From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat May 1 18:53:13 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 09:53:13 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GMs influence (was differences between systems) Message-ID: <003101c42f59$bc75ad40$e4c79a51@fluffybunny> Devin said: "Actions determine plot in RQ, while in HW plot determines actions." Forgive me for being slightly blunt about this, but that's a bit of a spurious argument. In both games the plot is set by the interaction of the GM and the players. The GM determines how much influence the players get over the game world. If the GM doesn't want the adventurer/heroes/player characters driving the plot, it aint going to happen - whatever system you use. The GM is the key to any RPG, whatever the rules he or she plays with. You can play 70s or 80s RPG with the players contributing extensively to how the game develops (usually the player has an idea which is far better than anything the GM has thought of). If a GM is going to run this sort of game, he's got to be able to think on his feet and chuck all his (or her) preconceived notions out of the window at a moment's notice. Likewise you can play a so called "storytelling game" in which the players are just bystanders and might as well have read a book. The same effect manifests itself in earlier systems, but with the opposite symptoms, the GM rolls dice for absolutely everything 'cause they think it's "fair" or "balanced" - even interactions between NPCs, which doesn't half slow the game down. Cheers, Ash From DevinC at aol.com Sat May 1 19:05:49 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 05:05:49 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] GMs influence (was differences between systems) Message-ID: <1ca.1fbc1f67.2dc4c26d@aol.com> In a message dated 5/1/2004 1:45:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: You can also use your shoe to pound a nail into a board of wood. That doesn't make it the ideal tool nor even define the proper function of a shoe. Technically, you can both wargame and roleplay using only coin flips. Nevertheless, it is clear to me what HQ emphasizes and devalues and what RQ does. Devin From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun May 2 04:19:16 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 19:19:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] GMs influence (was differences between systems) References: <1ca.1fbc1f67.2dc4c26d@aol.com> Message-ID: <003101c42fa8$d04b6630$18cf2ad9@fluffybunny> RPGs having a "proper function..." I think I'll shut up. Please forget I ever mentioned it... Cheers, Ash ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] GMs influence (was differences between systems) > In a message dated 5/1/2004 1:45:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > aescleal at btinternet.com writes: > spurious argument. In both games the plot is set by the interaction of the GM and > the players. The GM determines how much influence the players get over the game > world. If the GM doesn't want the adventurer/heroes/player characters driving > the plot, it aint going to happen - whatever system you use. The GM is the key > to any RPG, whatever the rules he or she plays with.> > > You can also use your shoe to pound a nail into a board of wood. That doesn't > make it the ideal tool nor even define the proper function of a shoe. > > Technically, you can both wargame and roleplay using only coin flips. > > Nevertheless, it is clear to me what HQ emphasizes and devalues and what RQ > does. > > 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 tiberius at runequest.za.org Mon May 3 05:25:12 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:25:12 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RuneQuest.net Message-ID: <1415.155.239.185.71.1083525912.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> I have mentioned this elsware, but FYI, RuneQuest.net is no longer in existance. (Found out while doing some maintenance on my sites links). Seems someone has bought the URL to reselff for the vast amount of USD399. Use it, don't use it. Ciao Tony www.runequest.za.org -- Vacca Foeda! From DevinC at aol.com Mon May 3 08:37:09 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 18:37:09 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] GMs influence (was differences between systems) Message-ID: <1dd.207e9c49.2dc6d215@aol.com> In a message dated 5/1/2004 11:11:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: Mentioned what? Devin From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat May 8 02:18:42 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:18:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Cyber RQ? Message-ID: <28619873.1083946722334.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" flavor to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like cybernetics, bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. David From slposey at concentric.net Sat May 8 07:07:37 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:07:37 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Cyber RQ? In-Reply-To: <28619873.1083946722334.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <28619873.1083946722334.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <409BFA99.50507@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" flavor to BRPS? > I'm looking for material covering things like cybernetics, bionics, > netrunning, nano-tech, etc. Everything I've run across has been intended for Call of Cthulhu, but they should work with other BRP based rules with minimal tweaking; try these: http://www.rpg.net/realm/cyber/ http://www.davidjrodger.com/DJR%20Web%202000%20-%20New%20Folder%20for%20Completed%20Pages/GAME/game1.htm http://wtimmins.tripod.com/DG/endtime/index.html HTH Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat May 8 21:57:56 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 07:57:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Testt Message-ID: <409CCB44.9080309@talmeta.net> Sorry. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - The night is only about four feet deep. From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat May 8 22:12:13 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 08:12:13 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New Server, New Stuff Message-ID: <409CCE9D.8080508@talmeta.net> Okay folks. Now that my webhosting woes are over (for awhile), I'm adding some new stuff to my pages, primarily the old mpgn/imagic rqrules archives. Not having the skills or the time that Loren (or whoever did the glorious work that the older archives received), I've simply zipped the archives and made them available that way. On that subject, Andrew... is there a way to get mailman to spit out past digests? My collection here might not be complete. Also, the archiver here is still producing monthly volumes, instead of the yearly it's set to....?? -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - I've been looking in the mirror for so long. That I've come to believe my souls on the other side... From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun May 9 00:24:26 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 09:24:26 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Testt References: <409CCB44.9080309@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <409CED9A.5070501@earthlink.net> No worries. Tal Meta wrote: > Sorry. > From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sun May 9 10:48:28 2004 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Campbell Shapero) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 17:48:28 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ Message-ID: <41200450904828650@ix.netcom.com> David Smart wrote on Fri, 7 May 2004 11:18:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00): Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" flavor to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like cybernetics, bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. Done a bit of work in that area myself, mostly in adapting my house rules to support netrunning. -- N. C. Shapero (who didn't stop designing with OTHER SUNS). From slposey at concentric.net Sun May 9 16:28:39 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 23:28:39 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ In-Reply-To: <41200450904828650@ix.netcom.com> References: <41200450904828650@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <409DCF97.9020706@concentric.net> Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: > David Smart wrote on Fri, 7 May 2004 11:18:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00): > > Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding > a "cyber" flavor to BRPS? I'm looking for material > covering things like cybernetics, bionics, netrunning, > nano-tech, etc. > > Done a bit of work in that area myself, mostly in adapting my house rules > to support netrunning. > > -- N. C. Shapero (who didn't stop designing with OTHER SUNS). Indeed? Tell us more. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From MurfNMurf at aol.com Sun May 9 16:48:09 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 02:48:09 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ Message-ID: <103.453be727.2dcf2e29@aol.com> Hi gang, I haven't been following along too closely, but the Chaosium list's archives have somebody's write up for their homebrewed CthulhuPunk--basically CP using BRP mechanics--If your Google Fu is strong, you will find it. There's also a pdf by one Gordon Hardy covering a wide variety of science fiction weapons (and rules too, maybe?) for BRP. Again, Google Fu will help. Also, one of the CoC books--Strange Aens, maybe?---has a futuristic setting with space weapons and skills that might be of some use. Good Hunting :) Best. -Ken Murphy- From MurfNMurf at aol.com Mon May 10 05:07:45 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 15:07:45 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Creature help Message-ID: <29.5725c130.2dcfdb81@aol.com> Hi gang, I've managed to misplace my copy of Drastic Prax, and am in need of the stats for the Zebra and Ostrich out of there. Could someone help me? Thanks. -Ken Murphy- From peter at maranci.net Tue May 11 22:49:11 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ? Message-ID: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> *David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" flavor > to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like cybernetics, > bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. Well, this is probably just a tease, but back when I was in college one of my roommates worked up a science fiction version of RQ which he called "Star Quest", if I recall correctly. Since this was around 1991 the cyber aspect wasn't as developed as it might be, and the focus was on space ships and psionics. He hoped to sell it to Chaosium, but obviously that didn't happen. It was a pretty good try, though. I still have a hard copy of it somewhere in my basement, I think. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From slposey at concentric.net Wed May 12 03:05:25 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:05:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ? In-Reply-To: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> Peter Maranci wrote: > *David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > >>Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" > > flavor > to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like > cybernetics, > >>bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. > > > Well, this is probably just a tease, but back when I was in college one of > my roommates worked up a science fiction version of RQ which he called > "Star Quest", if I recall correctly. Since this was around 1991 the cyber > aspect wasn't as developed as it might be, and the focus was on space > ships and psionics. He hoped to sell it to Chaosium, but obviously that > didn't happen. > > It was a pretty good try, though. I still have a hard copy of it somewhere > in my basement, I think. I'd like to see that myself, and would be willing to offer my services in as transcriber if that's needed and desirable. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 12 03:32:56 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ? In-Reply-To: <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> References: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 May 2004, Stephen Posey wrote: > Peter Maranci wrote: > > > *David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > > > >>Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" > >>flavor > to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like > >>cybernetics, bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. > > > > Well, this is probably just a tease, but back when I was in college one of > > my roommates worked up a science fiction version of RQ which he called > > "Star Quest", if I recall correctly. Since this was around 1991 the cyber > > aspect wasn't as developed as it might be, and the focus was on space > > ships and psionics. He hoped to sell it to Chaosium, but obviously that > > didn't happen. > > > > It was a pretty good try, though. I still have a hard copy of it somewhere > > in my basement, I think. > > I'd like to see that myself, and would be willing to offer my services > in as transcriber if that's needed and desirable. I'd like to see it to. I've got my own 224 page RQ homebrew that I've been slowly adding in modern stuff. -Andrew From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed May 12 04:57:06 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:57:06 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ? Message-ID: <5203325.1084301826406.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> And I have a hi-res scanner to add to the mix! Its OCR capabilities may not be cutting edge but it's pretty darn good and I'd be happy to clean up and share it all. And since I haven't said it yet...THANK YOU to everyone who has contacted me publicly and privately with their CyberRQ material. Your generosity is truly a blessing. By the way, "Other Suns" is still available through Google. The material is truly awesome. David -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Posey Sent: May 11, 2004 12:05 PM To: peter at maranci.net, "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Cyber RQ? Peter Maranci wrote: > *David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > >>Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding a "cyber" > > flavor > to BRPS? I'm looking for material covering things like > cybernetics, > >>bionics, netrunning, nano-tech, etc. > > > Well, this is probably just a tease, but back when I was in college one of > my roommates worked up a science fiction version of RQ which he called > "Star Quest", if I recall correctly. Since this was around 1991 the cyber > aspect wasn't as developed as it might be, and the focus was on space > ships and psionics. He hoped to sell it to Chaosium, but obviously that > didn't happen. > > It was a pretty good try, though. I still have a hard copy of it somewhere > in my basement, I think. I'd like to see that myself, and would be willing to offer my services in as transcriber if that's needed and desirable. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From slposey at concentric.net Fri May 14 13:27:20 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:27:20 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... In-Reply-To: <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> References: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> Message-ID: <40A43C98.7080505@concentric.net> Not sure whether to laugh or cry... While scanning the web looking for something else I stumbled across this thread on an RPG message board called Fluid Fantasy: http://frost.bbboy.net/fluidfantasy-viewthread?forum=15&thread=27&postnum=0#0 The poor soul (evidently not familiar with BRP style games) bought the "non-D20" version of CoC and wants to know where the "levels" are! Some of the replies about how one survives in the game without them are even more priceless. Is this a good or a bad sign about the value/success of CoC D20? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Fri May 14 13:55:56 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:55:56 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... In-Reply-To: <40A43C98.7080505@concentric.net> References: <44458.127.0.0.1.1084279751.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <40A107D5.3030707@concentric.net> <40A43C98.7080505@concentric.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040513205434.02140a10@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:27 PM 5/13/2004, you wrote: >Is this a good or a bad sign about the value/success of CoC D20? > >Stephen Posey Neither one... it is a commentary on the kind of people who buy D20 games! LOL Remember... if its D20... it is still D&D! :) Bo From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri May 14 15:49:49 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:49:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... Message-ID: <410-22004551454949750@earthlink.net> Damn they're pathetic. They obviously never heard of reality > [Original Message] > From: Stephen Posey > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 5/13/2004 8:27:33 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... > > Not sure whether to laugh or cry... > > While scanning the web looking for something else I stumbled across this > thread on an RPG message board called Fluid Fantasy: > > http://frost.bbboy.net/fluidfantasy-viewthread?forum=15&thread=27&postnum=0# 0 > > The poor soul (evidently not familiar with BRP style games) bought the > "non-D20" version of CoC and wants to know where the "levels" are! Some > of the replies about how one survives in the game without them are even > more priceless. > > Is this a good or a bad sign about the value/success of CoC D20? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Fri May 14 19:49:14 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:49:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... Message-ID: Well, at least the last comment about the fact that the BRP system suits better the atmospher of CoC is a good think ;-) Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Sven Lugar Envoy? : vendredi 14 mai 2004 07:50 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : RE: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... Damn they're pathetic. They obviously never heard of reality > [Original Message] > From: Stephen Posey > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 5/13/2004 8:27:33 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Not sure whether to laugh or cry... > > Not sure whether to laugh or cry... > > While scanning the web looking for something else I stumbled across > this thread on an RPG message board called Fluid Fantasy: > > http://frost.bbboy.net/fluidfantasy-viewthread?forum=15&thread=27&postnum=0# 0 > > The poor soul (evidently not familiar with BRP style games) bought the > "non-D20" version of CoC and wants to know where the "levels" are! > Some of the replies about how one survives in the game without them > are even more priceless. > > Is this a good or a bad sign about the value/success of CoC D20? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _______________________________________________ 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 tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 14 20:19:50 2004 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:19:50 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] CoC and Levels In-Reply-To: <20040514055210.6F17D2225B3@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <40A4AB56.6488.1CE87D83@localhost> I get the impression that they're kids on that bbs. I suggest someone registers and explains it all to them. -- 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 lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Fri May 14 20:46:29 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 03:46:29 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] CoC and Levels In-Reply-To: <40A4AB56.6488.1CE87D83@localhost> References: <20040514055210.6F17D2225B3@boomstick.screwheads.net> <40A4AB56.6488.1CE87D83@localhost> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040514034513.02140b30@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:19 AM 5/14/2004, you wrote: >I get the impression that they're kids on that bbs. >I suggest someone registers and explains it all to them. > > >-- >Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk Thought about it... then realized the old American saying fit best... "It ain't my dog, I ain't gona pet it." Seems like more work than I have time for right now. Bo From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 18 20:33:24 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:33:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: >>David Smart wrote on Fri, 7 May 2004 11:18:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00): >> >>Has anyone ever seen, found, or written rules for adding >>a "cyber" flavor to BRPS? I'm looking for material >>covering things like cybernetics, bionics, netrunning, >>nano-tech, etc. >> >Done a bit of work in that area myself, mostly in adapting my house rules >to support netrunning. > >-- N. C. Shapero (who didn't stop designing with OTHER SUNS). Delighted to hear it Niall, as I was hugely fond of much of Other Suns, and used bits of it for my own Cyberthulhu game at Uni back in the late eighties. I'd second Stephen Posey's request for more detail, if you can spare the time of course! Other than the text files up at Negative Space (http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/Future/Other Suns/), are there any other substantive Other Suns resources on the net? It hardly ever appears on eBay UK (and bizarrely recently it's only been book 2 from the FGU boxed set...). Cheers, Nick Middleton From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue May 18 23:45:15 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:45:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <27444519.1084887915155.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Heh. I've been looking for such ever since my original post but no joy yet. I was able to find a webstore (Noble Knight Games) that supposedly has the boxed game in stock and priced at ~$50US. http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_-577998263_A_InventoryID_E_314048810_A_ProductLineID_E_133_A_ManufacturerID_E_32_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_ David -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sent: May 18, 2004 5:33 AM To: nshapero at ix.netcom.com, "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Other than the text files up at Negative Space (http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/Future/Other Suns/), are there any other substantive Other Suns resources on the net? From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 18 23:59:51 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:59:51 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: >Heh. I've been looking for such ever since my original post but no joy yet. Ah well, back to watching eBay and then hoping it doesn't rocket beyond my reach immediately - which to be fair eventually they don't: after a couple of years despairing of completing my "Zola Fel" collection of RQIII stuff I was stunned in the last few months to get both River of Cradles and Shadow of the Borderlands for vaguely sensible prices. So I remain hopeful about the other RQIII bits I don't have (Dorastor, Lords of Terror etc) and will keep an eye out for a complete set of Other Suns as well. Now if the final reprint volume could just come out in a different month to any of that stuff showing up on eBay, I'll be fine... Cheers, Nick Middleton From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Wed May 19 02:45:58 2004 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Campbell Shapero) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 9:45:58 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Smart To: RuneQuest rules discussion. ;nshapero at ix.netcom.com ;RuneQuest rules discussion. Sent: 5/18/04 6:45:18 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Heh. I've been looking for such ever since my original post but no joy yet. I was able to find a webstore (Noble Knight Games) that supposedly has the boxed game in stock and priced at ~$50US. http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_-577998263_A_InventoryID_E_314048810_A_ProductLineID_E_133_A_ManufacturerID_E_32_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_ David I've still got copies of the 2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys that I'd be willing to part with for considerably less money. -- N. C. Shapero From slposey at concentric.net Wed May 19 03:41:55 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:41:55 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> References: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <40AA4AE3.4000807@concentric.net> Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: > > I've still got copies of the 2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys that I'd be > willing to part with for considerably less money. I'd probably be game for one of those, how much? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed May 19 08:04:40 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:04:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <3113494.1084917880145.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> "2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys". My apologies, Niall, I'm a bit confused (or just braindead after a day of meetings).."galleys"? David -----Original Message----- From: Niall Campbell Shapero Sent: May 18, 2004 11:45 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." , "RuneQuest rules discussion." , David Smart Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) ----- Original Message ----- From: David Smart To: RuneQuest rules discussion. ;nshapero at ix.netcom.com ;RuneQuest rules discussion. Sent: 5/18/04 6:45:18 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Heh. I've been looking for such ever since my original post but no joy yet. I was able to find a webstore (Noble Knight Games) that supposedly has the boxed game in stock and priced at ~$50US. http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_-577998263_A_InventoryID_E_314048810_A_ProductLineID_E_133_A_ManufacturerID_E_32_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_ David I've still got copies of the 2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys that I'd be willing to part with for considerably less money. -- N. C. Shapero _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed May 19 08:12:57 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:12:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040518151205.02178ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Dispair no longer Nick, just call Waterloo 213 North Gilbert Road Gilbert, AZ 85234 480-497-9554 That is FGU. And he is happy to ship UPS. Scott (the owner) is a great guy. Bo At 06:59 AM 5/18/2004, you wrote: >>Heh. I've been looking for such ever since my original post but no joy >yet. > >Ah well, back to watching eBay and then hoping it doesn't rocket beyond my >reach immediately - which to be fair eventually they don't: after a couple >of years despairing of completing my "Zola Fel" collection of RQIII stuff I >was stunned in the last few months to get both River of Cradles and Shadow >of the Borderlands for vaguely sensible prices. So I remain hopeful about >the other RQIII bits I don't have (Dorastor, Lords of Terror etc) and will >keep an eye out for a complete set of Other Suns as well. > >Now if the final reprint volume could just come out in a different month to >any of that stuff showing up on eBay, I'll be fine... > >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 slposey at concentric.net Wed May 19 08:14:44 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:14:44 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: <3113494.1084917880145.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <3113494.1084917880145.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <40AA8AD4.2090904@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > "2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys". > > My apologies, Niall, I'm a bit confused (or just braindead after a day of meetings).."galleys"? From Google: "Galleys: The initial typeset form of a manuscript, sent to an author for review. Page divisions are not made, but type size and column format are set." Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Wed May 19 11:42:19 2004 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Campbell Shapero) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:42:19 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <41200453191421930@ix.netcom.com> $30US if you're somewhere in the continental United States. If you're elsewhere, I'd have to find out what the difference in postal charges would be before quoting a price. ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Posey To: RuneQuest rules discussion. ;nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sent: 5/18/04 10:41:59 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: I've still got copies of the 2nd edition OTHER SUNS galleys that I'd be willing to part with for considerably less money. I'd probably be game for one of those, how much? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Wed May 19 14:43:57 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:43:57 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: <41200453191421930@ix.netcom.com> References: <41200453191421930@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <40AAE60D.4050804@concentric.net> Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: > $30US if you're somewhere in the > continental United States. If you're elsewhere, I'd have to find out what > the difference in postal charges would be before quoting a price. I am in the continental US (Nevada to be precise); so that $30 includes US postage presumably? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 19 22:26:12 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 05:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: <40AAE60D.4050804@concentric.net> References: <41200453191421930@ix.netcom.com> <40AAE60D.4050804@concentric.net> Message-ID: So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes it so desirable? -Andrew From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed May 19 22:41:05 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 05:41:05 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: References: <41200453191421930@ix.netcom.com> <40AAE60D.4050804@concentric.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040519053636.021415a0@incoming.verizon.net> It is a Space Opera style of game with a BRP system that includes a very desirable Endurance system. The Human race is a minor race, the major races are for the most part Uplifted types (although they have evolved, not been altered for the most part). The space combat system is streamlined and simplified, but it is still in the hands of the PCs to win, not just a set of dice rolls. Hyperspace travel and spaceship construction are very good. The only reason I can see for all the talk here is that it is a Basic Role Playing system, and so is sort of an RQ variant. In many ways it is superior to RQ 2, but they are very similar IMHO. Bo At 05:26 AM 5/19/2004, you wrote: >So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes it so desirable? > >-Andrew > >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed May 19 23:03:16 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:03:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: > >So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes it so desirable? > Good questions. Does RQIII have a style? I mean, it was quite tightly associated with Glorantha in peoples minds, but both Land of Ninja and Vikings are highly regarded. Runequest sort of had a reputation for "grittiness" and "realism" (whatever that is!) as well as doing low power, low key games well. Yet as many a conversation on this list alone has shown, some folk found RQ worked exceptionally well for non-Gloranthan settings, emphasising acts of derring do and heroism that would make hollywood proud whilst coping with power levels that make typical manga look pedestrian... So personally I'm a bit wary of tying "styles" to rule systems. For myself, I felt that Other Suns was the first SF RPG I'd found that felt believable (Traveller was at this point it must be emphasised still using that awful weapon vs armour type table to modify the 8+ on 2d6 to hit roll...), and since OS's rules were patently obviously a derivative of RQ, I found it very easy to follow, and certain complexities were easily offset by the reasoning underlying them. For example, I have already mentioned here the sense I see in SIZe being a derived value based on the characters LENgth of body (height for bipeds) and BuiLD. It adapted the BRP mechanics to cope with high tech weapons well, added in a Psionics System that DIDN'T look like a magic system with the serial numbers filed off and felt pleasingly low key at initial PC levels (although obviously capable of scaling to Doc Smith levels). My memory of the Ships and World generation material is sketchier (because I was less interested in those) but IIRC they demonstrated a sound knowledge of contemporary astronomy and planetology, albeit there was something overly mathematical and dry about the ships I felt. In general I uses Space Opera's blatantly nonscientific Ships and World gen system in my Other Suns campaign. The setting was rather neat, a variety of nonhuman races with humans as very definitely NOT the centre of the universe (earth is a smouldering cinder), and one rather took the "furriness" in ones stride at the time... It had that sense that RQ had of being sufficiently grounded for one to believe easily in the characters and situations, whilst somehow knowing that the rules were flexible enough to adapt to whatever personal or fictional idea one felt like imposing on the game. I'm not sure (no offence Niall!) that it is "so desirable" per se: it's another early eighties SF game. It happens to be BRP based (a big plus point in my book!) and it's the only widely published such game (the other two being Future World in Worlds of Wonder and Ringworld) that did "the whole shooting match" as it were; characters, technology, ships worlds and all (FW was so short they invented the Gate system to save the vast space a Starship system would have taken, and Ringworld ignored most of Known Space to focus solely on the Ringworld itself). So it has a certain inherent merit, but it's not something like Griffin Mountain, The Traveller Adventure or Empire of the Petal Throne. It's desirable to me in as much as I have been kicking myself for the last few years for having sold my copy 9 years ago. And the few pages I have photocopies of still on weapons and armour still form a useful basis for weird things to drop in to BRP games. But I wouldn't mind a full copy again. Sadly, I'm in the UK, so I think Niall's galleys are going to go to David, but I shall keep watching eBay. Niall, since much of the text is up on the net (and you are offering the galleys for sale), are you still hoping to print publish 2nd Edition, or would you open to distribution in electronic form? Cheers, Nick Middleton From gianni at basicrps.com Wed May 19 22:24:45 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:24:45 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dragon Pass counters In-Reply-To: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> References: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <1084969485.40ab520dca230@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang Thought it could be of interest: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1720 G. From kruch7 at cox.net Wed May 19 23:54:45 2004 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:54:45 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dragon Pass counters References: <4120045218164558850@ix.netcom.com> <1084969485.40ab520dca230@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <001801c43da8$d80a24c0$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Wow thanks now I can get better replacement then my hand made ones Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:24 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dragon Pass counters > Hi gang > > Thought it could be of interest: > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1720 > > G. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu May 20 00:52:54 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:52:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <22705047.1084978374331.JavaMail.root@beaker.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Nick, you're absolutely correct regarding my wanting the galleys! Niall, please feel free to contact me privately at jurrubin at earthlink.net so we can swap information regarding payment format, addresses, etc. And if you want to publish 2nd edition in hard copy or electronic format, I'll be happy to buy the finished product, too. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sent: May 19, 2004 8:03 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) > >So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes it so desirable? > Good questions. Does RQIII have a style? I mean, it was quite tightly associated with Glorantha in peoples minds, but both Land of Ninja and Vikings are highly regarded. Runequest sort of had a reputation for "grittiness" and "realism" (whatever that is!) as well as doing low power, low key games well. Yet as many a conversation on this list alone has shown, some folk found RQ worked exceptionally well for non-Gloranthan settings, emphasising acts of derring do and heroism that would make hollywood proud whilst coping with power levels that make typical manga look pedestrian... So personally I'm a bit wary of tying "styles" to rule systems. For myself, I felt that Other Suns was the first SF RPG I'd found that felt believable (Traveller was at this point it must be emphasised still using that awful weapon vs armour type table to modify the 8+ on 2d6 to hit roll...), and since OS's rules were patently obviously a derivative of RQ, I found it very easy to follow, and certain complexities were easily offset by the reasoning underlying them. For example, I have already mentioned here the sense I see in SIZe being a derived value based on the characters LENgth of body (height for bipeds) and BuiLD. It adapted the BRP mechanics to cope with high tech weapons well, added in a Psionics System that DIDN'T look like a magic system with the serial numbers filed off and felt pleasingly low key at initial PC levels (although obviously capable of scaling to Doc Smith levels). My memory of the Ships and World generation material is sketchier (because I was less interested in those) but IIRC they demonstrated a sound knowledge of contemporary astronomy and planetology, albeit there was something overly mathematical and dry about the ships I felt. In general I uses Space Opera's blatantly nonscientific Ships and World gen system in my Other Suns campaign. The setting was rather neat, a variety of nonhuman races with humans as very definitely NOT the centre of the universe (earth is a smouldering cinder), and one rather took the "furriness" in ones stride at the time... It had that sense that RQ had of being sufficiently grounded for one to believe easily in the characters and situations, whilst somehow knowing that the rules were flexible enough to adapt to whatever personal or fictional idea one felt like imposing on the game. I'm not sure (no offence Niall!) that it is "so desirable" per se: it's another early eighties SF game. It happens to be BRP based (a big plus point in my book!) and it's the only widely published such game (the other two being Future World in Worlds of Wonder and Ringworld) that did "the whole shooting match" as it were; characters, technology, ships worlds and all (FW was so short they invented the Gate system to save the vast space a Starship system would have taken, and Ringworld ignored most of Known Space to focus solely on the Ringworld itself). So it has a certain inherent merit, but it's not something like Griffin Mountain, The Traveller Adventure or Empire of the Petal Throne. It's desirable to me in as much as I have been kicking myself for the last few years for having sold my copy 9 years ago. And the few pages I have photocopies of still on weapons and armour still form a useful basis for weird things to drop in to BRP games. But I wouldn't mind a full copy again. Sadly, I'm in the UK, so I think Niall's galleys are going to go to David, but I shall keep watching eBay. Niall, since much of the text is up on the net (and you are offering the galleys for sale), are you still hoping to print publish 2nd Edition, or would you open to distribution in electronic form? 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 Thu May 20 01:05:15 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:05:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <28101031.1084979115423.JavaMail.root@beaker.psp.pas.earthlink.net> What Nick said. I look at an RPG from two perspectives, game mechanics and background material. First for me are the game mechanics. I've found the BRPS to be the best balance (for me) of detail and playability of all the game systems I've played since the late 70's. I've yet to find a system that provides the speed and intuitiveness of BRPS while providing enough detail to players so that they can attempt virtually any real world and/or cinematic tactic and task they can think of. Second, an RPG must provide enough background material for me that I, as a GM, can 1) envision the campaign environment easily, 2) be able to run a simple immersive adventure for up to 6 players with a minimum of work, and 3) provide enough room for me to develop extreme detail if I want to. Traveller's background is fantastic but, IMO, the game mechanics are horrible. The Glorantha background, while fun, can occasionally twist a newbie player's brain into a knot but the BRPS can easily be taught to a couple 8-year-olds in less than 15 minutes (I've done it) and I can add house rules without having to compute odds using a statistics calculator. David -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Mellinger Sent: May 19, 2004 7:26 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes it so desirable? -Andrew _______________________________________________ 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 grogthing at yahoo.com Thu May 20 02:23:16 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) In-Reply-To: <28101031.1084979115423.JavaMail.root@beaker.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040519162316.27331.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> Well said. So is there only one set of the galleys for sale? If there are more copies I would be interested as well. Greg --- David Smart wrote: > What Nick said. > > I look at an RPG from two perspectives, game > mechanics and background material. > > First for me are the game mechanics. I've found the > BRPS to be the best balance (for me) of detail and > playability of all the game systems I've played > since the late 70's. I've yet to find a system that > provides the speed and intuitiveness of BRPS while > providing enough detail to players so that they can > attempt virtually any real world and/or cinematic > tactic and task they can think of. > > Second, an RPG must provide enough background > material for me that I, as a GM, can 1) envision the > campaign environment easily, 2) be able to run a > simple immersive adventure for up to 6 players with > a minimum of work, and 3) provide enough room for me > to develop extreme detail if I want to. > > Traveller's background is fantastic but, IMO, the > game mechanics are horrible. The Glorantha > background, while fun, can occasionally twist a > newbie player's brain into a knot but the BRPS can > easily be taught to a couple 8-year-olds in less > than 15 minutes (I've done it) and I can add house > rules without having to compute odds using a > statistics calculator. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Mellinger > Sent: May 19, 2004 7:26 AM > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber > RQ) > > > So what is style of RPG is Other Suns? What makes > it so desirable? > > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Thu May 20 04:44:35 2004 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Campbell Shapero) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:44:35 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Message-ID: <4120045319184435270@ix.netcom.com> Yes. Send me your postal address and I'll send you mine (for the $30). ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Posey To: RuneQuest rules discussion. ;nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sent: 5/18/04 9:44:02 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: $30US if you're somewhere in the continental United States. If you're elsewhere, I'd have to find out what the difference in postal charges would be before quoting a price. I am in the continental US (Nevada to be precise); so that $30 includes US postage presumably? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Thu May 20 05:01:46 2004 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Campbell Shapero) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:1:46 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 5, Issue 4 Message-ID: <412004531919146550@ix.netcom.com> I'm not sure (no offence Niall!) that it is "so desirable" per se: it's another early eighties SF game. It happens to be BRP based (a big plus point in my book!) and it's the only widely published such game (the other two being Future World in Worlds of Wonder and Ringworld) that did "the whole shooting match" as it were; characters, technology, ships worlds and all (FW was so short they invented the Gate system to save the vast space a Starship system would have taken, and Ringworld ignored most of Known Space to focus solely on the Ringworld itself). So it has a certain inherent merit, but it's not something like Griffin Mountain, The Traveller Adventure or Empire of the Petal Throne. It's desirable to me in as much as I have been kicking myself for the last few years for having sold my copy 9 years ago. And the few pages I have photocopies of still on weapons and armour still form a useful basis for weird things to drop in to BRP games. But I wouldn't mind a full copy again. Sadly, I'm in the UK, so I think Niall's galleys are going to go to David, but I shall keep watching eBay OTHER SUNS is also a sort of "bridge" between point-build systems (like HERO GURPS) and random roll systems (like the old RQ2). Some randomness in character generation, but with a fair amount of player decision as to precise skills. Niall, since much of the text is up on the net (and you are offering the galleys for sale), are you still hoping to print publish 2nd Edition, or would you open to distribution in electronic form? Cheers, Nick Middleton Very little of the text is up on the net, actually. Some of it ended up there, but there's a lot more that didn't. I've got a couple of copies of the galleys, and once I get around to reformatting things for Word (the galleys were done up in PageMaker), I can print out a few more copies. It's a bit expensive though (several hundred pages). I'm sticking with print form rather than electronic for general publication, though. -- N. C. Shapero From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu May 20 10:22:14 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] OT: English Rules for Les Dieux Nomades In-Reply-To: <20040519184630.1BD09222716@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040520002214.21078.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> Ok, not as OT as the extended Other Suns discussion! I just got my hands on a French version of Nomad Gods. I remember the French-to-english translation as being available on the web, but now cannot find it. Can some kind soul either point me to it, or send it? Many thanks in advance. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu May 20 13:07:26 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:07:26 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) References: <4120045319184435270@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <40AC20EE.4000809@earthlink.net> Niall, My address is... David Smart 1508 Callaway Drive Plano, TX 75075-6843 Will the $30 cover shipping? David Smart Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: >Yes. Send me your postal address and >I'll send you mine (for the $30). > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Stephen >Posey > >To: RuneQuest rules discussion. ;nshapero at ix.netcom.com > >Sent: 5/18/04 9:44:02 PM > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: >Cyber RQ) > > > > > >Niall Campbell Shapero wrote: > > > > $30US if you're somewhere in the > > continental United States. If you're elsewhere, I'd have to >find out what > > the difference in postal charges would be before quoting a >price. > > > >I am in the continental US (Nevada to be precise); so that $30 includes > > >US postage presumably? > > > >Stephen Posey > >slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu May 20 13:26:28 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:26:28 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Other Suns (was Re: Cyber RQ) References: <4120045319184435270@ix.netcom.com> <40AC20EE.4000809@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <40AC2564.2040200@earthlink.net> Sorry, all. My last post was obviously supposed to be off-list. *blush* David From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu May 20 18:25:27 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:25:27 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 5, Issue 4 Message-ID: >> (SNIP a lot of waffle from me) ...I >>think >>Niall's galleys are going to go to David, but I shall keep watching >>eBay > >OTHER SUNS is also a sort of "bridge" between point-build systems (like >HERO GURPS) and random roll systems (like the old RQ2). Some >randomness in character generation, but with a fair amount of player decision as >to precise skills. > Good point. It's been so long since I had a copy I'd forgotten that. >>Niall, since much of the text is up on the net (and you are offering >>the galleys for sale), are you still hoping to print publish 2nd Edition, >>or would you open to distribution in electronic form? > >Very little of the text is up on the net, actually. Having spent some time editing together in to single documents some email postings from a .lzh.tar archive I found somewhere last night, I noticed! Some new races, basic character gen, the background and the Ice World text appears to be all I have found. > Some of it ended up there, but there's a lot more that didn't. I've got a couple of copies >of the galleys, and once I get around to reformatting things for Word (the >galleys were done up in PageMaker), I can print out a few more copies. It's >a bit expensive though (several hundred pages). I'm sticking with print >form rather than electronic for general publication, though. Hmm, well adding shipping for several hundred pages across the Atlantic on top of the base price means I shall definitely have to keep scouring the charity shops (I picked up a copy of Green and Pleasant Land for CoC for 65 pence in one a couple of years ago...) and eBay, unless OS 2nd Edition gets large scale publication and international distribution (or I blag a work trip to the US, hmm what's the weather forecast in Hell?). But thank you very much for the information Niall. An interesting topic for the Wiki might be to look at the etymology of BRP systems, including both close descendants of the original RuneQuest (Other Suns, Nephilim, the Blakes' Seven RPG) and distant mutations (Pendragon, Hero Wars/Quest?, D&D3e/d20??). Now, just to find a quiet weekend in which to write it! Oh, and since it's the fourth session of the weekly RQII/III hybrid game in Pavis a friend is running tonight (which means that the campaign is a goer as both the RQ newbies seem to be enjoying the system and setting), I feel I must just say... "Weeeeeeeeee! I'm PLAYING! RUNEQUEST!!!" God, I'd forgotten how much I liked BRP as player! :-) Sorry, been running a LOT recently, and only playing D&D since the Pendragon epic last year. Cheers, Nick Middleton From mechashef at bigpond.com Fri May 21 12:50:38 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:50:38 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: <000901c43ede$75023fc0$18ce36cb@P2800L> Has anyone created a good system of character creation which allows the players to allocate points to the desired characteristics instead of the usual 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to also require changes to how high a character can improve some characteristics. Thanks From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri May 21 14:39:33 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:39:33 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: <410-22004552143933171@earthlink.net> One system I used involved rolling 2D6 for every characteristics & then getting 42 points to allocate (max of 1d6 times the 7 characteristics). Characteristics could be brought up only to 18. It seemed to give enough variation but still allow for some self determination of points. One variant we also used was a max of 21 for any chracteristic but no characteristic could be less than 9. > [Original Message] > From: Mechashef > To: > Date: 5/21/2004 3:50:55 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters > > Has anyone created a good system of character creation which allows the players to allocate points to the desired characteristics instead of the usual 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? > > I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to also require changes to how high a character can improve some characteristics. > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri May 21 18:39:23 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:39:23 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: >One system I used involved rolling 2D6 for every characteristics & then >getting 42 points to allocate (max of 1d6 times the 7 characteristics). >Characteristics could be brought up only to 18. It seemed to give enough >variation but still allow for some self determination of points. One >variant we also used was a max of 21 for any chracteristic but no >characteristic could be less than 9. Interesting. That is basically the same range as Elric! (Stormbringer 5th ed) of course, which is a flat 2D6+6 for all stats for a human adventurer, and whilst it is not as epic in feel as one might assume with starting characters, it is considerably more heroic that RQ. Although that's probably as much to do with starting skills and the rules differences. Cthulhu Dark Ages (the book, not the PDF's) has a point buy system, the details of which entirely escape me at present... I have in the past used the standard RQ min/max values (3-21 for STR,CON, DEX, POW, APP and 8-21 for SIZ and INT) but allowed a point distribution of, say 84 for a relatively low key game (average score 12) up to 98 for a more heroic game. But ultimately I dislike point buy schemes: they encourage too much meta-game thinking IME, forcing players to think about external game issues from the get go. Dice rolling for character gen (with a sympathetic ref and allowing the player to choose things like occupation and age) works better for me: it feels more like discovering who this person is, which for most of my characters (and most of the groups I play with seem to have a similar approach) is a process that carries on through at least the first few sessions of play. Struggling to keep within the straitjacket of a point buy character designed "dry", before any playing had happened, has in the past deeply frustrated me to the point of giving up on games (it's my other gripe, besides my aversion to the 3d6 mechanic, to GURPS). But I don't see any problem with the system I outlined and keeping Characteristic Increases as per the rules or indeed changing them as many of the list seem to dislike the existing rules. If no-one else chimes in beforehand, I'll check my copy of CDA at home tonight and post a summary of how that point buy works. Cheers, Nick From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri May 21 19:06:46 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:06:46 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: I use a system where you roll 3 x 2d6 and 5 x 3d6 You then can decide where to put the finished figures (the 2d6's on Age, SIZ and INT, the 3d6's on the other stats) If the total numbers rolled (not counting age) is less than 90, you may rais up to 6 points on any stat up to 90. There is allso a system in RQ3 for not rolling up the stats, and there's allso possible to check out CoC's rulebooks on how they solve it. >From: "Mechashef" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters >Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:50:38 +1000 > >Has anyone created a good system of character creation which allows the >players to allocate points to the desired characteristics instead of the >usual 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? > >I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to also require changes to how >high a character can improve some characteristics. > >Thanks > >_______________________________________________ >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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 21 19:21:30 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:21:30 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: >There is allso a system in RQ3 for not rolling up the stats, and there's >allso possible to check out CoC's rulebooks on how they solve it. Alas, haven't got my copy of RQIII to hand, but I do know that there are no point buy schemes in any edition CoC rulebook, apart from Cthulhu dark Ages. It was one of the (slight) surprises about the new 6th edition actually. Cheers, Nick Middleton From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Fri May 21 21:12:15 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:12:15 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040521040948.0213c588@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:06 AM 5/21/2004, you wrote: >I use a system where you roll 3 x 2d6 and 5 x 3d6 You then can decide where to put the finished figures (the 2d6's on Age, SIZ and INT, the 3d6's on the other stats) If the total numbers rolled (not counting age) is less than 90, you may rais up to 6 points on any stat up to 90. So you start characters 18 points short in Age, SIZ, and INT than the basic system? Or did you forget to add the +6 that belongs there? Or did play testing determine that the extra 18 points was too much? (The 18 points are from the fact that Age, SIZ, and INT are 2d6+6, and they are missing from the calculation. If you determine Age separately it works though.) Bo From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri May 21 22:01:43 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:01:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <000901c43ede$75023fc0$18ce36cb@P2800L> References: <000901c43ede$75023fc0$18ce36cb@P2800L> Message-ID: <40ADEFA7.9040406@inetnebr.com> Mechashef wrote: >Has anyone created a good system of character creation which allows the players to allocate points to the desired characteristics instead of the usual 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? > >I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to also require changes to how high a character can improve some characteristics. > > SPQR has a point buy system as well, it feels like he pulled RQ towards HERO, I think you can download the character creation part of that for free. -- 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 Fri May 21 22:53:27 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <000901c43ede$75023fc0$18ce36cb@P2800L> Message-ID: <20040521125327.20173.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com> I use a simple system that allows a player to play what he wants. They can spend 112pts between all stats (I use CH and APP with out one of these you should cut back 14pts) no more than 18 in any stat. Then I give them 300pts to divide amongst all skills on 1-1 upto an effective skill of 50, 2-1 up to 75, 3-1 above 75. Seems to work well. Leon --- Mechashef wrote: > Has anyone created a good system of character > creation which allows the players to allocate points > to the desired characteristics instead of the usual > 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? > > I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to also > require changes to how high a character can improve > some characteristics. > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Fri May 21 23:39:28 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:39:28 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: <114.330bc79a.2ddf6090@wmconnect.com> I recently used a system that seemed to work well. I had the players roll the stats straight, no rerolls. But for every 1 they rolled, they made a tic mark. After rolling all stats they then got to roll a d6 for each one they had rolled, add those up, and distirbute those pts where they wanted them, with racial max being the limit. Example Str - 3,5,1 9 CON - 3,6,4 13 SIZ - 4,1 +6 11 INT - 6,4 +6 16 POW - 6,5,1 12 DEX - 4,5,3 12 APP - 3,1,6 10 4 1's rolled so roll 4d6 3,5,4,2 = 14 gives 14 pts to distribute amongst the stas above. It puts the randomness in there but also lets the players develop a character along the lines of the occupation they are in. I had them roll the occupation before they added the stats. That way, the warriors weren't walking aoround with low STR and high POW. Interstingly enough, I have the smallest SIZ group of any I have ever run for. 1 character is 16, 1 is 13 and the rest are 10-11. I also had them roll background pts rather than a set number per years. Took a little longer but gave some variation to the skills. x1 1d2 x2 1d3 x3 1d3+1 x4 1d6 x5 1d8 x6 1d10 Since I had 3 out of 5 roll up mercenary, it gave some differences to the characters instead of all having the same skills. Okay, I've rambled enough. Later William From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat May 22 01:19:19 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <20040521125327.20173.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040521151919.85268.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> The problem with distributing points is that one can design a character with high fixed points (SIZ, INT) at the expense of trainable ones (STR, CON, DEX), depend on the rest of the band to protect them until they train up, and have an unrealistic supercharacter after a game year or so. Paul Cardwell --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I use a simple system that allows a player to play > what he wants. They can spend 112pts between all > stats (I use CH and APP with out one of these you > should cut back 14pts) no more than 18 in any stat. > > Then I give them 300pts to divide amongst all skills > on 1-1 upto an effective skill of 50, 2-1 up to 75, > 3-1 above 75. > > Seems to work well. > > Leon > > --- Mechashef wrote: > > Has anyone created a good system of character > > creation which allows the players to allocate > points > > to the desired characteristics instead of the > usual > > 3D6 and 2D6+6 Dice rolling? > > > > I'm toying with the idea, but it then seems to > also > > require changes to how high a character can > improve > > some characteristics. > > > > Thanks > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer > _______________________________________________ > 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! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat May 22 01:31:31 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <20040521151919.85268.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040521153131.67896.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > The problem with distributing points is that one can > design a character with high fixed points (SIZ, INT) > at the expense of trainable ones (STR, CON, DEX), > depend on the rest of the band to protect them until > they train up, and have an unrealistic > supercharacter after a game year or so. Not a problem. It takes a season to train a characteristic. During this time the other player characters will be training skills and will be more powerful because of it. Over the last 10 years of playing, I never had a player in any of my games who used time of to actually train a skill. It much easier to relly on spells to boost your stats. BTW, a high SIZ is as much trouble as a benifit: GM: "So, which one will you target?" PC/NPC: "I want to hit the one who looks the most dangerous, the big one." ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat May 22 01:59:24 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:59:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: <8475393.1085155164243.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Now that's interesting. I've noted the same thing. I've also seen highly capable PCs/NPCs focus on the _least_ armored target over someone wearing iron chain or plate. Either the target is the weakest to take out and therefore reduces the number of incoming attacks the fastest or he's the best armored magically and should be taken out first. I wonder what other trends others have seen. David -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: May 21, 2004 10:31 AM To: carpgachair at yahoo.com, "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters BTW, a high SIZ is as much trouble as a benifit: GM: "So, which one will you target?" PC/NPC: "I want to hit the one who looks the most dangerous, the big one." From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat May 22 02:04:26 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <20040521153131.67896.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040521160426.15503.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > Not a problem. It takes a season to train a > characteristic. During this time the other player > characters will be training skills and will be more > powerful because of it. Under the RQ rules, it takes considerably less than a season per point. > Over the last 10 years of playing, I never had a > player in any of my games who used time of to > actually > train a skill. It much easier to relly on spells to > boost your stats. Spells can increase POW, but little else. > BTW, a high SIZ is as much trouble as a benifit: > GM: "So, which one will you target?" > PC/NPC: "I want to hit the one who looks the most > dangerous, the big one." Granted. The main advantage of SIZ is that it would permit the increase of STR and CON to the max. The same rule exists in Mythworld, and my first two characters were a wookie and one of H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy characters. The fuzzy was 18 inches tall and was highly successful, even if he did have to dismount the pack mule using his shield as a hang glider! However, the wookie was no slouch either, despite the lack of shield or armor (too heavy under the square-cube law, and messes up the fur). Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat May 22 04:02:43 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <20040521160426.15503.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040521180243.38666.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > Not a problem. It takes a season to train a > > characteristic. During this time the other player > > characters will be training skills and will be > more > > powerful because of it. > > Under the RQ rules, it takes considerably less than > a season per point. Maybe a month, but still a long time and in any case it is not a sure thing. I believe there is a roll involved and you may not get it at all. > > Over the last 10 years of playing, I never had a > > player in any of my games who used time of to > > actually > > train a skill. It much easier to relly on spells > to > > boost your stats. > > Spells can increase POW, but little else. I am talking about Vigor, Coordination, Glamor, Boost STR, Boost CON, Sea Strength. No matter which magic you use there are things to increase stats. > > BTW, a high SIZ is as much trouble as a benifit: > > GM: "So, which one will you target?" > > PC/NPC: "I want to hit the one who looks the most > > dangerous, the big one." > > Granted. The main advantage of SIZ is that it would > permit the increase of STR and CON to the max. It also improves damage bonus and hit points. I still say that time spent on improving stats is not worth the trouble and is better spent training skills. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Sat May 22 05:31:37 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:31:37 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: We have been playing RQ for around 18 yrs now and in that time I would have to say that the majority of training time has been on skills, not Stats. The primary stat training has been either CON or DEX. And the DEX training has generally been limited to what it took to get to the next SR level. As mentioned, it is more productive to cast a spell or use a potion. We like magic spirits with the stat spells. In general, if we are training, it normally to either pick up new skills or to raise skills up to a level needed for cult status. Our biggest gains in stats came from traveling in arctic conditions for a year or more game time. We each got a couple of pts to CON, depending on what the CON was to start with. William From pmj at comhem.se Sat May 22 07:54:28 2004 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:54:28 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40AE7A94.60208@comhem.se> Hi! We've used several different ways of dealing with this issue: 1) The players roll stats normally and then roll three extra rolls and are allowed to choose them instead if they want to. This might include lowering stats, like SIZ if someone wants a sneaky character that turned out a giant. 2) The players roll stats the number of times they have stats and then choose where to place them 3) The player roll stats normally and then get to choose to keep them or discard them and reroll up to four times. You cannot however choose stats once you've discarded them. 4) We also sometime play that you roll stats normally and if a stat is below eight, you get to reroll. 5) We roll stats normally but depending on your professional background you have the chance to improve some of the stats during apprenticeship etc... The real problem as I see it is to get the players to keep what they percieve as "bad stats" and turn it in to something interesting. One of the most challenging characters I have had was a PC in "Mutant" which had an INT of five! In just an hour or two I managed to get at least two of the other characters to feel responsible for him and protect and help him when he did something stupid or started crying. It was fun but also frustrating when we were in situations when I as a player had figured things out but really couldn't roleplay that my character had. At least I could always find some comfort in mocking the other players though. :-) /Peter J From gianni at basicrps.com Sun May 23 19:43:37 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:43:37 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Zola Fel cult, net weapon skill In-Reply-To: <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> References: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <1085305417.40b072498aac1@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang In the RQ2 Pavis box there is a description of the Zola fel cult, which states that the cult teaches the net weapon skill. However I couldn't find any description of the net weapon skill prior to Monster Coliseum (RQ3). Is there any RQ2 description of the net weapon skill? Cheers Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun May 23 21:13:24 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:13:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Zola Fel cult, net weapon skill References: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com><003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> <1085305417.40b072498aac1@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <000501c440b6$f6f76350$2e962bd9@fluffybunny> It's in one of the appendices to Cults of Terror. Cheers, Ash ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Zola Fel cult, net weapon skill > Hi gang > > In the RQ2 Pavis box there is a description of the Zola fel cult, which states > that the cult teaches the net weapon skill. However I couldn't find any > description of the net weapon skill prior to Monster Coliseum (RQ3). > > Is there any RQ2 description of the net weapon skill? > > Cheers > > Gianni > webmaster of basicrps.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon May 24 18:06:10 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:06:10 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: >Now that's interesting. I've noted the same thing. > >I've also seen highly capable PCs/NPCs focus on the _least_ armored target over someone wearing iron chain or >plate. > >Either the target is the weakest to take out and therefore reduces the number of incoming attacks the fastest or >he's the best armored magically and should be taken out first. > >I wonder what other trends others have seen. > >David "Shoot the bloke in the dress!" "Why, you think he's a mage?" "No, anyone who wears THAT scarf with that dress deserves to die!" :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Nick Middleton From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Mon May 24 22:57:36 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 05:57:36 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040524055536.0213bd10@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:06 AM 5/24/2004, you wrote: >"Shoot the bloke in the dress!" > >"Why, you think he's a mage?" > >"No, anyone who wears THAT scarf with that dress deserves to die!" > >:-) > >Sorry, couldn't resist! > > >Nick Middleton Oh no... did you see how he killed that fashion tragedy? He is an Initiate of !E Network! RUN!!! :-) Bo From andrew at crashbox.com Tue May 25 00:36:30 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Threat Level [Was: Non-Random Characters] In-Reply-To: <8475393.1085155164243.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <8475393.1085155164243.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Generally, in our games it isn't simply "Who is the biggest", or "Who has the worst fashion sense." I used a home brew that has a bunch of other types of combat skills, as well as assessment skills. Oftentimes, we let a character roll to see if he can determine the biggest threat. This might be from a "Battle Craft" roll, or Lore, Scan, whatever is appropriate for the adversaries. Also, the players take into account the character's preferences. We have one who hates wizards, so he pretty much always goes for them first. I had one player once who always went after artillery types first. So for us it is pretty much all over the board. Players evaluate the bad guys and find the biggest threat. Sure, size helps increase their threat level, but for us that isn't the only factor. -Andrew On Fri, 21 May 2004, David Smart wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:59:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) > From: David Smart > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters > > Now that's interesting. I've noted the same thing. > > I've also seen highly capable PCs/NPCs focus on the _least_ armored target over someone wearing iron chain or plate. > > Either the target is the weakest to take out and therefore reduces the number of incoming attacks the fastest or he's the best armored magically and should be taken out first. > > I wonder what other trends others have seen. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Kirshtein > Sent: May 21, 2004 10:31 AM > To: carpgachair at yahoo.com, "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters > > > BTW, a high SIZ is as much trouble as a benifit: > GM: "So, which one will you target?" > PC/NPC: "I want to hit the one who looks the most > dangerous, the big 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 25 00:46:17 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:46:17 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Threat Level [Was: Non-Random Characters] Message-ID: >Generally, in our games it isn't simply "Who is the biggest", or "Who has >the worst fashion sense." I used a home brew that has a bunch of other >types of combat skills, as well as assessment skills. Oftentimes, we let >a character roll to see if he can determine the biggest threat. This >might be from a "Battle Craft" roll, or Lore, Scan, whatever is >appropriate for the adversaries. Ahem, being serious again, this is one of things I use Human Lore rolls for: does the character recognise the clothing style, arms and armour etc? If so, s/he may have some idea of the fighting style etc of whoever is wearing it. And that's how the GM in the RQIII game I'm playing in at present is using it as well. >Also, the players take into account the character's preferences. We have >one who hates wizards, so he pretty much always goes for them first. I >had one player once who always went after artillery types first. Role playing is good.. The trick of course is finding the right rules mechanism to allow a player to determine what their character would do... so information channels like Human Lore are as important as character attitude: my character may loathe Blue Lotus cultists, but if he doesn't recognise that sash as a typical alternate badge for them, he will have no particular reason to target that person in particular. >So for us it is pretty much all over the board. Players evaluate the bad >guys and find the biggest threat. Sure, size helps increase their threat >level, but for us that isn't the only factor. As an instinctive response, especially from non-hardened combatants the "Oh sh*t, he's big!" reaction is a pretty good initial PC response, but as you say, well played characters with some life experience will build up their own set of prejudices and have their own preferred strategies. Cheers, Nick Middleton From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue May 25 01:01:07 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:01:07 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Threat Level [Was: Non-Random Characters] Message-ID: <26816197.1085410867488.JavaMail.root@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> And my team has targeting roles predefined with one or two targeting offensive spell throwers while others target melee opponents. At least, they're trying to get to that point. Of course, if a melee type is close to a high-value target like an offensive spell thrower, so much the better. Targets in descending priority are: 1 Offensive spell thrower inside melee range 2 Offensive spell thrower outside of melee range but inside spell-casting range (10m-100m distance) 3 Fast fighter-type at melee range 4 Slow fighter-type at melee range 5 Archer outside of melee range but inside firing distance 6 All other fighter-types outside of melee range Naturally, the above order is dynamic and based on actual combat conditions but the overall priorities tend to hold true. David -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Mellinger Sent: May 24, 2004 9:36 AM To: David Smart , "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: [RQ-Rules] Threat Level [Was: Non-Random Characters] Generally, in our games it isn't simply "Who is the biggest", or "Who has the worst fashion sense." I used a home brew that has a bunch of other types of combat skills, as well as assessment skills. Oftentimes, we let a character roll to see if he can determine the biggest threat. This might be from a "Battle Craft" roll, or Lore, Scan, whatever is appropriate for the adversaries. Also, the players take into account the character's preferences. We have one who hates wizards, so he pretty much always goes for them first. I had one player once who always went after artillery types first. So for us it is pretty much all over the board. Players evaluate the bad guys and find the biggest threat. Sure, size helps increase their threat level, but for us that isn't the only factor. -Andrew From grogthing at yahoo.com Tue May 25 03:10:10 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: <40AE7A94.60208@comhem.se> Message-ID: <20040524171010.40654.qmail@web41511.mail.yahoo.com> Not my idea of fun. For me as a player, the game is all about playing with different character concwpts I have. I loathe random characterisitics. I definately would not want to go into a game wanting to play a con-man thief, then rolling a 5 for INT and a 8 for DEX. Thats ends up being a different game than I signed up for. I didn't want to play a retarded, clumsy oaf and the groups side comedy routine. When I get one night a week free to role-play, I want to play certain things, I have alot of game system choices (D&D, WOD, RQ, Unisys, Cthulhu, Exalted, D20 Mod all going on in my community) I play what is most intersting to me. If you like random gen, why not just have a bucket of pregen'ed characters, and have each player randomly pick one out? It's the same thing to me. You don't know what your going to play till you roll. I like to decide who and what kind of character I am playing, then use the system to make my vision reality. So of the two options: random rolling or point buying, I am for point buying. But I am actually leaning toward just letting the players pick their stats to match their concept (with the GM's veto in power in case someone's concept equals munchkin god hahaha). I want the players to have fun. I want them to play what they want to play. Why make people play random characters? Unless you like your role-playing like roulette, random and gambling. Greg > The real problem as I see it is to get the players > to keep what they > percieve as "bad stats" and turn it in to something > interesting. One of > the most challenging characters I have had was a PC > in "Mutant" which > had an INT of five! In just an hour or two I managed > to get at least two > of the other characters to feel responsible for him > and protect and help > him when he did something stupid or started crying. > It was fun but also > frustrating when we were in situations when I as a > player had figured > things out but really couldn't roleplay that my > character had. At least > I could always find some comfort in mocking the > other players though. :-) > > /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 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains ? Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Tue May 25 19:53:52 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:53:52 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: As I remember, in RQ III (I don't have my book at hand since I'm in the UK and the book is in France...) you had 3 choices to create your characters : The pure random where you throw dices for all characteristics (3d6 for STR CON POU and CHA and 2d6+6 for SIZ and INT) A mixed where if the total of your characteristics was below 91 (I think) you could add points on any characteristic up to that number. A full point based where you have 81 points to distribute to your characteristics as you see fit. I always though odd that the point based was so low compared to the mixed one. Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Envoy? : vendredi 21 mai 2004 11:22 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : RE: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters >There is allso a system in RQ3 for not rolling up the stats, and >there's allso possible to check out CoC's rulebooks on how they solve it. Alas, haven't got my copy of RQIII to hand, but I do know that there are no point buy schemes in any edition CoC rulebook, apart from Cthulhu dark Ages. It was one of the (slight) surprises about the new 6th edition actually. 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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed May 26 08:30:21 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:30:21 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters Message-ID: No. The siz and int is 2d6+6, and the age is (usually) 2d6 + 15. When i say you can divide the three rolled 2d6's, I do of course mean to add the proper figures to it: If the three 2d6's was 7, 11 and 4, you can put the 7 with -say siz, the 11 with int and the 4 with age, giving a character siz 13, int 17 and age 19. >From: Bo Whitten >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters >Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:12:15 -0700 > >At 02:06 AM 5/21/2004, you wrote: > >I use a system where you roll 3 x 2d6 and 5 x 3d6 You then can decide >where to put the finished figures (the 2d6's on Age, SIZ and INT, the 3d6's >on the other stats) If the total numbers rolled (not counting age) is less >than 90, you may rais up to 6 points on any stat up to 90. > >So you start characters 18 points short in Age, SIZ, and INT than the basic >system? Or did you forget to add the +6 that belongs there? Or did play >testing determine that the extra 18 points was too much? (The 18 points are >from the fact that Age, SIZ, and INT are 2d6+6, and they are missing from >the calculation. If you determine Age separately it works though.) > >Bo > > >_______________________________________________ >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 lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed May 26 13:21:49 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 20:21:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Non-Random Characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040525202137.0213dc70@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:30 PM 5/25/2004, you wrote: >No. The siz and int is 2d6+6, and the age is (usually) 2d6 + 15. When i say you can divide the three rolled 2d6's, I do of course mean to add the proper figures to it: > >If the three 2d6's was 7, 11 and 4, you can put the 7 with -say siz, the 11 with int and the 4 with age, giving a character siz 13, int 17 and age 19. Thanks for the clarification. Bo From cavaggione at sbcglobal.net Wed May 26 13:46:11 2004 From: cavaggione at sbcglobal.net (Bryan Maloney) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 20:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: <20040523110525.0DB93222723@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040526034611.57173.qmail@web80202.mail.yahoo.com> I'm toying with an idea, and I'll throw it out here to see if it suffers from the TDC syndrome (too damned complicated): Players roll 3d6 eight times and arrange to suit, dropping one roll (whichever they wish). For Int and Siz, (human characters), the 3d6 will be converted to a 2d6 equivalent from a chart. From gianni at basicrps.com Wed May 26 17:18:16 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:18:16 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Giants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1085555896.40b444b82903f@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang The RQ2 description of Giants (in the creatures chapter) says they are a chaotic race. Yet, in the rare occurrences when giants appear in published RQ2 adventures, they are allied with foes of Chaos, i.e., in Griffin Mountain they consort with Trolls, and in Pavis & Big Rubble it says Giants are friends with Zola Fel, who hates Chaos. Any thoughts? Cheers Gianni From soren.petersen at sap.com Wed May 26 18:13:08 2004 From: soren.petersen at sap.com (Petersen, Soren) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:13:08 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Giants Message-ID: <3C3CC36B71A8F445B6BD92FFF89BD0452D3BDB@dewdfe22.wdf.sap.corp> Hi Gianni, As far as I can recall, there's an errata in one of the RQ books stating that Giants are actually tied to the Disorder rune, not the Chaos Rune. Cheers, Soren Petersen Galway, Ireland From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Wed May 26 19:22:00 2004 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:22:00 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Giants Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E9806E@exast02.capgemini.co.u k> Gianni: >The RQ2 description of Giants (in the creatures chapter) >says they are a chaotic race. Yet, in the rare occurrences >when giants appear in published RQ2 adventures, they are >allied with foes of Chaos, That was possibly written by someone that didn't know the difference between chaos and disorder in Glorantha. Phil Hibbs -- Our name has changed. Please update your address book to the following format: "recipient at capgemini.com". This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From gianni at basicrps.com Wed May 26 19:12:02 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:12:02 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Giants In-Reply-To: <3C3CC36B71A8F445B6BD92FFF89BD0452D3BDB@dewdfe22.wdf.sap.corp> References: <3C3CC36B71A8F445B6BD92FFF89BD0452D3BDB@dewdfe22.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <1085562722.40b45f625010d@imp.webhuset.no> Hey Soren > As far as I can recall, there's an errata in one of the RQ books stating that > Giants are actually tied to the Disorder rune, not the Chaos Rune. Oooops, you're right. I never think about checking the errata. BTW does anybody have information about the Giants? IIRC, the 'Elder Secrets' box doesn't mention them. Cheers, Gianni From gkahla at chromebob.com Wed May 26 22:39:52 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 07:39:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: <20040526034611.57173.qmail@web80202.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040526034611.57173.qmail@web80202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40B49018.8090004@chromebob.com> Bryan Maloney wrote: [snip] > Players roll 3d6 eight times and arrange to suit, dropping one roll > (whichever they wish). For Int and Siz, (human characters), the 3d6 > will be converted to a 2d6 equivalent from a chart. Doesn't sound too complicated, so long as the chart is easy. IMG, I allow a player to roll an extra die [of the appropriate type] for each stat then drop the single result they don't want. For example; IMG, Humans get 2d6+6 for SIZ and 3d6 for DEX. If a player wants to create a small, lithe character they would roll 3d6+6 for SIZ and drop the highest die [including that +6, should they choose!]. Similarly, they'd roll 4d6 for DEX and drop the lowest die. This has worked fairly well across most mortal species for me. Giants break this pattern, but players can't play giants IMG... There's also the idea of just letting the player decide their character's stats instead of rolling. [this was called 'Dead Stat'ing by the person who mentioned it to me the first time] The only caveat with this system are power gamers. [naturally] -- Gerall Kahla, the Celestial Mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed May 26 23:13:28 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:13:28 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup Message-ID: >There's also the idea of just letting the player decide their >character's stats instead of rolling. [this was called 'Dead Stat'ing >by the person who mentioned it to me the first time] The only caveat >with this system are power gamers. [naturally] I understand WHY you said that Gerall, and I do agree broadly... but I must also say that purely from personal experience, exclusively point buy systems (i.e. NO random element) even with non-Power Gamers, has often lead to very stale uninvolving games. I think this is because there is no sense of discovery or spontaneous creativity in character creation. Also, point-buys IME encourage too exact a conceptualisation of a character, so it is very easy (unless a player has a very detailed grasp of the game mechanics and rules system) for the concept and actual character to end up diverging in play, which (with such a detailed character concept in the first instance) leads to great frustration on the players part (I found GURPS particularly prone to this...). Now, since point buy has a long and honourable history (back as far as TFT IIRC), this is in part obviously just a quirk of me and the various groups have played with over the years... But it has happened sufficiently often for me to be reasonably confident that I have rational grounds for saying to new players in my group: "No pure point buy systems will be used, there MUST be some random element". On the other hand, the purely random method I can equally see getting very frustrating very quickly... I stick to hybrid methods and in general some sort of prior service (spot the Traveller player!)/ previous history system for character gen, whatever the game. Cheers, Nick Middleton From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed May 26 23:33:21 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:33:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Non-Random Characters, Semi-non-random rollup, Giants In-Reply-To: <20040526080612.46F8322270E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040526133321.80688.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton: > "Shoot the bloke in the dress!" > > "Why, you think he's a mage?" > > "No, anyone who wears THAT scarf with that dress deserves to die!" We normally went with the assumption that any male NPC who would wear a dress is probably so hard that it wasn't worth attacking him ... Bryan Maloney: > I'm toying with an idea, and I'll throw it out here to see if it > suffers from the TDC syndrome (too damned complicated): > > Players roll 3d6 eight times and arrange to suit, dropping one roll > (whichever they wish). For Int and Siz, (human characters), the 3d6 > will be converted to a 2d6 equivalent from a chart. What we tended to do was to roll an extra D6 for each characteristic, then drop one of the rolls. This allowed the player to get higher (or lower) characteristics than would normally be the case. So, instead of rolling 3D6 (3,5,2) you would roll 4D6 (3,5,2,6) and drop one of them (2) giving 14 (3,5,6). It's quick and easy. For extra-tough PCs, roll and drop 2 extra dice. We sometimes allowed players to reallocate 1 point from each of the stats, so somebody could roll STR 13 CON 10 SIZ 12 INT 9 POW 8 DEX 12 APP 13, take one point off each of CON, DEX, APP and add them to INT, giving STR 13 CON 9 SIZ 12 INT 12 POW 8 DEX 11 APP 12. Normally, using the two methods you got reasonable PCs. We also allowed a player to reject one set of rolls and roll again if it was really bad, but then he was stuck with the result. We used to roll for race and profession, at one time, to make it completely random, but when Stuart kept rolling trollkin he put them straight into Xiola Umbar and ran them as annoying healers, so we relented and gave him a Dark Troll, and so Derak was born. > The RQ2 description of Giants (in the creatures chapter) says they are a > chaotic race. > > Yet, in the rare occurrences when giants appear in published RQ2 > adventures, > they are allied with foes of Chaos, i.e., in Griffin Mountain they consort > with > Trolls, and in Pavis & Big Rubble it says Giants are friends with Zola Fel, > who > hates Chaos. > > Any thoughts? Yep, RQ2 Giants are actually associated with Disorder, not Chaos. It's a misprint. Actually, trolls consort with Chaos quite happily - Cave Trolls and Sea Trolls being two examples. But they have to be the right kind of chaos. See Ya Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Thu May 27 00:33:50 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 07:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040526143350.42873.qmail@web41510.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >There's also the idea of just letting the player > decide their > >character's stats instead of rolling. > there is no sense > of discovery or spontaneous creativity in character > creation. I see there being 2 paths (maybe more, but at least 2 major ones) that can be taken in character conceptializing in role-playing. 1) The unknown "low-level" character developement path. (Character discovery as you termed it) You start off young and unskilled with little or no history, and develop the characters hitory and therefore his overall concept thru character growth. In this instance - letting a player pick his ideal stats would not work - as they see what they want the character to be and they may still be years of game time play away from that point. And the character has no game time history to base his concept on, so your right - it may end up diverging from his initial concept. 2) The established hero concept. You start off with an experienced professional, who has a detailed background and story with many hooks to play off of. The game is not centered around advancing your character, it is about having them act and react to the action as the characters established history and concept determines he would. Even a game that goes down path number 1 eventually wants to get to path number 2. I prefer to start at that point get right into the action and suspense. "In media res" so to speak. And for that type of gaming - letting players decide is perfect. > point-buys IME encourage too exact a > conceptualisation of a character, so > it is very easy (unless a player has a very detailed > grasp of the game > mechanics and rules system) for the concept and > actual character to end up > diverging in play, which (with such a detailed > character concept in the > first instance) leads to great frustration on the > players part I think it is the GM's responsibilty to know the rule details not the players. If the player did not have a good concept of the game system and what the numbers meant - I would have them describe the character to me in english adjectives with comparisons and then I would decide the system numbers to use based on the description. Player: I want to be strong. GM: how strong? like a high school footbal player strong? Bench pressing a couple hundred pounds? Player: No, I want to be strong like I could qualify for a heavy lifter in the olympics. Then I would pick the stat number based on what number it would take to achieve that kind of goal. Now if the character also wanted to be as fast as the wind, smarter than Einstein, and able to run for a week straight before tiring, Unless we we playing in Xena and Hercules setting with godlings running around, I would have a talk about the power level of the game and that we were going to have realistic characters and not approve the choices unless I believed they fit in. Greg __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu May 27 02:56:15 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? In-Reply-To: <20040308001246.27470.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040526165615.39824.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> My sword attack is 60%. My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) I cast a Bladesharp 4 (+20%) I cast Fanaticism (*1.5 to my attack) I am fighting in total Darkness (-75%) ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Thu May 27 03:26:02 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:26:02 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? Message-ID: I personnaly use the "non cumulative effect" rule. That gives you : base attack is 72 % (sword attack + Manipulation bonus) It is raised to 108% It is not raised by Bladesharp (both spells have the same effect; only the one that has the highest effect take place but the damage bonus from bladesharp is still applied) It is lowered to 33% (darkness penality) You can also state both spell are actives in which case I would state that the fanaticism bonus only apply to your base attack (72%). That will raise your attack to 53% (20% from bladesharp; I would then state that the fanaticism bonus only apply to your base attack i.e 72*1.5) Am I right :D Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Leon Kirshtein Envoy? : mercredi 26 mai 2004 18:56 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? My sword attack is 60%. My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) I cast a Bladesharp 4 (+20%) I cast Fanaticism (*1.5 to my attack) I am fighting in total Darkness (-75%) ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.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 From andrew at crashbox.com Thu May 27 03:38:05 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 May 2004, Dury, Pascal wrote: > I personnaly use the "non cumulative effect" rule. > > That gives you : > > base attack is 72 % (sword attack + Manipulation bonus) > It is raised to 108% > It is not raised by Bladesharp (both spells have the same effect; only the one that has the highest effect take place but the damage bonus from bladesharp is still applied) > It is lowered to 33% (darkness penality) > > You can also state both spell are actives in which case I would state that the fanaticism bonus only apply to your base attack (72%). That will raise your attack to 53% (20% from bladesharp; I would then state that the fanaticism bonus only apply to your base attack i.e 72*1.5) I would use it that both spells are effective. From a "game world" perspective I would argue that the fanaticism increases the skill so it multiplies it ( skill of 60% + modifier of 12%.) by 1.5. I would argue that the bladesharp would give a +20% bonus because the target of the spell is the sword, not the wielder. The sword is essentially getting sharper. So in this case I don't see a conflict (logically) with the two spells. However, some people may curtail this for game balance, but I can see a logical way to support this ruling. So (60 + 12) = 72% 72% * 1.5 = 108% 108 + 20 = 128% 128 - 75% = 53%. Total % = 53%. -Andrew > -----Message d'origine----- > De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Leon Kirshtein > Envoy? : mercredi 26 mai 2004 18:56 > ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. > Objet : [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? > > My sword attack is 60%. > My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) > I cast a Bladesharp 4 (+20%) > I cast Fanaticism (*1.5 to my attack) > I am fighting in total Darkness (-75%) > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com From cavaggione at sbcglobal.net Thu May 27 03:56:56 2004 From: cavaggione at sbcglobal.net (Bryan Maloney) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Giants and Chaos In-Reply-To: <20040526173819.4EEBD222723@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040526175656.43511.qmail@web80206.mail.yahoo.com> I'd say that Giant/Chaos association may harken back to a very old myth--cf "King of Sartar". If you recall from that book, there was a fragment called "an old myth", that was a unique telling of the comiing of Chaos, one unlike the post-Godlearner tales that involved the Spike, Wakboth, etc. Instead, the Chaotic beings were all "Giants" who had names like "Eats Everything" (or something like that). Ultimately, the Giants/Chaos were all summoned to one place, where they were put into a structure or net (I'm going from memory) and disposed of. This, of course, paralleled Arkat/Argrath's act near the end of the book, in which he disposed of all the gods (or at least many of them). Or maybe it was just an editorial error. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu May 27 04:03:57 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] That is my chance to hit? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040526180357.70495.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> To compare this with the historically related Mythworld rules: Basic sword attack 60 Attack bonus (manipulation bonus does not affix) is calculated in determing attack, so it stays 60. Sharpedge 4 spell on weapon +20 Total weapon ability 80 Fanaticism spell on character +50%, 120 Total darkness: Unless you have some kind of darksense, you are back to Mana (essentially analogous to RQ POW) x 1 for pure luck. Now if you were using fireedge instead (3D6 damage, but no increase in ability), the weapon would be 60 Fanaticism would increase it to 90 the weapon would give off enough light for melee And no complicated calculations. Paul Cardwell --- Andrew Mellinger wrote: > > You can also state both spell are actives in which > case I would state that the fanaticism bonus only > apply to your base attack (72%). That will raise > your attack to 53% (20% from bladesharp; I would > then state that the fanaticism bonus only apply to > your base attack i.e 72*1.5) > > I would use it that both spells are effective. > From a "game world" > perspective I would argue that the fanaticism > increases the skill so it > multiplies it ( skill of 60% + modifier of 12%.) by > 1.5. I would argue > that the bladesharp would give a +20% bonus because > the target of the > spell is the sword, not the wielder. The sword is > essentially getting > sharper. So in this case I don't see a conflict > (logically) with the two > spells. > > However, some people may curtail this for game > balance, but I can see a > logical way to support this ruling. > > So > (60 + 12) = 72% > 72% * 1.5 = 108% > 108 + 20 = 128% > 128 - 75% = 53%. > > Total % = 53%. > > -Andrew __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From DevinC at aol.com Thu May 27 04:45:35 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:45:35 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Giants Message-ID: <96.bebb27e.2de63fcf@aol.com> In a message dated 5/26/2004 1:13:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, soren.petersen at sap.com writes: <> In addition, it is made clear in some places that the Giants of Gonn Orta's ilk are not really even the same race as the nasty disorderly giants of the fee fi fo fum variety. Devin From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu May 27 05:04:27 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:04:27 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Demibird Message-ID: <1129.155.239.185.101.1085598267.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Hi All. I recently purchaced some new miniatures from discounthobby.com and while searchng the lizards, came across a dragonnewt on a demibird by Lance and Lazer. (ice mini so I ordered it). So, clearly a demibird is from glorantha (a quick web search confirmed this). However, were RQ stats ever made available for this creature. If so, in which volume? Cheers Tony www.runequest.za.org -- Vacca Foeda! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu May 27 05:07:49 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:07:49 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Giants Message-ID: <1131.155.239.185.101.1085598469.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Gianni wrote: The RQ2 description of Giants (in the creatures chapter) says they are a chaotic race. I would say that giants are non chaotic. Basically they are just really big humanoids and do not have any chaotic features. My opinion, use ity, don't use it. Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Thu May 27 05:14:29 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:14:29 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ GM Shield Project Message-ID: <1133.155.239.185.101.1085598869.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> I have resurrected my RQ GM Shield project as started on my previous and now long defunct site. (Note to self, finish one task before beginning the next). At present it is simply rehashing important for play tables onto a word document (yeah yeah, one day I will buy adobe writer). However, my question is: Does anyone have any suggestions for info/tables critical to play that arean't already collected in the quick reference guide of the AH RQ Deluxe edition. On the same topic, I seem to have created two versions of the same table and have now posted a poll to decide which is te better version. Feel free to cast your votes at www.runequest.za.org Ciao Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Thu May 27 05:47:32 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 12:47:32 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Demibird In-Reply-To: <1129.155.239.185.101.1085598267.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.z a> References: <1129.155.239.185.101.1085598267.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040526123955.021b5ec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:04 PM 5/26/2004, you wrote: >Hi All. I recently purchaced some new miniatures from discounthobby.com >and while searchng the lizards, came across a dragonnewt on a demibird by >Lance and Lazer. (ice mini so I ordered it). So, clearly a demibird is >from glorantha (a quick web search confirmed this). However, were RQ stats >ever made available for this creature. If so, in which volume? > > >Cheers >Tony www.runequest.za.org Yes Tony, in the basic book for RQII on page 77. In case you don't have it here it is: Characteristic Aver STR 3D6+18 28-29 Move 12 CON 2D6+6 13 Hit Points Ave 16 SIZ 3D6+12 22-23 POW 3D6 10-11 DEX 2D6+6 13 Weapon SR Att Damage Peck* 6 45% 1D8 Kick* 6 45% 1D12 * A Demi-Bird will peck and kick one or two foes at the same time. Armor - 2 point feathers. Hope this helps. Bo From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu May 27 18:48:29 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:48:29 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup Message-ID: >> >There's also the idea of just letting the player >>> decide their >> >character's stats instead of rolling. > >> there is no sense >> of discovery or spontaneous creativity in character >> creation. > >I see there being 2 paths (maybe more, but at least 2 >major ones) that can be taken in character >conceptializing in role-playing. > >1) The unknown "low-level" character developement >path. (Character discovery as you termed it) > >You start off young and unskilled with little or no >history, and develop the characters hitory and >therefore his overall concept thru character growth. > >In this instance - letting a player pick his ideal >stats would not work - as they see what they want the >character to be and they may still be years of game >time play away from that point. And the character has >no game time history to base his concept on, so your >right - it may end up diverging from his initial >concept. > >2) The established hero concept. > >You start off with an experienced professional, who >has a detailed background and story with many hooks to >play off of. The game is not centered around advancing >your character, it is about having them act and react >to the action as the characters established history >and concept determines he would. Ahh, Traveller! ;-) >Even a game that goes down path number 1 eventually >wants to get to path number 2. Erm, no, most of my games and the games I play in try to get to Characters suitable for type 2 by playing type 1 games. Play a type one game long enough, and you get all the benefits of type 2 games, but with an in character history that one has actually played through (which we in general prefer). >I prefer to start at that point get right into the >action and suspense. "In media res" so to speak. I'm agnostic: I like high powered games but also enjoy low-key starting out games as well. Depends on the setting to some extent: rite of passage stories seem a natural fit with fantasy, more than SF, so I prefer characters with a long history in SF. But that could be my Traveller heritage showing ;-) >And for that type of gaming - letting players decide >is perfect. As I said, IME pure decision driven design hasn't worked for me, but it obviously does for many, so from here on I am entirely airing personal opinion and anecdotal accounts of MY experiences, nothing more. >> point-buys IME encourage too exact a >> conceptualisation of a character, so >> it is very easy (unless a player has a very detailed >> grasp of the game >> mechanics and rules system) for the concept and >> actual character to end up >> diverging in play, which (with such a detailed >> character concept in the >> first instance) leads to great frustration on the >> players part > >I think it is the GM's responsibilty to know the rule >details not the players. > >If the player did not have a good concept of the game >system and what the numbers meant - I would have them >describe the character to me in english adjectives >with comparisons and then I would decide the system >numbers to use based on the description. > But then the Player is having to deal with numbers they may not understand and trying to map them (and what they mean in term of typical success/failure chances) onto a concept they have in their head. Personally, that's at least one translation step too many for my liking. Shadowrun is a game a friend is devoted to, and he's tried twice to get a game going on Fridays, and it has always left me cold, not because of the setting (which I think is a garish cartoon hybrid of cheesy D&D and Japanimation cyberpunk cliches, but fun with it) but because I have no intuitive mapping from the numbers on the character sheet to the dice mechanic (a monstrosity in its own right it must be said) to give me a idea of success /failure chances. Thus I have no clear idea what the character should (or should not) attempt in a situation, nor how good s/he really is. And I have had the rules explained to me (and I've read them), but I don't fully grasp them. So I have no idea whether I put the right points into the right things to create the character (or whether the GM's advice on that was correct), nor on the levels of risk in attempting things, unless I constantly pester the GM... IMO in general, GM's/Ref's/DM's/Whatever have enough to do without having to play peoples characters for them: I think it's part of a players job to understand their character and the rules that apply to them sufficiently clearly that they have a reasonably robust model of the characters chances at typical tasks, so I (as GM) can just describe a situation in terms of its special circumstances and the player makes their own judgement call as to whether to attempt something or not. >Then I would pick the stat number based on what number >it would take to achieve that kind of goal. But then the player still has no understanding of how that number maps back to their concept, or forwards to in-game action, so how do they know weather it's right, or fits their original concept? Players may not need to know the intricacies of the encounter system, or the magic rules they never use, but I personally would (and have !) found it impossible to play (i.e. got so frustrated that I no longer got any enjoyment from the game) a character where I would I have to consult the GM on every action to get _any_ idea of my chances of success before even proposing it as a course of action... >Now if the character also wanted to be as fast as the >wind, smarter than Einstein, and able to run for a >week straight before tiring, Unless we we playing in >Xena and Hercules setting with godlings running >around, I would have a talk about the power level of >the game and that we were going to have realistic >characters and not approve the choices unless I >believed they fit in. Me, I'd probably just point out that I don't play with powergaming tw*ts and tell them to leave, but then my patience with such people expired some time ago... (Who me, a grumpy curmudgeon? Possibly...) More seriously, if a gaming group is trying out a new rules systems (or introducing a new player) then I spend a fair amount of time explaining the core mechanic(s) to them, and may spend the first session (or more if necessary) on just rules dry runs, simulations, mock combats and Q&A sessions, to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the rules (and my interpretations of them!). Ah well. Interesting discussion, and may give point buys another go (just NOT in GURPS or Shadowrun, *shudder*) ;-) Cheers, Nick Middleton From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Thu May 27 20:17:34 2004 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:17:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: That is my chance to hit? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E98078@exast02.capgemini.co.u k> Leon Kirshtein: >My sword attack is 60%. >My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) Pascal: >base attack is 72 % (sword attack + Manipulation bonus) Your skill in RQ is the base percentage, plus category modifer, plus experience. If you choose to write down the number without the category modifier included, then that is up to you, but a RuneQuest character with a skill of 60% and a modifier of +12 has a skill of 60%. Personally, I would write this down as 48 as well, because I use Strength and Coordination spells a lot. Back to the maths: Bladesharp increases the chance to hit, so it adds after other modifiers such as fanaticism and splitting. I can't remember if total darkness is a skill thing or a chance to hit thing, I'd have to check the wording, but it makes no difference unless you are splitting your attack. I think it's a skill thing (pre-split), because it you have 110%, you barely have a chance of one hit, and would have a negative chance of two. ((60*1.5)+(20-75)) = 35 If the attack chance is 72%: ((72*1.5)+(20-75)) = 53 Phil Hibbs -- Our name has changed. Please update your address book to the following format: "recipient at capgemini.com". This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From gianni at basicrps.com Thu May 27 20:17:35 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:17:35 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Danfive Xaron Cult In-Reply-To: <40870AA1.6080004@earthlink.net> References: <31222192.1082560870027.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <40870AA1.6080004@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1085653055.40b5c03f8aa90@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang I'm desperately seeking for a write-up of the Cult of Danfive Xaron. Unfortunately, I own neither Tales of the Reaching Moon No 16 nor Pavic Tales No 8; also I couldn't find anything on-line. Any help would be appreciated Cheers Gianni From rico at ricosweb.com Thu May 27 23:53:07 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 07:53:07 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20045277537.866504@laptop> On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:48:29 +0100, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Shadowrun is a game a friend is devoted to, and he's tried twice to get a > game going on Fridays, and it has always left me cold, not because of the > setting (which I think is a garish cartoon hybrid of cheesy D&D and > Japanimation cyberpunk cliches, but fun with it) but because I have no > intuitive mapping from the numbers on the character sheet to the dice > mechanic (a monstrosity in its own right it must be said) to give me a idea > of success /failure chances. Thus I have no clear idea what the character > should (or should not) attempt in a situation, nor how good s/he really is. > And I have had the rules explained to me (and I've read them), but I don't > fully grasp them. So I have no idea whether I put the right points into the > right things to create the character (or whether the GM's advice on that > was correct), nor on the levels of risk in attempting things, unless I > constantly pester the GM... When we pick up a new system, or try out new rules, we just jump in with both feet. If I make a mistake in the character creation step, I trash that character (either in game or between sessions) and start over with a new one. I did this several times in the D&D 3E game I was in recently, what's the big deal? I suppose if you have a problem with making mistakes, then you wouldn't like this approach, but in the end it's only a game. :) Rich Allen From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 28 00:01:28 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:01:28 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup Message-ID: >When we pick up a new system, or try out new rules, we just jump in with both feet. If I make a mistake in the >character creation step, I trash that character (either in game or between sessions) and start over with a new one. >I did this several times in the D&D 3E game I was in recently, what's the big deal? I suppose if you have a >problem with making mistakes, then you wouldn't like this approach, but in the end it's only a game. :) > >Rich Allen I'd rather be actually playing and enjoying myself than trying figure out whether a problem is a rules glitch, a goof on my part, a miscommunication between me and the GM, or just something that doesn't fit the world. And these days, with a job, a mortgage and two kids, I don't have the time (or inclination) to be forgiving of flawed rules, other players idiosyncrasies or pointless fiddle-faddle in character creation... So we take the time to get it right (Pendragon last year), or it stays on the shelf on the basis of Too Much Work All Round (Dark Conspiracy last summer). Cheers, Nick Middleton From rico at ricosweb.com Fri May 28 00:14:47 2004 From: rico at ricosweb.com (Rich Allen) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:14:47 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200452781447.243735@laptop> On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:01:28 +0100, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > I'd rather be actually playing and enjoying myself than trying figure out > whether a problem is a rules glitch, a goof on my part, a miscommunication > between me and the GM, or just something that doesn't fit the world. And > these days, with a job, a mortgage and two kids, I don't have the time (or > inclination) to be forgiving of flawed rules, other players idiosyncrasies > or pointless fiddle-faddle in character creation... So we take the time to > get it right (Pendragon last year), or it stays on the shelf on the basis > of Too Much Work All Round (Dark Conspiracy last summer). Some of our most memorable and enjoyable sessions resulted from misinterpretation of the rules, or from simple game mechanic mistakes. I suppose for me the enjoyment is spending time with my friends, the game is secondary. I agree though, if playing a game seems to be "too much work" then it's not at all worth playing, though I have yet to encounter a game that required any kind of work to enjoy playing. ;) Rich Allen From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri May 28 00:40:42 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 07:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040527144043.40332.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Ahh, Traveller! ;-) Traveller...hmmm, never thought about it, but that may be why I preferr experienced chacters. Unlike most gamers who was introduced to roleplaying via D&D, my 1st role-playing experience was Traveller. > But then the Player is having to deal with numbers > they may not understand > and trying to map them (and what they mean in term > of typical > success/failure chances) onto a concept they have in > their head. > Personally, that's at least one translation step too > many for my liking. Well, I havn't tried this yet as a GMing technique, but - I am leaning toward letting the players have only non-system related character information. The characters history, looks, likes, dislikes, verbal descriptions of health, strength levels, time and effort spent learning certain skills, and how experienced they are. With me keeping all the system info and hard numbers and managing the "system". The players should only worry about the story and what their character would do in that story. I mean in real life I dont' know if I can lift a certain weight until I try. From experience I know generally about what I could lift successfully. But as the challenge nears the climax of my ability it would depend on the weather, how I'm feeling that day whatever. We don't have stats and cannot predict with certainty what will happen, the characters shouldn't either. If you are in an adventure and you have to jump to the next rooftop, the player should not be able to calculate their strength + jumping skill +/- weather modifiers and determine "yep" I can beat that by 2 ft. Ok I jump across". Unless your character is spending his days as a long jumper and regulary jumps and measures it to know his average jumping distance, he probably should just determine if the circumstances of his character warrants the risk of the jump. I think I would allow the characters a difficulty assesment roll using the appropriate skill/attribute to see if they can guess their % chance of success. Which is how we do it real life. We see a challenge. We assess it with our experience in the appropriate skill. If we think we can do it, we do it. I want actions resolved by the characters, and the characters abilities, not the player and the players math abilites. > a > character where I would I have to consult the GM on > every action to get > _any_ idea of my chances of success before even > proposing it as a course of > action... The GM is playing fate, god, the describer of the universe, anything more difficult than everyday things, which we "know" we can do, should require a consultation either with the dice or the GM to estimate your chances of success Consider this the character having an internal conversation with himself "Can I do this? Have I ever done anything like this before? How easy or hard do think it is? How long will it take? How good can I do it?" These are the question I ask myself before I do something. So why shouldn't the character ask them. This has been an interesting conversation. It has helped me clarify some vague ideas I had been having. I may actually attempt this soon. Greg ===== "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri May 28 01:33:31 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:33:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: That is my chance to hit? In-Reply-To: <20040526173819.98C96222724@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040527153331.60891.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > My sword attack is 60%. > My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) > I cast a Bladesharp 4 (+20%) > I cast Fanaticism (*1.5 to my attack) > I am fighting in total Darkness (-75%) I use the folowing: Starting Skill (SK) = Written Skill + Adds from Characteristic Changing Spells Mood Modifier (MM) = 1.5 for Fanaticism, 2 for Berserker (RQ2 1.5 or 2), 0.5 for Demoralise Weapon Magic Adds (WM) = Adds due to Bladesharp and the like Terrain Modifiers (TM) = Modifiers due to terrain and circumstance, e.g. Darkness, attacking from behind, with surprise Attack Chance (AC) = Finishing Attack Chance AC = (SK * MM) + WM + TM If you are using the weird way of not including your bonuses in your skills: SK = 60+12 = 72, MM = 1.5, WM = 20, TM = -75 AC = (72 * 1.5) + 20 - 75 AC = 53% If you are using the standard way of including the bonus in your skills: SK = 60, MM = 1.5, WM = 20, TM = -75, AC = (60 * 1.5) + 20 - 75 AC = 35% Simon Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From DevinC at aol.com Fri May 28 03:10:03 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:10:03 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup Message-ID: <1db.229f1eed.2de77aeb@aol.com> In a message dated 5/27/2004 7:41:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, grogthing at yahoo.com writes: <> The problem with this is that so much in most RPGs goes beyond what our direct experience is in real life. I personally have never tried to swing from a rope over a 100 ft chasm and land on a 2 ft slippery ledge on the other side. So I don't, from my own experiences, know how to evaluate my chances. This is why the rules are there....to help in such situations. Yes, the DM can use words instead of numbers, but then you are basically trundling into Bridge (the card game) territory in that you either leave yourself open to misinterpretation (i.e. if the DM says "Decent chance" what does that mean?) or you end up having conventions that map one for one to a fairly tight group of probabilities anyways, in which case you might as well go right back to using the numbers. I've seen, over my years of gaming, many attempts by DMs to remove players from the numbers. I've never seen it work well. In fact, I would argue that removing the players from the numbers actually makes them MORE focused on those selfsame numbers, because instead of having them at hand and being, therefore, able to deal with them quickly and concentrate on other things, they now have to devote a great deal of effort to basically try to read the DM's mind. Devin From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri May 28 03:39:59 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: That is my chance to hit? In-Reply-To: <20040527153331.60891.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040527173959.79481.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Leon Kirshtein: > > > My sword attack is 60%. > > My Attack(Manipilation) modifier (+12%) > > I cast a Bladesharp 4 (+20%) > > I cast Fanaticism (*1.5 to my attack) > > I am fighting in total Darkness (-75%) > > I use the folowing: > Starting Skill (SK) = Written Skill + Adds from > Characteristic Changing > Spells > Mood Modifier (MM) = 1.5 for Fanaticism, 2 for > Berserker (RQ2 1.5 or 2), 0.5 > for Demoralise > Weapon Magic Adds (WM) = Adds due to Bladesharp and > the like > Terrain Modifiers (TM) = Modifiers due to terrain > and circumstance, e.g. > Darkness, attacking from behind, with surprise > Attack Chance (AC) = Finishing Attack Chance > > AC = (SK * MM) + WM + TM Does anyone think that we should consider TM before MM? After all, if you can not see, what does it matter if you are berserk? AC = (SK-TM) * MM + WM (72-75) * 1.5 + 20 = 21% ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri May 28 04:11:13 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup In-Reply-To: <1db.229f1eed.2de77aeb@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040527181113.35613.qmail@web41508.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > (i.e. if the DM > says "Decent chance" what does > that mean?) or you end up having conventions that > map one for one to a fairly > tight group of probabilities anyways, in which case > you might as well go right > back to using the numbers. > I've seen, over my years of gaming, many attempts by > DMs to remove players > from the numbers. I've never seen it work well. > In fact, I would argue that removing the players > from the numbers actually > makes them MORE focused on those selfsame numbers, > because instead of having > them at hand and being, therefore, able to deal with > them quickly and > concentrate on other things, they now have to devote > a great deal of effort to > basically try to read the DM's mind. > Devin Thanks for sharing your experience. I still think I'm on the right track, and can do it better than has been done. Let me give an example of how I see it working. I'll use your example of swinging from a rope over a chasm and and landing on a narrow ledge. Player has a character that is agile, nimble, in good shape, and very athletic. Now after having discussed the character with the player I have a set of stats like so: Str - 14 Siz - 10 Con - 15 Dex - 18 Int - 12 Pow - 11 App - 14 Relevent Skills --------------- Acrobatics - 50% Jump - 75% Climb - 60% He is being chased by goblins thru a tunnel, he is out-numbered and escape is his only option. He runs until the tunnel open into a cavern and he is faced with a drop of several hundred feet. There is a ledge 25 feet away on the opposite side. It is only a foot wide, but looks as though it leads to an opening further along the cavern wall. You see the remains of what once was an old rope bridge that has fallen apart. There is still a rope hanging from a support beam over the chasm. It is about 10' away. The character wants to know if he can jump to the hanging rope, and swing himself 15 feet to the narrow ledge, then land safely without falling off the ledge. The player knows the character used to be jester at a local fair, and that he can do tumbles, rolls, and balancing very proficiently. He has walked a tighrope in the past and even done some trapeze work. So he feels, considering what the character has done in the past, that he should be able to handle this challenge. If he wasn't sure, he could roll for an evaluation of the challenge. As GM I would say there are three skills involved. Jump, to jump to the rope 10 feet away. Climb, to grab the hanging rope and not slip off of it. Acrobatics to swing 15' and balance on the ledge without toppling off. To simplify the rolling - I would combine the three aspects into a single roll averaging the three skill values - 50+60+75=185/3=62% to do a moderately challenging stunt. I let this percentage stand unmodified. So for an evaluation I roll against the combined skill at 62%. I roll a 48. He succefully evaluates the difficulty as moderate. He knows that he always succeeds at simple acrobatics and a majority of the time at moderate ones. There is risk invloved, better than 50% chance of success, but the goblins are almost here. It is not a certainty to the character. It should not be a certainty to the player. As a player I would like this, not having to crunch the numbers, just reacting to the story. Yes more work for the GM, yes more indecisivness for the player. But that adds up to fun in my book. Ah, well to each their own I think I will try it. Greg ===== "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From tiberius at runequest.za.org Fri May 28 14:33:21 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 06:33:21 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Demibird Message-ID: <1054.155.239.184.119.1085718801.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Bo Whitten wrote: Yes Tony, in the basic book for RQII on page 77. Thanks Bo! The only RQ II gear I have is Sonw Kings Bride and a copy of the gateway bestiary. These stats help a lot. Cheers Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 28 17:35:17 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:35:17 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Semi-non-random rollup Message-ID: >>--- DevinC at aol.com wrote: >> (i.e. if the DM >> <> >> Devin > >Grogthing wrote > >Thanks for sharing your experience. > >I still think I'm on the right track, and can do it >better than has been done. > >Let me give an example of how I see it working. > > < removing numbers from the players immediate sphere of attention>> > >Ah, well to each their own I think I will try it. Go for it! Heaven knows I'm the last person anyone should be listening to on how to play any RPG's given some of the disasters I have had over the years :D. For myself though, I think the easiest way for my characters to "determine if the circumstances [...] warrants the risk of the jump" is if I the player have direct access to my raw skill level and a firm grasp of the schema of difficulties the GM _might_ impose. For me, this short circuits all the time consuming translation from verbal descriptions in my head (or consulting tables) back to numbers so I can make a judgement on behalf of my character. Back where we started (with deterministic character gen), if I want to create a linguist character in RQ, I (as a player) ought to know how the language rules work so when I am touting for work with the local caravan masters I know (roughly) whether claiming I speak fluent Egretzi when I have a 40% skill is a bare faced lie, or a slight exaggeration (which it is, as I can hold a perfectly reasonable conversation with any native speaker with no chance for miscommunication ). More elaborate schemes for allowing the player to make these judgements can be devised, but since so much else in the game world is approximated or abstracted, I find it more intuitive to leave the numbers available to the player (and expect a reasonable grasp of the system from the player), as that represents a character lived experience. Outside his or her experience of course I would (and do) as GM reserve the right to make their chances completely obscure, or even misleading... :-> But do let us know how well it works when you try it. In my RQII game at Uni I tried something more limited (everybody had a "top" sheet over their character sheet that had only verbal descriptors on it and that was all anyone else could look at and they were the only terms used between players) which certainly helped but seemed to take a fair bit of effort to get players up to speed on and on my part to keep going. After uni as my free time evaporated, I gave up on it as too much effort for too little reward, but since my original system was a rather ad hoc improvisation I'd be intrigued to hear how someone taking a more thoroughly thought through and methodical approach gets on. Cheers, Nick Middleton