get Strong, Large, > >Quick or Small. Any who do are very unusual, in the same way that a human > >with STR 40 would be unusual, heroic even. > > I am not sure HW forbid such talents for human. On the contrary, I am > pretty ceratin to have seen HW character description with Strong or Tough > and similar physical talents, which, by essence, could be improved later > on with hero points ? But may be there is a limitation for this kind of > talents ? But I don't know HW enough to be sure of that ? > Can anyone in the list help us on this one ? >From a species point of view, humans are the absolute average, so they are not Tough or Strong, or Quick, or Slow, or Large, or Small. Most humans do not have these attributes. Species with Large, Strong or Tough generally equate to species with high SIZ, STR or CON. In these situations, it is best to look at the stats for the species Strong, Large, Tough and compare them with STR, SIZ and CON. Individuals with Strong, Large or Tough are particularly unusual and may have individually high STR, SIZ or CON. The difficulty lies when we have a species with large 10W, say, and an individual with 10W. In RQ, the species would have a dice roll to determine the stat and this would give different results for different characters. However, an individual would have a certain fixed stat. How we model this, I am not sure. Perhaps we need some concrete examples. Simon ___________________________________________________________ WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Mar 30 01:01:29 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:01:29 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage References: Message-ID: <005501c4159e$c715d790$68417442@wizard> Sorry Bjorn, you must not know many dedicated swordspeople. If you want to be better with a sword, you practice 8 hours a day with it. A dedicated swordsperson, of course, doesn't have to make a living as anything but being a swordsperson, unlike you and me. By the usual RQ rules, either Glorantha or "Real Earth", Spirit Magic is the foundation of magic, the magic that everyone can do, or has done in the past. Anything that succeeds it has to have a clear advantage over it or it would remain. Of the two alternatives you propose, the second is more in keeping with this fact. Being able to hold a protection spell in your mind with only one point of INT instead of 4 is a definite advantage. Of course, I have always felt that the people who wrote up sorcery for RQ3 (not me - I was writing Magic World at the time) made it entirely too wimpy. My solution to the problem, my house rule as it were, is to say that Resistance stops damage just as Protection does, but it has a variable effect. If you have 8 points up, you roll d8 against every blow. Whatever comes up is the amount subtracted from the damage. It's in SPQR. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:23 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage > > >Does anyone out there have house rule variations that makes scorcery a sane > >choice? > > > >Trevor Ellis > > Sane choise #1: You come from a region where even thinking about spirit > magic is disdained upon. > Sane choise #2: You have to actually know the lvl4 spirit spell to use it. > And if you have it, you've spent 4 points of your free int. > > Personally, the first reason is the one I prefere. Roleplaying is about > trying to imagine a different setting, different cultures interacting, etc; > not about making the ultimate character. When I wake up in the morning, my > first thought isn't to train 8 hours on swordplay, so that I can gain a > higher percentage in sword attack than my friends, and it shouldn't be for > the characters, either ;) > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 30 01:08:42 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:08:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20040329124027.30222.qmail@web86311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040329150842.98640.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> Apply armor first and then the damage resistance. The other thing to consider is this, there is always a chance that Damage Resistence 1 will stop 15pts of damage while with a Protection 4 you will still be cripled. Leon --- TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > Does anyone out there have house rule variations > that makes scorcery a sane choice? > > Trevor Ellis __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From ulo at metrocast.net Tue Mar 30 09:44:21 2004 From: ulo at metrocast.net (Christopher E. Fasulo) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:44:21 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike rank question Message-ID: <001a01c415e7$c2c203a0$0100a8c0@Beowulf> In RQ3 when are the attacking on the run rules used, is it when you move and attack or only when your running past and attack on your way? From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Mar 30 20:15:08 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:15:08 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters Message-ID: >Sorry Bjorn, you must not know many dedicated swordspeople. You're right, I dont. I see your point, but I'd still like to disput a bit: I personally don't like to play against players whos characters only desire is to be the best at somthing. That tends to change the focus of the game away from the little things. (While the rest of us was busy solving the plot/hanging out in the inn, etc; "Warmax, the dragon slayer" was busy working out in the backyard and "Sleezy -the wize" was working on his magic formulars. Worse yet is the players that sais that they made up a primitive shaman's apprentice -not because they like to play a spiritually focused character, but because they think that's the quickest way to power (AAAAAAARGH!!!) I once actually played with a guy that had his plans clear for his character: He wanted him to first become a shaman, then become iluminated, so that he could get chaos gifts further advancing his stats.... _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From ericla at ultranet.com Wed Mar 31 01:31:24 2004 From: ericla at ultranet.com (Eric Leventhal Arthen) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:31:24 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20040329124027.30222.qmail@web86311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040330102554.00b1b3b8@pop.rcn.com> At 07:40 AM 3/29/2004, Trevor wrote: >I've had a nagging fear that sorcery spells are not really all they're >cracked up to be. The fact that 1pt damage had a reasonable change of >getting through Resist Damage 4 seemed a great weakness. We have changed Damage Resist so instead of all or nothing, it gives full protection (equal to Intensity) if the roll is successful, but still gives half Intensity protection if the roll fails. Only if you fumble the Damage vs. Intensity roll do you get no protection. This make Damage Resist more useful and dependable. Of course, it depends on how powerful you want your sorcerers and their friends to be. Both player and NPC sorcerers are a major factor in our campaign. Eric ------ Eric Leventhal Arthen ericla at ultranet.com From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Mar 31 01:44:18 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:44:18 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F1A@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Sandy's sorcery is better: http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/docs/ BOOST ARMOR Touch Requires Intensity equal to the object's ENC. Each additional Intensity past that adds +1 to its armor points. For instance, if Boost Armor 8 were cast on a medium shield (ENC 3), the shield would receive 5 extra armor points. Because of the high weight of body armor, this spell is normally cast upon a single piece of armor at a time, rather than the entire suit (a medium suit of chainmail, for instance, takes 20 Intensity, but a chain coif only 2). So it's 1:1 like Protection, but has an overhead to balance the Free Int benefit of Sorcery. 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 jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 31 02:16:00 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:16:00 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters Message-ID: <13213840.1080663360145.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> They're called "munchkins" around where I play. I admit running one can be fun at times but it does get boring unless the player can add a personal twist. Like a paladin-type who honestly believes in the fundamental goodness of all things, even orcs. Or an incredibly powerful sorcerer with an abundance of angst over past wrongs he/she committed. Or a ninja grandmaster who desires that all government leaders understand the personal benefits of benevolence in government..and takes steps personally to provide that understanding. If a player is interested ONLY in achieving personal power..well..nothing says it's an easy road. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: Mar 30, 2004 4:15 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters >Sorry Bjorn, you must not know many dedicated swordspeople. You're right, I dont. I see your point, but I'd still like to disput a bit: I personally don't like to play against players whos characters only desire is to be the best at somthing. That tends to change the focus of the game away from the little things. (While the rest of us was busy solving the plot/hanging out in the inn, etc; "Warmax, the dragon slayer" was busy working out in the backyard and "Sleezy -the wize" was working on his magic formulars. Worse yet is the players that sais that they made up a primitive shaman's apprentice -not because they like to play a spiritually focused character, but because they think that's the quickest way to power (AAAAAAARGH!!!) I once actually played with a guy that had his plans clear for his character: He wanted him to first become a shaman, then become iluminated, so that he could get chaos gifts further advancing his stats.... _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! _______________________________________________ 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 trevor.ellis at btinternet.com Wed Mar 31 04:29:25 2004 From: trevor.ellis at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?TREVOR=20ELLIS?=) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:29:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: <20040330182925.1316.qmail@web86311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Thanks for all your helpful comments for house rules. I'm not quite sure which I'm going to select but I have enough food for thought. I want sorcery to be and feel different from Spirit Magic, so I've already increased both the duration and the casting time. Except for a real mage the casting of an 8pt Resist would be quite difficult. Therefore I might make it worth doing by blocking 8pts and having only excess damage points compete against the power of the spell. Thus the 8pt Resist might be more or less comparable with a 4pt Shield rune spell. Trevor Ellis From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 31 05:07:25 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:07:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20040330182925.1316.qmail@web86311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040330190725.86673.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com> --- TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > Therefore I might make it worth doing by blocking > 8pts and having only excess damage points compete > against the power of the spell. Thus the 8pt Resist > might be more or less comparable with a 4pt Shield > rune spell. Just remember there is nothing stopping you from having someone cast both whose spells on you. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 31 06:59:02 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:59:02 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: <30201682.1080680342025.JavaMail.root@beaker.psp.pas.earthlink.net> So how would you rule which spell is affected by incoming damage, Leon? Are the spell effects added together? David -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: Mar 30, 2004 1:07 PM To: trevor.ellis at pobox.com, "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage --- TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > Therefore I might make it worth doing by blocking > 8pts and having only excess damage points compete > against the power of the spell. Thus the 8pt Resist > might be more or less comparable with a 4pt Shield > rune spell. Just remember there is nothing stopping you from having someone cast both whose spells on you. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 31 07:51:24 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:51:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <30201682.1080680342025.JavaMail.root@beaker.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040330215124.63771.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> We always use the LIFO (last in first out} method. Which means which ever was the last spell cast will be the first one to stop the damage. Smart characters will cast their sorcery first and then spirit and divine magic. That way the damage is reduced by the protection an is then matched vs the Damage Resistance. Leon --- David Smart wrote: > So how would you rule which spell is affected by > incoming damage, Leon? Are the spell effects added > together? > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Kirshtein > Sent: Mar 30, 2004 1:07 PM > To: trevor.ellis at pobox.com, > "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs > Resist Damage > > > --- TREVOR ELLIS > wrote: > > Therefore I might make it worth doing by blocking > > 8pts and having only excess damage points compete > > against the power of the spell. Thus the 8pt > Resist > > might be more or less comparable with a 4pt Shield > > rune spell. > > Just remember there is nothing stopping you from > having someone cast both whose spells on you. > > Leon > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on > time. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From trevor.ellis at btinternet.com Wed Mar 31 08:11:20 2004 From: trevor.ellis at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?TREVOR=20ELLIS?=) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:11:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: <20040330221120.52459.qmail@web86305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I think that you two guys are being a little hard on me. I'm a great believer in Role Playing vs Rule Playing. But this is not a case of scratching about for some small advantage. There is a totally massive difference. I ran a quick simulation useing two identical characters with sword and shield, I ignored specials and funbles etc. I ran 1000 fights comparing Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 8. When fighting to first blood the Protection 4 won 60:40, when fighting to the first with zero hp on a location this increased to 80:20. Comparing P4 to RD4 there was a total wipe out. Unless you are role playing total fanatics, who in their right mind if given the choice would choose Sorcery for protection? With regard to the Resist spells, as written, Sorcery is a fraud! Trevor David Smart jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Mar 30 08:16:00 PST 2004 They're called "munchkins" around where I play. I admit running one can be fun at times but it does get boring unless the player can add a personal twist. Like a paladin-type who honestly believes in the fundamental goodness of all things, even orcs. Or an incredibly powerful sorcerer with an abundance of angst over past wrongs he/she committed. Or a ninja grandmaster who desires that all government leaders understand the personal benefits of benevolence in government..and takes steps personally to provide that understanding. If a player is interested ONLY in achieving personal power..well..nothing says it's an easy road. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: Mar 30, 2004 4:15 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters >Sorry Bjorn, you must not know many dedicated swordspeople. You're right, I dont. I see your point, but I'd still like to disput a bit: I personally don't like to play against players whos characters only desire is to be the best at somthing. That tends to change the focus of the game away from the little things. (While the rest of us was busy solving the plot/hanging out in the inn, etc; "Warmax, the dragon slayer" was busy working out in the backyard and "Sleezy -the wize" was working on his magic formulars. Worse yet is the players that sais that they made up a primitive shaman's apprentice -not because they like to play a spiritually focused character, but because they think that's the quickest way to power (AAAAAAARGH!!!) I once actually played with a guy that had his plans clear for his character: He wanted him to first become a shaman, then become iluminated, so that he could get chaos gifts further advancing his stats.... From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 31 10:12:30 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:12:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <20040330221120.52459.qmail@web86305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040331001230.36061.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > I ran a quick simulation useing two identical > characters with sword and shield, I ignored specials > and funbles etc. I ran 1000 fights comparing > Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 8. > > When fighting to first blood the Protection 4 won > 60:40, when fighting to the first with zero hp on a > location this increased to 80:20. Comparing P4 to > RD4 there was a total wipe out. Under these conditions you are correct, but consider this: you are fighting a Great Troll who is using a troll maul doing 2d8+2d6 damage, doing 16 pts of damage on the average and you are wearing about 5pt armor. Now what would you rather have cast on you a Protection 4 or a Damage Resistance 4? With Protection you are toast no matter what, 16 - 9 (5+4) = 7 pts of damage, enough to disable any location. But, with a Damage Resistance there is still a 5% chance you will not take any damage at all. The same is true when fighting a Dark Troll 2d8+1d6, average 12.5 damage. With Protection you will be taking 3.5 pts per round. With Damage Resistence there is a 30 to 35% of taking no damage. The moral of the story is this, when fighting trollkin use Protection when fighting trolls Damage Resistence is better. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Mar 31 10:12:30 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:12:30 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <20040330221120.52459.qmail@web86305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20040330221120.52459.qmail@web86305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <406A0CEE.1070806@talmeta.net> TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > Unless you are role playing total fanatics, who in their right mind if given the choice would choose Sorcery for protection? With regard to the Resist spells, as written, Sorcery is a fraud! Well, none of -my- sorcerers stopped at a paltry Resist Damage 4... most boosted it up to around 12-16, and Maintained it. (Was using a variant of Sandy's Sorcery at the time). The odds break a little differently in that scenario. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - 10. We recently received a memo from senior management saying, "This is to inform you that a memo will be issued today regarding the memo mentioned above." (Microsoft, Legal Affairs Division) From DevinC at aol.com Wed Mar 31 12:14:43 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:14:43 EST Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: <68.3d0275a2.2d9b8393@aol.com> In a message dated 3/30/2004 2:40:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, trevor.ellis at btinternet.com writes: Unless you are role playing total fanatics, who in their right mind if given the choice would choose Sorcery for protection? With regard to the Resist spells, as written, Sorcery is a fraud! Trevor Why would Aztecs in the 1600's choose flint weapons when the Spaniards had cannons and metal armour and steel swords and firearms? Sorcerers in Glorantha believe that spirit magic corrupts the soul. Therefore, it is a Faustian bargain that any right thinking Westerner would never take. One's immortal soul is far more valuable than a bit of extra protection. I know RQ is not Glorantha per se, but the general tenet of RQ has always been that Sorcerers do not much like spirit magic and vice versa. On a purer level, Sorcery can be manipulated in ways spirit magic cannot. A skilled sorcerer can have DR 4 up constantly, even while sleeping. No spirit magician can duplicate that. Devin From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Mar 31 12:28:54 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:28:54 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters References: Message-ID: <012301c416c7$fa3496f0$68417442@wizard> Wanting to be "the Pro from Dover" is a standard motivation for a lot of RPG players, I'm afraid. I could probably name at least six in the four gaming groups I play with (which have a very small overlap in membership, though everyone pretty much knows everyone else). Just as ubiquitous, and even more of a pain, is the player who wants to be the best in everything. And taken the shaman's path to illumination sounds entirely too familiar, too. If the rules are there, someone will want to exploit them. Some people like to draw within the lines, and some want to move on... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:15 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters > I personally don't like to play against players whos characters only desire > is to be the best at somthing. That tends to change the focus of the game > away from the little things. (While the rest of us was busy solving the > plot/hanging out in the inn, etc; "Warmax, the dragon slayer" was busy > working out in the backyard and "Sleezy -the wize" was working on his magic > formulars. > > Worse yet is the players that sais that they made up a primitive shaman's > apprentice -not because they like to play a spiritually focused character, > but because they think that's the quickest way to power (AAAAAAARGH!!!) I > once actually played with a guy that had his plans clear for his character: > He wanted him to first become a shaman, then become iluminated, so that he > could get chaos gifts further advancing his stats.... > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Mar 31 13:11:20 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:11:20 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters References: <012301c416c7$fa3496f0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <406A36D8.2060209@earthlink.net> And there's nothing wrong with that. After all, roleplaying is about fantasies, right? But seeing/being it all the time can become tiresome for some. Trevor, I apologize if my response seemed to be a slam; it wasn't intended to be. Regarding sorcery vs spirit magic, I have to agree with Leon, Tal, and Devin. Sorcery's strength is in its flexibility. I look at spirit magic as a fast, tactical effect while sorcery is more of a support effect that can be constantly available. Given _time_ (and the required magic points and Free INT, that is), sorcery can be more powerful than spirit magic and can even hold its own against divine spells under the right circumstances. David Steve Perrin wrote: >Wanting to be "the Pro from Dover" is a standard motivation for a lot of RPG >players, I'm afraid. I could probably name at least six in the four gaming >groups I play with (which have a very small overlap in membership, though >everyone pretty much knows everyone else). Just as ubiquitous, and even more >of a pain, is the player who wants to be the best in everything. > >And taken the shaman's path to illumination sounds entirely too familiar, >too. If the rules are there, someone will want to exploit them. Some people >like to draw within the lines, and some want to move on... > >Steve Perrin > > From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Mar 31 18:49:23 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:49:23 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: TREVOR ELLIS : Since you brought it up here, I replied my wiev on the topic, but I totally respect your right to adjust your game as you see fit! That's what is so lovely with house-rules; nobody (exept the players) can deny you the right to go through with them. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Mar 31 21:23:30 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:23:30 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <20040331075437.83418.qmail@web86303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20040331075437.83418.qmail@web86303.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <406AAA32.50208@talmeta.net> TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > > How did you people get to the point of being able to manipulate spells > to 12 or 13 Intensity? Did they spend almost all of their life in > complete isolation, never having to rely on lower levels of intensity to > save their lifes? If so, can I assume that all their combat skills are > very, very low? This would make them someting like the 'Magic Users' of > a less-good-system - which might be worth considering as it forced > variety of Role playing from the characters. Ceremony helps, and in my case, at least, I had a variant called 'burn casting', where the sorcerer could risk physical damage for an increased effect. "Burn" Casting: By overextending himself, a sorcerer can improve the number of Art levels he can use with a spell by sacrificing his actual casting chance by 10%. However, by doing this, he places himself at additional risk. A roll between his normal skill and his reduced skill is now treated as a fumble, and a fumble based on his reduced skill causes general hit point damage equal to the total magic points in the spell {Example: Fred Parker knows Evoke Lightning at 91%. He is being rushed by three large euroz, and doesn't have the time to use any Ceremony. He elects to push his skill by 5, reducing his actual success roll to 41%, but giving him five additional levels of spell to play with. He elects to use Intensity 10, Multispell 3, Speed 2, getting the spell off in 11 strike ranks, potentially disabling all three eurozs. If he rolls over 41%, all the magic points in the spell are lost, and he must roll on the Sorcery Spell Fumble Table, just as in a "normal" fumble. Should he roll doubles (44, 55, etc.,) he'd instantly lose not only the magic points, but 15 hit points as well as making a roll on the Fumble Table. (We used a 'doubles' rule for crits/fumbles). > But I would find it difficult to work in a world with normal adventurers > using high levels of sorcery (even if they were fairly rare) as lower > expereienced characters are unlikely to survive (save for repeated 5% > rolls). Under Sandy's rules, just maintaining a spell in your presence gets you skill checks. After a few years, it ads up. -- 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Mar 31 22:17:48 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:17:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20040331022941.B2E6C2226EE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040331121748.60919.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Sandy's sorcery is better: > http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/docs/ > > BOOST ARMOR > Touch > Requires Intensity equal to the object's ENC. Each additional Intensity > past > that adds +1 to its armor points. For instance, if Boost Armor 8 were cast > on a medium shield (ENC 3), the shield would receive 5 extra armor points. > Because of the high weight of body armor, this spell is normally cast upon > a > single piece of armor at a time, rather than the entire suit (a medium suit > of chainmail, for instance, takes 20 Intensity, but a chain coif only 2). > > So it's 1:1 like Protection, but has an overhead to balance the Free Int > benefit of Sorcery. That's an interesting idea. Can't see any problems with it, though, which is always disturbing :-) Leon: > --- TREVOR ELLIS wrote: > > Therefore I might make it worth doing by blocking > > 8pts and having only excess damage points compete > > against the power of the spell. Thus the 8pt Resist > > might be more or less comparable with a 4pt Shield > > rune spell. > > Just remember there is nothing stopping you from > having someone cast both whose spells on you. We always played the incompatibility rules from RQ2 extended to include Sorcery, so we made Protection, Countermagic, Spirit Shield, Damage Resistance, Spell Resistance and Spirit Resistance mutually incompatible, except that a sorcerer could Multispell Damage Resistance, Spell Resistance and Spirit Resistance together to make them compatible. This made it less worth while to mix Spirit Magic and Sorcery and meant that our Rune Priesst could not use Sorcery to gain silly advantages. Also, apart from sects such as Arkat, Carmanians, Lunars and Aeolians, in lorantha of course, Sorcerers were forbidden to use Spirit and Divine Magic, so they would not have had access to Protection and Damage Resistance. That's the way forward, make it a restriction on the cult/school that certain spells are not allowed. Much more in keeping with RQ. Leon: > --- David Smart wrote: > > So how would you rule which spell is affected by > > incoming damage, Leon? Are the spell effects added > > together? > We always use the LIFO (last in first out} method. > Which means which ever was the last spell cast will be > the first one to stop the damage. > > Smart characters will cast their sorcery first and > then spirit and divine magic. That way the damage is > reduced by the protection an is then matched vs the > Damage Resistance. We played that Damage Resistance and Spell Resistance sat beneath everything else, so armour and the Shield spell would knock off damage first then Damage Resistance would kick in on the rest. Similarly, a 6 point spell would bounce off a Shield 3 Spell Resistance 4 but an 8 point spell would punch through the Shield and have a 70% chance of overcoming the Spell Resistance. Trevor Ellis: > I think that you two guys are being a little hard on me. I'm a great > believer in Role Playing vs Rule Playing. But this is not a case of > scratching about for some small advantage. There is a totally massive > difference. In the same way that Shield and Shield of Darkness have massively different effects against spells, for instance. Different spells have different game effects. The trick is to choose the best spell where possible. However, you may not have access to the best spell and have to use the cultural spell instead. > I ran a quick simulation useing two identical characters with sword and > shield, I ignored specials and funbles etc. I ran 1000 fights comparing > Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 8. > > When fighting to first blood the Protection 4 won 60:40, when fighting to > the first with zero hp on a location this increased to 80:20. Comparing P4 > to RD4 there was a total wipe out. Yes, but a sorcerer would cast a higher point spell. Protection 4 is a standard because RQ2 only went up to 4 points. In RQ3 Protection 4 was usual, anything higher was rare. A sorcerer with a high Free INT or a good skill, depending on how you play sorcery, should be able to mount a far better spell than Damagae Resistance 4, otherwise he wouldn't be a good sorcerer. In the same way that a good combat shaman would be able to mount Protection 8 or Protection 12. > Unless you are role playing total fanatics, who in their right mind if > given the choice would choose Sorcery for protection? With regard to the > Resist spells, as written, Sorcery is a fraud! If given the choice, yes, but most people don't have that choice, in Glorantha anyway. If you want sorcerers to have whatever they want then that's up to you. I wouldn't, personally. By the way, when we played, we had PCs with 10-15 point armour and Shield on top of that, say Shield 8, giving them 26-31 points of armour. If they ahd Damage Resistance on, which they sometimes did as we had an Arkati sorcerer with us, they could have Damage Resistance 5 to mop up any damage that sneaked through. That was incredibly effective, even some criticals were stopped on an 01 roll. Simon ___________________________________________________________ WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes