From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 2 00:59:11 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 05:59:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions Message-ID: <20041101135911.74185.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> Folks, I'm working through a new set of house rules, and find I'm not very happy with some of the contested results mechanisms (when one character is trying to do one thing and another is countering). These are the mechanisms I've been using (and my perception of their use in play): Attacking skill and Defending skill: e.g. Attack/Parry, Hide/Seek. Attacking skill checks for success, if successful Defending skill must also succeed at same or higher level of success (critical beats a special for example). The results are large-grained: with high levels of skill almost always the results are both successes. Resistance roll: Compare the two characteristics, chance of success is 50% +/- 5% per point of difference. Works ok when the two characteristics are similar, but is very hard or very easy when there is a large difference. Also works ok if you do one roll, but if you have an extended combat (e.g. spirit combat where POW/MP are being chipped away) the disparity gets very large. Are there any others that I've missed? What I'd really like is a shallow bell curve that gives the underdog a better chance. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Nov 2 01:26:26 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:26:26 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions Message-ID: >Folks, >I'm working through a new set of house rules, and find >I'm not very happy with some of the contested results >mechanisms (when one character is trying to do one >thing and another is countering). These are the >mechanisms I've been using (and my perception of their >use in play): > >Attacking skill and Defending skill: e.g. >Attack/Parry, Hide/Seek. Attacking skill checks for >success, if successful Defending skill must also >succeed at same or higher level of success (critical >beats a special for example). The results are >large-grained: with high levels of skill almost >always the results are both successes. Have a look at the Hide/Move Silently vs. Scan rules in RQIII: the "defender" rolls vs their skill and if successful reduces the "attackers" skill by the defenders. So a Hide of 57% successfully rolled reduces the Scan of the character looking for them by 57% before they roll. This is significantly different to how Attack and Parry work... Also, have you had a look at the resolution matrices in Elric/Stormbringer? Whilst they basically just apply the "both roll, better success level wins", it does give some ideas for describing the results. I also use more degrees of success when I want more detail: roll < skill roll < 1/2 skill roll < 1/5 skill roll < 1/20 skill with a similar mirroring of failure levels. Also, there's Steve Perrin's Quest Rules idea of numbers of successes: so a defenders number of success could be subtracted from an attackers... >Resistance roll: Compare the two characteristics, >chance of success is 50% +/- 5% per point of >difference. Works OK when the two characteristics >are similar, but is very hard or very easy when there >is a large difference. Also works OK if you do one >roll, but if you have an extended combat (e.g. spirit >combat where POW/MP are being chipped away) the >disparity gets very large. Hmm, I tend to see those as a feature, not a bug... >Are there any others that I've missed? What I'd >really like is a shallow bell curve that gives the >underdog a better chance. Can't remember any others used in BRP games of the top of my head, although there is the fairly common house rule of sacrificing percentiles from Attack to penalise your opponents Parry; albeit that favours the attacker... If I think of any others I'll post 'em up. Cheers, Nick Middleton From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue Nov 2 02:28:51 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:28:51 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions In-Reply-To: <20041101135911.74185.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041101135911.74185.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41865633.5090104@chromebob.com> Steve Davies wrote: > Folks, > I'm working through a new set of house rules, and find > I'm not very happy with some of the contested results > mechanisms (when one character is trying to do one > thing and another is countering). [snip] > Are there any others that I've missed? What I'd > really like is a shallow bell curve that gives the > underdog a better chance. i've just put my system on the Internet. take a look at: [http://chromebob.com/?q=book/view/11] the specific rule is 'skills.9: skill countering' - there are also examples posted in the master skill catalog: [http://chromebob.com/?q=book/view/19] this is, essentially, a formalization of the old Dodge hack that's been around a while. interestingly, the mechanic [once used consistently] makes for a new dynamic in the system... use what you like, leave the rest behind! best of luck finding something you enjoy... -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / autom4tic / the Celestial Mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Nov 2 02:48:38 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 07:48:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions In-Reply-To: <41865633.5090104@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <20041101154838.18795.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> Gerall Kahla wrote: >[http://chromebob.com/?q=book/view/19] >this is, essentially, a formalization of the old >Dodge hack that's been around a while. >interestingly, the mechanic [once used consistently] >makes for a new dynamic in the system... I use the same system for Dodge as well as for what we term as shaft on shaft rules, that is then for example two opponents are both armed with two handed spears. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From ulo at metrocast.net Tue Nov 2 09:23:57 2004 From: ulo at metrocast.net (Christopher E. Fasulo) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:23:57 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ghosts questions Message-ID: <002001c4c061$7a851800$b9ebaf41@Beowulf> How do you kill a ghost? If a ghost is bound to an object and it possesses someone can it pick the object up and take the object with it? If the object to which the ghost is bound is destroyed, what happens to the ghost? Thanks Christopher From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Nov 2 09:36:39 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:36:39 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ghosts questions Message-ID: <1141999.1099348599098.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> In my campaign, 1) There are a number of spells in RQ that can banish a ghost back to the Spirit Plane. 2) Yes. 3) It's automatically released and finds its way to the Spirit Plane. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: "Christopher E. Fasulo" Sent: Nov 1, 2004 4:23 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ghosts questions How do you kill a ghost? If a ghost is bound to an object and it possesses someone can it pick the object up and take the object with it? If the object to which the ghost is bound is destroyed, what happens to the ghost? Thanks Christopher _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Nov 2 11:44:07 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:44:07 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions In-Reply-To: <41865633.5090104@chromebob.com> References: <20041101135911.74185.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> <41865633.5090104@chromebob.com> Message-ID: <4186D857.5070605@earthlink.net> Gerall, Any chance you'll continue to post other sections of your Omni rules? I'm interested in seeing your "Sequence" rules. David Smart Gerall Kahla wrote: > > Steve Davies wrote: > >> Folks, >> I'm working through a new set of house rules, and find >> I'm not very happy with some of the contested results >> mechanisms (when one character is trying to do one >> thing and another is countering). > > [snip] > >> Are there any others that I've missed? What I'd >> really like is a shallow bell curve that gives the >> underdog a better chance. > > > i've just put my system on the Internet. take a look at: > > [http://chromebob.com/?q=book/view/11] > > the specific rule is 'skills.9: skill countering' - there are also > examples posted in the master skill catalog: > > [http://chromebob.com/?q=book/view/19] > > this is, essentially, a formalization of the old Dodge hack that's > been around a while. interestingly, the mechanic [once used > consistently] makes for a new dynamic in the system... > > use what you like, leave the rest behind! > > best of luck finding something you enjoy... > From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue Nov 2 11:57:57 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:57:57 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions In-Reply-To: <4186D857.5070605@earthlink.net> References: <20041101135911.74185.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> <41865633.5090104@chromebob.com> <4186D857.5070605@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4186DB95.8090609@chromebob.com> D. Smart wrote: > Gerall, > > Any chance you'll continue to post other sections of your Omni rules? > I'm interested in seeing your "Sequence" rules. yes, actually. the 'sequence/combat' section will go up by this weekend. our group has several referees which rotate out for games (everyone gets to play!), and the next ref wants the sequence stuff for his upcoming high-fantasy game... please let me know if you have any observations or suggestions for Omni. it's a work in progress, after all. pax -- -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / autom4tic / the Celestial Mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Tue Nov 2 20:28:41 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (Patrice BOUSQUET) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:28:41 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Contested_Actions?= Message-ID: > Any chance you'll continue to post other sections of your Omni rules? > I'm interested in seeing your "Sequence" rules. Personally, I'm interested by your spirit combat system. Will it be the same as RQ (I feel it really heavy to play), ie POW (or MP) vs POW (or MP)? From Rjmeints at aol.com Wed Nov 3 01:13:43 2004 From: Rjmeints at aol.com (Rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:13:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld Message-ID: <19417A53.30898478.00817004@aol.com> Hello, Nick was asking about Questworld and its advertised future, especially what GW was planning to eventually do with it. Their large article in Different Worlds was rather optimistic to say the least. Chaosium sought submissions for the world and David Dunham in particular submitted a fairly lengthy manuscript. Beyond that, Chaosium got little in, and never published anything beyond the boxed set. The Dunham manuscript still exists and I was provided with copy of it when I considered publishing a Questworld volume of Classics for the reprint series. I will not be doing a reprint of any of that material at this time. As for where GW was planning on going with it I have less information on, and nothing to add beyond what has already been said. I too heard that Oliver Dickinson and a few others were working on it, but the whole thing seems to have been shelved and then cancelled before much got underway. Having spoken with GW people about all things Runequest while I was living in the UK, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that they are not sitting on a filing cabinet of manuscripts or anything. They would have gotten rid of anything like that long ago. In a similar vein, Chaosium and Greg Stafford are not sitting on any large stack of unpublished stuff either. Whatever good stuff they had has either become totally obsolete or got put into Hero Wars in some form or other. A few additional bits and pieces have wound up in my line of Classics reprints as well, further clearing the shelves of any unpublished stuff remaining. While it makes a great story for speculation, their is no treasure trove of unpublished Runequest material stored anywhere, at least not with game companies. The only place such things could possibly be found would be with individual authors who kept what they worked on, and never submitted. When I was working on compiling my MIG book, the index to all things published and unpublished for Glorantha and Runequest, I chased down all of the products that never saw print even though they were advertised as being in the works. Chaosium had the habit of advertising such "forthcoming" products with a lot more substance than they actually had. Most were barely more than an idea that somebody was working on. Even when I have followed up with various original authors they have seldom kept or never produced much of those products. They were merely cocktail napkin sketches of something they eventually wanted to write. Sorry if all of that sounds disappointing. As a further example of my efforts, for each volume of the classics I contacted the original authors and asked each of them if they had any additional unpublished material that they would like me to consider for inclusion. I got jold of most of them and the response was consistently a universal "don't have much of anything". If they did, it usually ended up in the reprints. If anyone has additional specific questions, please feel free to email me. Hope that helps, Rick From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Wed Nov 3 01:19:28 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (Patrice BOUSQUET) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:19:28 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Re=3A_Questworld?= Message-ID: Hi Rick, What's about the "last" Gloranthan Classics: Borderlands? Is it still in the pipeline? Thanks in advance Patrice From slposey at concentric.net Wed Nov 3 03:01:15 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:01:15 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld In-Reply-To: <19417A53.30898478.00817004@aol.com> References: <19417A53.30898478.00817004@aol.com> Message-ID: <4187AF4B.4050102@concentric.net> Rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > Hello, > > Nick was asking about Questworld and its advertised > future, especially what GW was planning to eventually > do with it. Their large article in Different Worlds > was rather optimistic to say the least. Chaosium sought > submissions for the world and David Dunham in particular > submitted a fairly lengthy manuscript. Beyond that, > Chaosium got little in, and never published anything > beyond the boxed set. The Dunham manuscript still exists > and I was provided with copy of it when I considered > publishing a Questworld volume of Classics for the > reprint series. I will not be doing a reprint of any of > that material at this time. As for where GW was planning > on going with it I have less information on, and nothing > to add beyond what has already been said. I too heard > that Oliver Dickinson and a few others were working on > it, but the whole thing seems to have been shelved and > then cancelled before much got underway. I was actually the one who originally posted the question based on some stray comments in a few of the RuneRites columns in White Dwarf (around issue 54). There was also a series of articles on gobins in RQ and the article on RuneBlades from issue 39 which were all labelled "Gateway" material if not overtly Questworld. > Having spoken with GW people about all things Runequest > while I was living in the UK, I can say with a fair > degree of confidence that they are not sitting on a filing > cabinet of manuscripts or anything. They would have > gotten rid of anything like that long ago. I wasn't necessarily thinking anything so grandiose as a whole filing cabinet, but a few folders might have been nice ;-) > In a similar vein, Chaosium and Greg Stafford are not > sitting on any large stack of unpublished stuff either. > Whatever good stuff they had has either become totally > obsolete or got put into Hero Wars in some form or other. What makes something like this "obsolete"? I realize rules get revised over time, but that doesn't mean old formulations were always wrong, I've been learning a lot from re-reading the Gateway Bestiary recently. And just because it got retooled into HW doesn't mean I (for one) wouldn't like to see the BRP/RQ version see the light of day too. > A few additional bits and pieces have wound up in my line > of Classics reprints as well, further clearing the shelves > of any unpublished stuff remaining. While it makes a > great story for speculation, their is no treasure trove > of unpublished Runequest material stored anywhere, at least > not with game companies. The only place such things could > possibly be found would be with individual authors who > kept what they worked on, and never submitted. > > When I was working on compiling my MIG book, the index > to all things published and unpublished for Glorantha > and Runequest, I chased down all of the products that > never saw print even though they were advertised as > being in the works. Chaosium had the habit of advertising > such "forthcoming" products with a lot more substance > than they actually had. Most were barely more than an idea > that somebody was working on. Even when I have followed > up with various original authors they have seldom kept > or never produced much of those products. They were merely > cocktail napkin sketches of something they eventually > wanted to write. Sorry if all of that sounds disappointing. I don't think they meant to be deceptive by that, rather they were excited about what they felt sure would eventually come to pass. I guess I can't really fault their enthusiasm and their trusting natures, back then we were all a bit more starry-eyed about all this I think. > As a further example of my efforts, for each volume of the > classics I contacted the original authors and asked each > of them if they had any additional unpublished material > that they would like me to consider for inclusion. I got > jold of most of them and the response was consistently > a universal "don't have much of anything". If they did, > it usually ended up in the reprints. Thanks for the extra info. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 3 03:14:25 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:14:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld In-Reply-To: <4187AF4B.4050102@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20041102161426.27813.qmail@web80512.mail.yahoo.com> I enjoyed the map and world-building notes about Questworld a lot more than I enjoyed the campaign material. It influenced my own world-building efforts quite a bit. Kanos, however, didn't much appeal to me as a place of adventure; there was a continent to the east, IIRC, that had several cool long parallell peninsulas that I tried to work with a couple of times. Did any of the other continents ever have names? Guy From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 3 03:23:04 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:23:04 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld Message-ID: >> In a similar vein, Chaosium and Greg Stafford are not >> sitting on any large stack of unpublished stuff either. >> Whatever good stuff they had has either become totally >> obsolete or got put into Hero Wars in some form or other. > >What makes something like this "obsolete"? I realize rules get revised >over time, but that doesn't mean old formulations were always wrong, >I've been learning a lot from re-reading the Gateway Bestiary recently. I don't think it's the rules change so much as things like Balazaar: concepts and ideas in the setting or execution that changed over the years. For example, whilst GURPS is technically descended from TFT, you couldn't easily use TFT material wiht GURPS: much of the TFT stuff is made "obsolete" by stuff in GURPS... But I agree, it would be fascinating to se some of this stuff: an done only has to look at the recent revival of Traveller, where pretty much every incarnation is available again (either in reprint or PDF form via DriveThru). >And just because it got retooled into HW doesn't mean I (for one) >wouldn't like to see the BRP/RQ version see the light of day too. I rather got the impression from that pole they did at Issaries that they are seriously considering releasing the previously cut sections of the Glorantha boxed set with RQ stats so there is hope yet... >> Chaosium had the habit of advertising >> such "forthcoming" products with a lot more substance >> than they actually had. Most were barely more than an idea >> that somebody was working on. Even when I have followed >> up with various original authors they have seldom kept >> or never produced much of those products. They were merely >> cocktail napkin sketches of something they eventually >> wanted to write. Sorry if all of that sounds disappointing. > >I don't think they meant to be deceptive by that, rather they were >excited about what they felt sure would eventually come to pass. Actually, it was very common in the RPG industry then, and hasn't stopped happening now. GDW and DGP in Travelelr for example announced stuff when it was little more than a paragraph outline, sometimes deliberately to gauge interest but often just to keep the apparent activity level up. I don't think anything more should really be read in to it. >I guess I can't really fault their enthusiasm and their trusting >natures, back then we were all a bit more starry-eyed about all this I >think. Meh, unless they have taken money from someone, a "Coming soon" announcement is NOT a promise (or a legally binding contract) to provide something and, especially for RQ fans (How long was HeroQuest "coming next year"?), that many products were vapourware shouldn't be surprise. The sad thing is stuff like Lawrence Whitaker's Hawkmoon for Elric!/Stormbringer 5th edition which has been indefinitely shelved *sigh* At least there is some chance the RQIII stuff about Palmaltela/the oceans will see the light of day... Cheers, Nick Middleton From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Nov 3 04:46:35 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (ASHLEY MUNDAY) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:46:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041102174635.69063.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> If you want to see the stuff about Palmatela and the Islands, buy "The Missing Lands" prefinished work. It's the only one of the series that actually looks finished and it's in the same format the Genertela book was. Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >> In a similar vein, Chaosium and Greg Stafford are > not > >> sitting on any large stack of unpublished stuff > either. > >> Whatever good stuff they had has either become > totally > >> obsolete or got put into Hero Wars in some form > or other. > > > >What makes something like this "obsolete"? I > realize rules get revised > >over time, but that doesn't mean old formulations > were always wrong, > >I've been learning a lot from re-reading the > Gateway Bestiary recently. > > I don't think it's the rules change so much as > things like Balazaar: > concepts and ideas in the setting or execution that > changed over the years. > For example, whilst GURPS is technically descended > from TFT, you couldn't > easily use TFT material wiht GURPS: much of the TFT > stuff is made > "obsolete" by stuff in GURPS... But I agree, it > would be fascinating to se > some of this stuff: an done only has to look at the > recent revival of > Traveller, where pretty much every incarnation is > available again (either > in reprint or PDF form via DriveThru). > > >And just because it got retooled into HW doesn't > mean I (for one) > >wouldn't like to see the BRP/RQ version see the > light of day too. > > I rather got the impression from that pole they did > at Issaries that they > are seriously considering releasing the previously > cut sections of the > Glorantha boxed set with RQ stats so there is hope > yet... > > >> Chaosium had the habit of advertising > >> such "forthcoming" products with a lot more > substance > >> than they actually had. Most were barely more > than an idea > >> that somebody was working on. Even when I have > followed > >> up with various original authors they have seldom > kept > >> or never produced much of those products. They > were merely > >> cocktail napkin sketches of something they > eventually > >> wanted to write. Sorry if all of that sounds > disappointing. > > > >I don't think they meant to be deceptive by that, > rather they were > >excited about what they felt sure would eventually > come to pass. > > Actually, it was very common in the RPG industry > then, and hasn't stopped > happening now. GDW and DGP in Travelelr for example > announced stuff when it > was little more than a paragraph outline, sometimes > deliberately to gauge > interest but often just to keep the apparent > activity level up. I don't > think anything more should really be read in to it. > > >I guess I can't really fault their enthusiasm and > their trusting > >natures, back then we were all a bit more > starry-eyed about all this I > >think. > > Meh, unless they have taken money from someone, a > "Coming soon" > announcement is NOT a promise (or a legally binding > contract) to provide > something and, especially for RQ fans (How long was > HeroQuest "coming next > year"?), that many products were vapourware > shouldn't be surprise. > > The sad thing is stuff like Lawrence Whitaker's > Hawkmoon for > Elric!/Stormbringer 5th edition which has been > indefinitely shelved *sigh* > At least there is some chance the RQIII stuff about > Palmaltela/the oceans > will see the light of day... > > 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 sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 3 05:29:14 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:29:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! In-Reply-To: <20041102160136.4F43D2225B9@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20041102182914.79021.qmail@web21127.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks to all for your comments! It was helpful to get all the thoughts back. Some specific responses are below: Nick.Middleton: * Hide/Move Silently: I forgot RQ3 included the "he who makes his roll by more wins" I've used that for some skill contests, I just forgot it was in the rules. * Elric/Stormbringer Resultion Matricies: I haven't seen those. I'll see if I can wheedle a copy out of a friend or find a cheap one on e-bay. * Additional Levels of Success (1/2, 1/5, 1/20): I'd actually like to avoid this -- I'd rather do the "margin of success" approach above instead. * Quest Rules Number of Successes: I'm not familiar with that system. Are the rules online somewhere, or for purchase? * Resistance +/-5% a Feature: Yes, I like that system for some situations, but not for all. I'm looking for something different when I want the balance to shift back & forth a few times before resolving. That needs a more level chance of success. * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of that! I've been working to give my players more tactical options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a great one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against 80% parry combats. Gerall Kahla: Thanks for the link to your system; I'm looking forward to seeing more. I also use the Dodge hack in combat. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Nov 3 07:50:45 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:50:45 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions Message-ID: <21635295.1099428645918.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Most excellent and will do. I'm looking at porting BRP to a Traveller campaign and am slowing consolidating the various works I've found on the Web over the last few years. David -----Original Message----- From: Gerall Kahla Sent: Nov 1, 2004 6:57 PM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Contested Actions D. Smart wrote: > Gerall, > > Any chance you'll continue to post other sections of your Omni rules? > I'm interested in seeing your "Sequence" rules. yes, actually. the 'sequence/combat' section will go up by this weekend. our group has several referees which rotate out for games (everyone gets to play!), and the next ref wants the sequence stuff for his upcoming high-fantasy game... please let me know if you have any observations or suggestions for Omni. it's a work in progress, after all. pax -- From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Nov 3 08:39:55 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:39:55 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! Message-ID: <24457333.1099431595687.JavaMail.root@fozzie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Yeah, this one's pretty sweet. I'm implementing it immediately. I'd already implemented the Dodge hack and my group really likes it even though they've found themselves on the hurtful end of the rule on occasion. As a GM, I love it. It really helps the action keep moving as well as providing some additional balance to the game mechanics (the last is IMO, of course). David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Steve Davies Sent: Nov 2, 2004 12:29 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of that! I've been working to give my players more tactical options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a great one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against 80% parry combats. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Nov 3 08:54:25 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:54:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! In-Reply-To: <24457333.1099431595687.JavaMail.root@fozzie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20041102215425.24582.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com> > > > * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower > opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of that! > > I've been working to give my players more tactical > options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a > great > one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against > 80% > parry combats. I am not sure I like this one. For example lets take a case of person with a great parry percentage (100%) using a large shield (18AP) and an attacker with a similar attack percentage (100%). Under normal rules the attacker will get through in about 1 attack in 20, while with this rule it can get as 1 in 4, by decreasing the parry percentage by 50%. If you take into consideration that there are a lot more spells which increase the chance to hit, than there are spells which increase the parry percentage, then it becomes even more undbalancing. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 3 20:40:18 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:40:18 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! Message-ID: Steve >Thanks to all for your comments! It was helpful to >get all the thoughts back. Some specific responses >are below: > >Nick.Middleton: >* Hide/Move Silently: I forgot RQ3 included the "he >who makes his roll by more wins" I've used that for >some skill contests, I just forgot it was in the >rules. You and me both - I started actually playing RQIII again a few months back, so re-read the rules carefully before we played and that was one of a number of things that I'd completely forgotten. But remember - this rules means that a character with Hide 10% who successfully Hides against a master Tracker with Scan 90% only penalises the Trackers Scan by 10%... in this instance I personally prefer the later iterations of BRP in this regard. >* Elric/Stormbringer Resolution Matrices: I haven't >seen those. I'll see if I can wheedle a copy out of a >friend or find a cheap one on e-bay. Crops up on eBay UK _fairly_ often, and I'm sure that someone did a PDF version of the various summary tables and posted it to a web site somewhere, but blowed if I can remember where I failed my Google-fu roll as well... >* Additional Levels of Success (1/2, 1/5, 1/20): I'd >actually like to avoid this -- I'd rather do the >"margin of success" approach above instead. I tend to use this as an informal Yardstick, rather than a hard and fast rule to be honest, as it can be a bit fiddly, but then I have never had a problem with the basic mental arithmetic required either... >* Quest Rules Number of Successes: I'm not familiar >with that system. Are the rules online somewhere, or >for purchase? Both (a chapter is freely available, and then Steve asks for a modest one off fee to allow you to subscribe to the rest and new material as he develops it) The website is at: http://www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html >* Resistance +/-5% a Feature: Yes, I like that >system for some situations, but not for all. I'm >looking for something different when I want the >balance to shift back & forth a few times before >resolving. That needs a more level chance of success. I think it was Bushido that for extended tasks calculated a total e.g. 250 points, and then allowed a character to accumulate points towards completion by rolling their skill once every time period (say week) and subtracting their roll from their skill gave the points to add to their total (so failing, rolling over a skill, produced a negative number that _reduced_ the running total). So a Character with Craft (Sculpture) of 80% attempts a man-sized sculpture which the GM sets a task level of 400 at and a period of weeks. For the first week the players rolls 26, gaining 54 points, the second week she rolls 14 (a special, which we'll say doubles the points) which adds 128 to give a running total of 182; alas, next week she rolls 92 and the total drops to 170... and so on. A similar idea could be used in skill contests, where the winner is the first to accumulate a specific total. >* Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower >opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of that! >I've been working to give my players more tactical >options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a great >one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against 80% >parry combats. I really don't deserve any credit for this idea - I can remember using it whilst running RQ at university in the late eighties and even then my (hazy) memory is that I'd picked it up either from a WD article or a discussion with other RQ fans, so it's a variant rule that has been around for a while... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 3 21:16:17 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:16:17 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! Message-ID: >> >> >> * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower >> opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of that! >> >> I've been working to give my players more tactical >> options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a >> great >> one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against >> 80% >> parry combats. > >I am not sure I like this one. For example lets take >a case of person with a great parry percentage (100%) >using a large shield (18AP) and an attacker with a >similar attack percentage (100%). Under normal rules >the attacker will get through in about 1 attack in 20, >while with this rule it can get as 1 in 4, by >decreasing the parry percentage by 50%. True, but that to some extent is the point: it reduces the chance of long drawn out stalemates with high skill characters, which can get very tedious. In RQ, where numbers are lethal and skills above 100 aren't that common I agree I'm not sure I'd use it for characters who weren't masters. In something like Stormbringer, it keeps combat interesting, and helps devalue shields... The problem with RQ combat is that it pretty much encourages characters to fight in the best armour they can manage, and with shields... which is great from a "realism" (i.e. making the world look like the historical period of ones choice) point of view, but when it comes to capturing the literary niceties of say the Elric saga, or Leiber's Fafhrd and the Mouser it's a disadvantage... I _love_ the fact that the RQ rules back up my Tarshite deserter from the Lunar Army sneering at people fighting without shields, but when I run Stormbringer, I want to run fights like they occur in the Elric saga (when Elric is frequently armoured with nothing more than a silk shirt and that ruddy great sword and combats are brief and bloody). In plain vanilla RQIII, using the Mastery threshold (90%+) as a prerequisite for this trick, and adding the rulings that a) the voluntary reduction can't take the characters skill below 50%; b) this can't be combined with splitting attacks (when a characters skill goes over 100%) and c) the penalty applies to the ATTACKERS next defensive roll (Parry or Dodge) AS WELL (so an aggressive feint that fails also over exposes you to counter-attack) leaves it a viable but high risk option I feel... effectively, take a global penalty to your rolls for this round in return for an advantage. One could even scale it so the Attacker trades 2 points of penalty on all their rolls for a 1 point penalty on their opponents defence or something similar e.g. reducing their rolls for the round by 30 points would impose a 15 point penalty on their opponents next defensive roll (Parry or Dodge). >If you take into consideration that there are a lot >more spells which increase the chance to hit, than >there are spells which increase the parry percentage, >then it becomes even more unbalancing. Surely not "unbalancing" (the same rules and options are open to all parties), I think you mean "destabilising" or "unpredictable" - and that is the point: RQ combats can be overly stable when combatants of similarly high skill levels face each other, and this rule is quite openly designed to allow a character the option to disrupt that stability... whether that's a good thing or not is of course for the individual GM, and as I say, I'd fence it about with a few more restrictions in RQIII. What do you think of the revised version I suggested above Leon (and indeed everyone else)? In the current RQIII game we haven't felt the need for this variant rule as yet (none of the PC's are that good yet!), and I used a modified form most in Stormbringer 3rd edition (which was always meant to be more wild and unpredictable than RQ)... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 3 23:18:14 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:18:14 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Questworld Message-ID: >If you want to see the stuff about Palmatela and the >Islands, buy "The Missing Lands" prefinished work. >It's the only one of the series that actually looks >finished and it's in the same format the Genertela >book was. > >Cheers, > >Ash I already have the Hero Wars Glorantha Book - so I can't see that there's ?22 (assuming that price is still valid) of value in Missing Lands for me when what I want is precisely the version that _would_ have seen print via AH i.e. _with_ the RQ material that was cut to turn it into "Missing Lands". I have no particular beef with HW/HQ and current Glorantha: it's just neither the rules system (in either incarnation) not the current vision of the setting interests me and what appeals about the RQIII version of Palmaltela etc is precisely the fact that it was so little defined in the RQ era... Ah well, we shall have to see what happens. Cheers, Nick Middleton From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Nov 4 00:23:22 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (ASHLEY MUNDAY) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:23:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Missing Lands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041103132322.4064.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'm not sure what you want, so it's a bit hard to comment, but here goes anyway... "The Missing Lands" was originally touted to go into "Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars" as "The Palmatela Book" and "The Oceans and Islands Book" before the scope of the box set was hacked. Like "The Genertela Book" there isn't any game system specific information in there to cut, so as far as I can tell from talking to the authors, there weren't any cuts to make. It was written around 1987/8 so you couldn't say it was a "current" version of the setting. If you want an almost finished AH supplement for the southern stuff, this is it. However, it's going to be useless to you if you liked the fact that there wasn't any published information about the places described. Whether it's worth ?20+ quid to you, I can't say. I bought RQ III hot of the press so I'm probably not the best judge of where to spend a limited budget. Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >If you want to see the stuff about Palmatela and > the > >Islands, buy "The Missing Lands" prefinished work. > >It's the only one of the series that actually looks > >finished and it's in the same format the Genertela > >book was. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Ash > > > I already have the Hero Wars Glorantha Book - so I > can't see that there's > ?22 (assuming that price is still valid) of value in > Missing Lands for me > when what I want is precisely the version that > _would_ have seen print via > AH i.e. _with_ the RQ material that was cut to turn > it into "Missing > Lands". I have no particular beef with HW/HQ and > current Glorantha: it's > just neither the rules system (in either > incarnation) not the current > vision of the setting interests me and what appeals > about the RQIII version > of Palmaltela etc is precisely the fact that it was > so little defined in > the RQ era... > > Ah well, we shall have to see what happens. > > 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Nov 4 00:55:09 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:55:09 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Missing Lands Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EE41@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Ashley, I may have lost a bit of this thread. IS the missing lands going to be published, or is it available. FI it is really the finished compliment to the AH Glorantha box, it may be of interest to me, but then again, GBP22 is a bit steep in anyone's language. Is there a website, eBay auction or such with more details? Tony -----Original Message----- ASHLEY MUNDAY s I'm not sure what you want, so it's a bit hard to comment, but here goes anyway... "The Missing Lands" was originally touted to go into "Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars" as "The Palmatela Book" and "The Oceans and Islands Book" before the scope of the box set was hacked. Like "The Genertela Book" there isn't any game system specific information in there to cut, so as far as I can tell from talking to the authors, there weren't any cuts to make. It was written around 1987/8 so you couldn't say it was a "current" version of the setting. If you want an almost finished AH supplement for the southern stuff, this is it. However, it's going to be useless to you if you liked the fact that there wasn't any published information about the places described. Whether it's worth ?20+ quid to you, I can't say. I bought RQ III hot of the press so I'm probably not the best judge of where to spend a limited budget. Cheers, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Nov 4 01:10:58 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:10:58 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Missing Lands Message-ID: >I'm not sure what you want, so it's a bit hard to >comment, but here goes anyway... RQIII compatible information on the rest of Glorantha, but the 80's (i.e. RQ) vision of Glorantha, NOT the HW/HQ version (which I already have in the Glorantha Book Issaries published a couple of years ago)... >"The Missing Lands" was originally touted to go into >"Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars" as >"The Palmatela Book" and "The Oceans and Islands Book" >before the scope of the box set was hacked. Like "The >Genertela Book" there isn't any game system specific >information in there to cut, so as far as I can tell >from talking to the authors, there weren't any cuts to >make. If that's the case then Issaries should sack their copy writer and hire a new one, as their website clearly states that the published version of "the Missing Lands" cut material that was RQIII specific... http://www.glorantha.com/products/3005.html http://www.glorantha.com/tools/poll_result.php?poll_id=3 >It was written around 1987/8 so you couldn't say it >was a "current" version of the setting. > >If you want an almost finished AH supplement for the >southern stuff, this is it. See above: according to Issaries own website, it isn't as some RQIII specific material was cut. Also, the recent poll about what to do with this material suggested that Issaries might allow Moon Design to publish the full RQIII version of this material: and that's EXACTLY what I want... >However, it's going to be >useless to you if you liked the fact that there wasn't >any published information about the places described. I obviously wasn't clear: as an example I like the amount of information I have in the Genertela boxed set on Loskalm; enough to give me a feel, not so much my own ideas and creativity either get swamped by the official stuff or feel like masochistic re-inventing of the wheel because I know the official version is out there somewhere. So a similar level of detail (with what rules bits there are in RQIII form) would be ideal from my point of view. These are the reasons I could never summon the enthusiasm to run in Pavis/Prax (for all I enjoy the source material) and why these days I actually find Glorantha largely unapproachable: a world that is so mired in its own continuity and uniqueness as to fill so many source books is too detailed for my taste. My favourite 'exotic' setting is Jorune, because there is so much space for individual creativity. >Whether it's worth ?20+ quid to you, I can't say. I >bought RQ III hot of the press so I'm probably not the >best judge of where to spend a limited budget. To be fair, that ?22 price is from the Unspoken Word website and may be wrong. Plus, I don't as a rule buy stuff mail-order from outside the UK, so if it isn't going to show up in my FLGS or on eBay UK it's all a bit academic anyway... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Nov 4 01:18:10 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:18:10 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Missing Lands Message-ID: >Ashley, I may have lost a bit of this thread. IS the missing lands going to >be published, or is it available. FI it is really the finished compliment to >the AH Glorantha box, it may be of interest to me, but then again, GBP22 is >a bit steep in anyone's language. Is there a website, eBay auction or such >with more details? >Tony Tony http://www.glorantha.com/tools/poll.php?poll_id=3 http://www.glorantha.com/products/3005.html http://www.celtic-webs.com/theunspokenword/pfw/pfw.html Note that the Unspoken Word's page has been updated since April 2002 A cut version, with no rules details is currently available, the poll Issaries conducted suggests that there would be a market for a Moon Design "Gloranthan Classics" volume collecting ALL the AH era Glorantha material (so what was published in Genertela: Crucible of the Hero wars, the Missing Lands material with RQIII elements restored and other stuff presumably from DW and elsewhere). Whether Issaries plan to do this (or have even spoken to Rick Meints about it) I have no idea, but I'd love to see it... Cheers, Nick Middleton From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 4 01:21:56 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:21:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sacrificing Attack to Reduce Parry In-Reply-To: <20041103101823.8F032222724@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20041103142156.34806.qmail@web21125.mail.yahoo.com> I like it because it does move the advantage back to the attacker a bit. I've come to realize that Parry has a slight advantage in that one Parry can be used against all attacks from one attacker -- giving it an advantage against multiple attacks (where the percentage gets split). In addition, in house rules I gave a huge advantage to the defender that I'm slightly regreting (but the players like a lot): the defender can use up to DEX fatigue to absorb damage at a 2:1 ratio (2 fatigue absorbs 1 damage) even if they fail the parry. So I've effectively incraesed everyone's hit points, and combat is lasting a long time -- a rule like this that gives an advantage back to the attacker will be welcomed. Steve > > > > > > * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower > > opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of > that! > > > I am not sure I like this one. For example lets > take > a case of person with a great parry percentage > (100%) > using a large shield (18AP) and an attacker with a > similar attack percentage (100%). Under normal > rules > the attacker will get through in about 1 attack in > 20, > while with this rule it can get as 1 in 4, by > decreasing the parry percentage by 50%. > > If you take into consideration that there are a lot > more spells which increase the chance to hit, than > there are spells which increase the parry > percentage, > then it becomes even more undbalancing. > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. > www.yahoo.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:40:18 +0000 > From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions > Thanks! > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Steve > > >Thanks to all for your comments! It was helpful to > >get all the thoughts back. Some specific responses > >are below: > > > >Nick.Middleton: > >* Hide/Move Silently: I forgot RQ3 included the > "he > >who makes his roll by more wins" I've used that > for > >some skill contests, I just forgot it was in the > >rules. > > You and me both - I started actually playing RQIII > again a few months back, > so re-read the rules carefully before we played and > that was one of a > number of things that I'd completely forgotten. But > remember - this rules > means that a character with Hide 10% who > successfully Hides against a > master Tracker with Scan 90% only penalises the > Trackers Scan by 10%... in > this instance I personally prefer the later > iterations of BRP in this > regard. > > >* Elric/Stormbringer Resolution Matrices: I > haven't > >seen those. I'll see if I can wheedle a copy out > of a > >friend or find a cheap one on e-bay. > > Crops up on eBay UK _fairly_ often, and I'm sure > that someone did a PDF > version of the various summary tables and posted it > to a web site > somewhere, but blowed if I can remember where I > failed my Google-fu roll as > well... > > >* Additional Levels of Success (1/2, 1/5, 1/20): > I'd > >actually like to avoid this -- I'd rather do the > >"margin of success" approach above instead. > > I tend to use this as an informal Yardstick, rather > than a hard and fast > rule to be honest, as it can be a bit fiddly, but > then I have never had a > problem with the basic mental arithmetic required > either... > > >* Quest Rules Number of Successes: I'm not > familiar > >with that system. Are the rules online somewhere, > or > >for purchase? > > Both (a chapter is freely available, and then Steve > asks for a modest one > off fee to allow you to subscribe to the rest and > new material as he > develops it) The website is at: > http://www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html > > >* Resistance +/-5% a Feature: Yes, I like that > >system for some situations, but not for all. I'm > >looking for something different when I want the > >balance to shift back & forth a few times before > >resolving. That needs a more level chance of > success. > > I think it was Bushido that for extended tasks > calculated a total e.g. 250 > points, and then allowed a character to accumulate > points towards > completion by rolling their skill once every time > period (say week) and > subtracting their roll from their skill gave the > points to add to their > total (so failing, rolling over a skill, produced a > negative number that > _reduced_ the running total). So a Character with > Craft (Sculpture) of 80% > attempts a man-sized sculpture which the GM sets a > task level of 400 at and > a period of weeks. For the first week the players > rolls 26, gaining 54 > points, the second week she rolls 14 (a special, > which we'll say doubles > the points) which adds 128 to give a running total > of 182; alas, next week > she rolls 92 and the total drops to 170... and so > on. > > A similar idea could be used in skill contests, > where the winner is the > first to accumulate a specific total. > > >* Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower > >opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of > that! > >I've been working to give my players more tactical > >options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a > great > >one. It can also shorten those 80% attack against > 80% > >parry combats. > > I really don't deserve any credit for this idea - I > can remember using it > whilst running RQ at university in the late eighties > and even then my > (hazy) memory is that I'd picked it up either from a > WD article or a > discussion with other RQ fans, so it's a variant > rule that has been around > for a while... > > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:16:17 +0000 > From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions > Thanks! > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > >> > >> > >> * Sacrificing Percentiles from Attack to Lower > >> opponent's Parry: Doh! Why didn't I think of > that! > >> > >> I've been working to give my players more > tactical > >> options during toe-to-toe combat, and this is a > >> great > >> one. It can also shorten those 80% attack > against > >> 80% > >> parry combats. > > > >I am not sure I like this one. For example lets > take > >a case of person with a great parry percentage > (100%) > >using a large shield (18AP) and an attacker with a > >similar attack percentage (100%). Under normal > rules > >the attacker will get through in about 1 attack in > 20, > >while with this rule it can get as 1 in 4, by > >decreasing the parry percentage by 50%. > > True, but that to some extent is the point: it > reduces the chance of long > drawn out stalemates with high skill characters, > which can get very > tedious. In RQ, where numbers are lethal and skills > above 100 aren't that > common I agree I'm not sure I'd use it for > characters who weren't masters. > In something like Stormbringer, it keeps combat > interesting, and helps > devalue shields... > > The problem with RQ combat is that it pretty much > encourages characters to > fight in the best armour they can manage, and with > shields... which is > great from a "realism" (i.e. making the world look > like the historical > period of ones choice) point of view, but when it > comes to capturing the > literary niceties of say the Elric saga, or Leiber's > Fafhrd and the Mouser > it's a disadvantage... I _love_ the fact that the RQ > rules back up my > Tarshite deserter from the Lunar Army sneering at > people fighting without > shields, but when I run Stormbringer, I want to run > fights like they occur > in the Elric saga (when Elric is frequently armoured > with nothing more than > a silk shirt and that ruddy great sword and combats > are brief and bloody). > > In plain vanilla RQIII, using the Mastery threshold > (90%+) as a > prerequisite for this trick, and adding the rulings > that a) the voluntary > reduction can't take the characters skill below 50%; > b) this can't be > combined with splitting attacks (when a characters > skill goes over 100%) > and c) the penalty applies to the ATTACKERS next > defensive roll (Parry or > Dodge) AS WELL (so an aggressive feint that fails > also over exposes you to > counter-attack) leaves it a viable but high risk > option I feel... > effectively, take a global penalty to your rolls for > this round in return > for an advantage. One could even scale it so the > Attacker trades 2 points > of penalty on all their rolls for a 1 point penalty > on their opponents > defence or something similar e.g. reducing their > rolls for the round by 30 > points would impose a 15 point penalty on their > opponents next defensive > roll (Parry or Dodge). > > >If you take into consideration that there are a lot > >more spells which increase the chance to hit, than > >there are spells which increase the parry > percentage, > >then it becomes even more unbalancing. > > Surely not "unbalancing" (the same rules and options > are open to all > parties), I think you mean "destabilising" or > "unpredictable" - and that is > the point: RQ combats can be overly stable when > combatants of similarly > high skill levels face each other, and this rule is > quite openly designed > to allow a character the option to disrupt that > stability... whether that's > a good thing or not is of course for the individual > GM, and as I say, I'd > fence it about with a few more restrictions in > RQIII. What do you think of > the revised version I suggested above Leon (and > indeed everyone else)? > > In the current RQIII game we haven't felt the need > for this variant rule as > yet (none of the PC's are that good yet!), and I > used a modified form most > in Stormbringer 3rd edition (which was always meant > to be more wild and > unpredictable than RQ)... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > End of RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2 > *************************************** > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Nov 4 02:55:27 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Contested Actions Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041103155527.9346.qmail@web41122.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: In plain vanilla RQIII, using the Mastery threshold > (90%+) as a prerequisite for this trick, With this addition, I would consider using it. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Nov 4 03:00:02 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:00:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sacrificing Attack to Reduce Parry In-Reply-To: <20041103142156.34806.qmail@web21125.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041103160002.63903.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- Steve Davies wrote: > I like it because it does move the advantage back to > the attacker a bit. I've come to realize that Parry > has a slight advantage in that one Parry can be used > against all attacks from one attacker -- giving it > an > advantage against multiple attacks (where the > percentage gets split). That, I chucked as soon as I saw it. > In addition, in house rules I gave a huge advantage > to > the defender that I'm slightly regreting (but the > players like a lot): the defender can use up to DEX > fatigue to absorb damage at a 2:1 ratio (2 fatigue > absorbs 1 damage) even if they fail the parry. So > I've effectively incraesed everyone's hit points, > and > combat is lasting a long time -- a rule like this > that > gives an advantage back to the attacker will be > welcomed. I do not use fatigue at all. Its too much paperwork and makes things too mundain. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Nov 4 03:43:21 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (ASHLEY MUNDAY) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:43:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Missing Lands In-Reply-To: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EE41@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Message-ID: <20041103164321.35606.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> AFAIK "The Missing Lands" is still available. I bought mine back when it came out (1998 or 1999) from Wizard's Attic. I believe Tradetalk and The Unspoken Word carry copies. Textually it's complete, although the layout is a bit gash. The Issaries website only sells it as a sort of compliment to HW/HQ and downplays the fact that it was originally written eons ago. I believe that Issaries are looking to tart it up and incorporate it into a new HQ Glorantha supplement. Either that or there was some talk of a "Gloranthan Classic" issue of box 8 along with the stuff in "The Missing Lands." If ?22 is too much for you then it might be worth waiting and seeing whether either of these options turn out to be anything more than vapour. Cheers, Ash --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Ashley, I may have lost a bit of this thread. IS the > missing lands going to > be published, or is it available. FI it is really > the finished compliment to > the AH Glorantha box, it may be of interest to me, > but then again, GBP22 is > a bit steep in anyone's language. Is there a > website, eBay auction or such > with more details? > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > ASHLEY MUNDAY > s > > > I'm not sure what you want, so it's a bit hard to > comment, but here goes anyway... > > "The Missing Lands" was originally touted to go into > "Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars" as > "The Palmatela Book" and "The Oceans and Islands > Book" > before the scope of the box set was hacked. Like > "The > Genertela Book" there isn't any game system specific > information in there to cut, so as far as I can tell > from talking to the authors, there weren't any cuts > to > make. > > It was written around 1987/8 so you couldn't say it > was a "current" version of the setting. > > If you want an almost finished AH supplement for the > southern stuff, this is it. However, it's going to > be > useless to you if you liked the fact that there > wasn't > any published information about the places > described. > > Whether it's worth ?20+ quid to you, I can't say. I > bought RQ III hot of the press so I'm probably not > the > best judge of where to spend a limited budget. > > Cheers, > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > For information about the Standard Bank group visit > our web site > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Disclaimer and confidentiality note > Everything in this e-mail and any attachments > relating to the official business of Standard Bank > Group Limited is proprietary to the group. > It is confidential, legally privileged and protected > by law. > Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other > content. Views and opinions are those of the sender > unless clearly stated as being that of the group. > The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole > authorised recipient. Please notify the sender > immediately if it has unintentionally reached you > and do not read, > disclose or use the content in any way. > Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of > this communication has been maintained nor that it > is free of errors, virus, interception or > interference. > > Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are > authorised financial services providers in terms of > the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services > Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > 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 gkahla at chromebob.com Sun Nov 7 05:00:44 2004 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:00:44 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] further Omni stuff -- Message-ID: <418D114C.7010701@chromebob.com> i'm sorry for cross-posting this, but this way i think i'll catch everyone interested... flame me in private, please, for this intentional (yet rare!) breach of netiquette. i'm compiling all my house rules and the stock BRP/RQ2/RQ3 rules i use for gaming into one set of rules. i call my little BRP-variant Omni (because we use it for all genres of roleplaying). i just updated the 'actions' section, which has the system i use for timing things like combat, etc... several people seemed interested, so here's the URL: [http://chromebob.com/omni/] please feel free to email me about anything Omni - it's my hobby, and it's nice to see others getting some enjoyment out of the things i like, too... best regards -- -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / autom4tic / the Celestial Mechanic [http://chromebob.com/] From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Nov 8 19:26:05 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:26:05 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sacrificing Attack to Reduce Parry Message-ID: >I like it because it does move the advantage back to >the attacker a bit. I've come to realize that Parry >has a slight advantage in that one Parry can be used >against all attacks from one attacker -- giving it an >advantage against multiple attacks (where the >percentage gets split). Well, the way I deal with that, is to state that one parry is one action, and if one attacker attacks you with two attacks, you need two parry actions to defend yourself. -Or use dodge, where I do let one dodge deal with all attacks from one attacker. I find this the most realistic, as it takes just as long time to parry as it takes to attack, while dodging basically is to get the **** out of the way, and if you happen to be out of reach, all attacks will miss. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed Nov 17 02:04:22 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:04:22 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EFBB@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Hi all I added a dodgy new poll to my site - where a storytelling skill should be placed. www.runequest.za.org T?ny __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Nov 17 05:34:49 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:34:49 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll In-Reply-To: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EFBB@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EFBB@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Message-ID: <419A4849.7020801@earthlink.net> I'm thinking "None of the above." I handle storytelling as a combination of racial Lore and either Oratory (the telling of racial epics) or Fast Talk (making up a story). The racial Lore can be used as an "enabler" roll, providing bonuses to the other skill roll depending on the race(s) of the target. Or racial Lore for different races can be taken into account with the storyteller having to roll under the lowest skill. This way it's easy to decide if everyone enjoys the story or only some. Some stories may actually end up entertaining members of one race at the expense of those of another race! David Smart Den, Tony T wrote: >Hi all > >I added a dodgy new poll to my site - where a storytelling skill should be >placed. www.runequest.za.org > > > T?ny > From slposey at concentric.net Wed Nov 17 12:09:33 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:09:33 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll In-Reply-To: <419A4849.7020801@earthlink.net> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578EFBB@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> <419A4849.7020801@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <419AA4CD.3090606@concentric.net> Den, Tony T wrote: > Hi all > > I added a dodgy new poll to my site - where a storytelling skill > should be placed. www.runequest.za.org I think the ability to TELL Stories is primarily a Communications skill, akin to Oratory, Fast Talk, or Lying Convincingly; and is probably largely independent of language and story content (although it requires a resonable level of fluency in a language for effective use). Now, knowing specific culturally (or otherwise) recognizable content for the stories is a different matter...Probably a Lore skill modifier of some sort (Culture, World, etc.). Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Nov 22 22:10:05 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:10:05 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F057@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Thanks David and Stephen. I actually copied your quotes onto my poll comments section, so that all non listers could enefit from your wisdom. Ciao Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Stephen Posey Sent: 17 November 2004 03:10 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll Den, Tony T wrote: > Hi all > > I added a dodgy new poll to my site - where a storytelling skill > should be placed. www.runequest.za.org I think the ability to TELL Stories is primarily a Communications skill, akin to Oratory, Fast Talk, or Lying Convincingly; and is probably largely independent of language and story content (although it requires a resonable level of fluency in a language for effective use). Now, knowing specific culturally (or otherwise) recognizable content for the stories is a different matter...Probably a Lore skill modifier of some sort (Culture, World, etc.). 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 03:39:38 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:39:38 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll Message-ID: <4640035.1101141578552.JavaMail.root@misspiggy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> "...your wisdom." *looks around wildly then points finger at self* Who, me?!? Oh man, is this list in trouble! (*grin* Glad I could help.) David -----Original Message----- From: "Den, Tony T" Sent: Nov 22, 2004 5:10 AM To: "'RuneQuest rules discussion.'" Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Storytelling - Poll Thanks David and Stephen. I actually copied your quotes onto my poll comments section, so that all non listers could enefit from your wisdom. Ciao Tony From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed Nov 24 16:49:54 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:49:54 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skyrealms Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F09E@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> There was a brief discussion regarding the old Skyrealms of Jorune game on this list some time back. For those who are interested, someone in UK is selling a copy on eBay for a ridiculous price (GBP0.99) and no one has bid yet. If I didn't already have it I would be bidding http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=44111&item=5935907864 &rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW T?ny Den __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 24 20:09:26 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:09:26 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skyrealms Message-ID: >There was a brief discussion regarding the old Skyrealms of Jorune game on >this list some time back. For those who are interested, someone in UK is >selling a copy on eBay for a ridiculous price (GBP0.99) and no one has bid >yet. If I didn't already have it I would be bidding > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=44111&item=5935907864 >&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW Hmm, must check that and see if the box (it is 2nd edition, right?) is in better condition than mine. For those of a Joruni persuasion, Joe Coleman is revamping the main web-site (www.jorune.org), including a lot of the 'zine articles that were previously buried in various ftp archives and (although it's not posted up yet) a proper reworking of the J20/4th Edition version of the rules (Joe's take on the draft "1d20 for EVERYTHING" revision of the rules that Sky Realms were looking at before the game went in to hibernation in 1995 or there abouts)... *Sigh* if I had regular group with the attention span and dedication I'd _love_ to run Jorune again... Cheers, Nick Middleton From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Nov 25 10:26:47 2004 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:26:47 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge and Parry In-Reply-To: <20041124055038.7EEAB2226FF@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20041124055038.7EEAB2226FF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <4F3F9F1F-3E70-11D9-B587-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> > And the way you deal with it, Bjorn, is precisely as the official rules have it, at least on page 50 of my copy of the "Deluxe Edition" right here. Parry applies only to one attack, while Dodge applies to all attacks from a given assailant. (I don't actually read it as putting the dodger out of reach necessarily, just out of the actual lines of attack.) > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:26:05 +0000 > From: "Bjorn Stolen" > Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: Sacrificing Attack to Reduce Parry > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > >> I like it because it does move the advantage back to >> the attacker a bit. I've come to realize that Parry >> has a slight advantage in that one Parry can be used >> against all attacks from one attacker -- giving it an >> advantage against multiple attacks (where the >> percentage gets split). > > Well, the way I deal with that, is to state that one parry is one > action, > and if one attacker attacks you with two attacks, you need two parry > actions > to defend yourself. -Or use dodge, where I do let one dodge deal with > all > attacks from one attacker. I find this the most realistic, as it takes > just > as long time to parry as it takes to attack, while dodging basically > is to > get the **** out of the way, and if you happen to be out of reach, all > attacks will miss. From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Nov 25 21:23:45 2004 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:45 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules Message-ID: <41A5B2B1.5030307@brinkdata.se> I found a nice set of Alchemy rules on the net that I cleaned up and reformated. It would be nice to be able to share the reformated version with the community, but to be able to do that I need to get in contact with the author, Christopher W. Johnson. I found the rules in the list archive of the old Bell digest, the original was published in 1991 so I assume that the email adress posted with the article is long defunct. Is Christopher perhaps a member of this list? If not, does anyone on the list know his current email adress? TIA, Peter Brink From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Nov 26 00:48:15 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:48:15 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Hi Peter I also tried to find the bloke to see if I could publish his rules on my site, eventually gave up on the idea. Hope you have better luck than me:). His and anothe rperosns alchemy rules are at http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Brink Sent: 25 November 2004 12:24 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules I found a nice set of Alchemy rules on the net that I cleaned up and reformated. It would be nice to be able to share the reformated version with the community, but to be able to do that I need to get in contact with the author, Christopher W. Johnson. I found the rules in the list archive of the old Bell digest, the original was published in 1991 so I assume that the email adress posted with the article is long defunct. Is Christopher perhaps a member of this list? If not, does anyone on the list know his current email adress? TIA, Peter Brink _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Nov 25 23:57:18 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:57:18 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules In-Reply-To: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Message-ID: <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> Well there is always rewriting them in your own words... to cover copyright issues and attributing the original authors name for ethical issues. Den, Tony T wrote: >Hi Peter > >I also tried to find the bloke to see if I could publish his rules on my >site, eventually gave up on the idea. Hope you have better luck than me:). > >His and anothe rperosns alchemy rules are at >http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html > >-----Original Message----- >From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com >[mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Brink >Sent: 25 November 2004 12:24 >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy >rules > > >I found a nice set of Alchemy rules on the net that I cleaned up and >reformated. It would be nice to be able to share the reformated version >with the community, but to be able to do that I need to get in contact >with the author, Christopher W. Johnson. I found the rules in the list >archive of the old Bell digest, the original was published in 1991 so I >assume that the email adress posted with the article is long defunct. Is >Christopher perhaps a member of this list? If not, does anyone on the >list know his current email adress? > > -- Google Me at : Decision Driven Rolegaming -- Lance Dyas Destiny Diceless Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Nov 26 01:08:08 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:08:08 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E3@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Also true, but I am way too lazy for that:) -----Original Message----- lance dyas Well there is always rewriting them in your own words... to cover copyright issues and attributing the original authors name for ethical issues. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For information about the Standard Bank group visit our web site __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer and confidentiality note Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Group Limited is proprietary to the group. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Standard Bank does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of the group. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Standard Bank can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Nov 26 00:00:49 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:00:49 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules In-Reply-To: <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <41A5D781.5060204@inetnebr.com> lance dyas wrote: > Well there is always rewriting them in your own words... to cover > copyright issues > and attributing the original authors name for ethical issues. I just looked at them... not sure what clean up was needed... why not just link to them? > > Den, Tony T wrote: > >> Hi Peter >> >> I also tried to find the bloke to see if I could publish his rules on my >> site, eventually gave up on the idea. Hope you have better luck than >> me:). >> >> His and anothe rperosns alchemy rules are at >> http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com >> [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Brink >> Sent: 25 November 2004 12:24 >> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >> Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy >> rules >> >> >> I found a nice set of Alchemy rules on the net that I cleaned up and >> reformated. It would be nice to be able to share the reformated >> version with the community, but to be able to do that I need to get >> in contact with the author, Christopher W. Johnson. I found the rules >> in the list archive of the old Bell digest, the original was >> published in 1991 so I assume that the email adress posted with the >> article is long defunct. Is Christopher perhaps a member of this >> list? If not, does anyone on the list know his current email adress? >> >> -- Google Me at : Decision Driven Rolegaming -- Lance Dyas Destiny Diceless Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Fri Nov 26 01:12:14 2004 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:12:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules In-Reply-To: <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <41A5E83E.6060407@brinkdata.se> lance dyas skrev: > Well there is always rewriting them in your own words... to cover > copyright issues and attributing the original authors name for > ethical issues. > Well, yes, that is always an option. However since the article in question is quite well done it does seem like unnecessary work. /Peter From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Fri Nov 26 01:16:34 2004 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:16:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Searching for the author of a nice set of alchemy rules In-Reply-To: <41A5D781.5060204@inetnebr.com> References: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F0E1@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> <41A5D6AE.2050904@inetnebr.com> <41A5D781.5060204@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <41A5E942.7080701@brinkdata.se> lance dyas skrev: > lance dyas wrote: > >> Well there is always rewriting them in your own words... to cover >> copyright issues >> and attributing the original authors name for ethical issues. > > > I just looked at them... not sure what clean up was needed... why not > just link to them? Quite a few of the tables are missing in the version available at Tony's link. The version from the archive was complete but not that well formated... /Peter From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Nov 26 22:12:45 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:12:45 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] TradeTalk Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F103@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Do the old Trade Talk magazines have any relevance for a RuneQuester who does not play on Glorantha or are they so Glorantha specific to be of little use elsware. A bloks is flogging a whole collection of them on eBay, although he is asking GBP3 an issue..... T?ny __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Nov 26 23:39:05 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (ASHLEY MUNDAY) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:39:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] TradeTalk In-Reply-To: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F103@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Message-ID: <20041126123905.33270.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Probably not - all the early RQ articles assume you're playing in Glorantha. Cheers, Ash --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Do the old Trade Talk magazines have any relevance > for a RuneQuester who > does not play on Glorantha or are they so Glorantha > specific to be of little > use elsware. A bloks is flogging a whole collection > of them on eBay, > although he is asking GBP3 an issue..... > > > T?ny > > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note > > This e-mail, its attachments and any rights > attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly > indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank > Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). > It is confidential, private and intended for the > addressee only. > > Should you not be the addressee and receive this > e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and > delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose > or use same in any manner whatsoever. > > Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are > those of the sender unless clearly stated as those > of the Group. The Group accepts no liability > whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and > howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or > arising, from the use of this email or its > attachments. > > The Group does not warrant the integrity of this > e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, > interception or interference. > > Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are > authorised financial services providers in terms of > the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services > Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). > > For information about the Standard Bank Group > Limited visit our website > http://www.standardbank.co.za > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From murfnmurf at suscom.net Sat Nov 27 04:16:06 2004 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:16:06 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] TradeTalk In-Reply-To: <20041126123905.33270.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20041126123905.33270.qmail@web86201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think what he's wondering might be closer to "Does it use RQ mechanics?"; which is certainly a bonus for non-gloranthan RQers. For example, I am a decidedly non-Gloranthan RQer. I own several issues of "Tales of the Reaching Moon" (is that *right*? I don't have 'em in front of me). They're packed with Gloranthan material aplenty, for those who want such stuff, but they also are usually packed with some crunchy, useful RQ rulesy bits which can be swiped, and, with a little filing to get the seriel numbers off,can be very useful :) Now that oversized "Wyrm's FootSteps" (Or whatever its called)thats available, on the otherhand, while loaded with Glorantha-specific articles from the old "Wyrm's Footprints" (?) magazine, has no real *RQ* content. -Ken- From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Nov 29 17:57:53 2004 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:57:53 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] TradeTalk Message-ID: <52B26EB23446704C801FCF722CF8D2060578F12C@scmbjhbmsg03.scmbdirectory.com> Thanks Ken Thats more what I meant. I also have some Tales of Reaching Moon and yes they do have some decent RQ rulsey gear, plus some great what could be considered, stand alone, scenarios. Tony -----Original Message----- murfnmurf at suscom.net I think what he's wondering might be closer to "Does it use RQ mechanics?"; which is certainly a bonus for non-gloranthan RQers. For example, I am a decidedly non-Gloranthan RQer. I own several issues of "Tales of the Reaching Moon" (is that *right*? I don't have 'em in front of me). They're packed with Gloranthan material aplenty, for those who want such stuff, but they also are usually packed with some crunchy, useful RQ rulesy bits which can be swiped, and, with a little filing to get the seriel numbers off,can be very useful :) Now that oversized "Wyrm's FootSteps" (Or whatever its called)thats available, on the otherhand, while loaded with Glorantha-specific articles from the old "Wyrm's Footprints" (?) magazine, has no real *RQ* content. -Ken- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Nov 29 21:18:30 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:18:30 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge and Parry In-Reply-To: <4F3F9F1F-3E70-11D9-B587-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: >(I don't actually read it as putting the dodger out of reach necessarily, >just out of the actual lines of attack.) Well, I do. Only stepping out of the line of attack (-or stepping of the line as we call it in WMA) takes at least as long time as it takes to attack. Therefore there would be no realistic reason why a dodge should count for all attacks done by one attacker. In that case, the dodge-ability would from a tactical point of wiew be pointless, since a dodge have the potential of damaging the attacking weapon. If you rule a dodge as "getting the ***** out of Dodge"- as I do; one could say that it's realistic with a dodge beeing able to cope with all attacks done by one attacker, as you're effectively running/jumping away that round. Stepping of the line is in my head integrated in the parry-action as it's an integrated part of making parry-reposts and in defencive techniques dedicated to deck incoming attackers. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Nov 30 14:09:43 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:09:43 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge and Parry References: Message-ID: <005701c4d68a$292f8eb0$68417442@wizard> Quite frankly, I'm not sure enough of RQ Edition whatever rules to be sure what I'm saying is pertinent. However, in SPQR, I specifically say that dodges or parries may be used against any and all attacks. Just as in the old RQ I said that an "attack" was actually a flurry of blows attempting to set up the target for the one that gets through, I work on the theory that a parry or dodge covers all incoming attacks. In fact, I don't differentiate between the two actions very well because I have been ignoring damage to parrying equipment, which I intend to change after some recent experience in playtesting another game. I don't penalize the defender for making more than one roll for one reason. If a character has to make five rolls, he's probably 400% more likely to blow one of them. Having several attacks coming in is its own penalty, no need to mess with subtracting percentages or trying to keep track of how many times this round a character has already parried or dodged. Besides, SPQR has a plethora of other adjustments to defense or attack rolls, anyway. Hmm, perhaps I should put before all assembled a new idea I have for determining success. I'll make that a separate email. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Stolen" To: Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:18 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Dodge and Parry > > > >(I don't actually read it as putting the dodger out of reach necessarily, > >just out of the actual lines of attack.) > > Well, I do. Only stepping out of the line of attack (-or stepping of the > line as we call it in WMA) takes at least as long time as it takes to > attack. Therefore there would be no realistic reason why a dodge should > count for all attacks done by one attacker. In that case, the dodge-ability > would from a tactical point of wiew be pointless, since a dodge have the > potential of damaging the attacking weapon. > > If you rule a dodge as "getting the ***** out of Dodge"- as I do; one could > say that it's realistic with a dodge beeing able to cope with all attacks > done by one attacker, as you're effectively running/jumping away that round. > Stepping of the line is in my head integrated in the parry-action as it's an > integrated part of making parry-reposts and in defencive techniques > dedicated to deck incoming attackers. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den > korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Nov 30 14:19:27 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:19:27 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest References: Message-ID: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> A lot of people like RQ's and its derived systems' focus on "rolling low" to succeed. Others prefer the rolling high concepts of D&D and other games. In a playtest of the FANGS game, I've been dealing with a system of rolling high with a d20 that has inspired me to look again at the RQ/BRP core system. Assume, if you will, that the goal is to be 100% in effect. You are trained to, say, 55% with your weapon, but you want to be 100% with this particular blow. You can only rely on chance... Which is to say, that the method of deriving success is to roll the d100 and add your current skill. If your combined roll equals 100 or more, you are successful. A critical could be a total combined roll of 100, exactly. Not sure what to do about a special, though. Now, this jibes better with SPQR's system of successes. Off the top of my head, 100+ is one success, 125+ is two successes, 150+ is 3 successes, etc. Various adders and subtracters make such rolls more or less likely. Something similar could be done with specials in regular RQ, but it means that, for instance, characters with really bad rolls would never have the chance of getting a special. Think about it, run a couple of practice combats, let me know what you think. Steve Perrin From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Nov 30 16:12:30 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:12:30 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest In-Reply-To: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> References: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <41AC013E.8080805@inetnebr.com> I like it, ok I didn't test it. but the idea is pretty well founded even so. The idea that functioning at 100% means you succeed is rather intuitive Another thought might be to show differing difficulties of skills not by altering the number of successes needed (that terminology drives my brain nuts I will call it degree of success) but by scaling the thresholds to achieve each "degree of success" 25% per degree of success might be normal where as a hard skill might be 30% a very hard 35% 20% might be for a simple skill. simple skill 100% = 1 degree of success 120% = 2 degrees of success 140% = 3 degrees of success 160% = 4 degrees of success hard skill 100% = 1 degree of success 130% = 2 degrees of success 160% = 3 degrees of success hmmm not sure if this gives anything .... hmmm never mind. Steve Perrin wrote: >A lot of people like RQ's and its derived systems' focus on "rolling low" to >succeed. Others prefer the rolling high concepts of D&D and other games. > >In a playtest of the FANGS game, I've been dealing with a system of rolling >high with a d20 that has inspired me to look again at the RQ/BRP core >system. > >Assume, if you will, that the goal is to be 100% in effect. You are trained >to, say, 55% with your weapon, but you want to be 100% with this particular >blow. You can only rely on chance... > >Which is to say, that the method of deriving success is to roll the d100 and >add your current skill. If your combined roll equals 100 or more, you are >successful. A critical could be a total combined roll of 100, exactly. Not >sure what to do about a special, though. > >Now, this jibes better with SPQR's system of successes. Off the top of my >head, 100+ is one success, 125+ is two successes, 150+ is 3 successes, etc. >Various adders and subtracters make such rolls more or less likely. >Something similar could be done with specials in regular RQ, but it means >that, for instance, characters with really bad rolls would never have the >chance of getting a special. > >Think about it, run a couple of practice combats, let me know what you >think. > >Steve Perrin > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > >. > > > -- Google Me at : Decision Driven Rolegaming -- Lance Dyas Destiny Diceless Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Nov 30 16:38:00 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:38:00 -0800 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest References: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> <41AC013E.8080805@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <010e01c4d69e$dfbdef00$68417442@wizard> Actually, I used a kind of degree of success roll, subtracting in standard BRP style, for my Black 9 Ops rules. This was a project meant to be a paper and pencil version of a computer game. Unfortunately, the computer game never got out the door. Fortunately, I got paid for my work. If anyone would like a copy of the rules, let me know. They are rather sizeable bitewise because of the illustrations I tacked in, but if you are interested and can deal with a download of between one and two MB, I'll be happy to pass it along. It's an interesting take off on BRP. ------------------------------------ Chaos Limited Steve Perrin Sole Proprietor steve at perrinworlds.com ------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "lance dyas" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest > I like it, ok I didn't test it. but the idea is pretty well founded even > so. The idea that functioning at 100% means you succeed is rather intuitive > > Another thought might be to show differing difficulties of skills not > by altering the number of successes needed > (that terminology drives my brain nuts I will call it degree of > success) but by scaling the thresholds to achieve each "degree of > success" 25% per degree of success might be normal where as a hard skill > might be 30% a very hard 35% > 20% might be for a simple skill. > > simple skill > 100% = 1 degree of success > 120% = 2 degrees of success > 140% = 3 degrees of success > 160% = 4 degrees of success > > hard skill > 100% = 1 degree of success > 130% = 2 degrees of success > 160% = 3 degrees of success > > hmmm not sure if this gives anything .... hmmm never mind. > > Steve Perrin wrote: > > >A lot of people like RQ's and its derived systems' focus on "rolling low" to > >succeed. Others prefer the rolling high concepts of D&D and other games. > > > >In a playtest of the FANGS game, I've been dealing with a system of rolling > >high with a d20 that has inspired me to look again at the RQ/BRP core > >system. > > > >Assume, if you will, that the goal is to be 100% in effect. You are trained > >to, say, 55% with your weapon, but you want to be 100% with this particular > >blow. You can only rely on chance... > > > >Which is to say, that the method of deriving success is to roll the d100 and > >add your current skill. If your combined roll equals 100 or more, you are > >successful. A critical could be a total combined roll of 100, exactly. Not > >sure what to do about a special, though. > > > >Now, this jibes better with SPQR's system of successes. Off the top of my > >head, 100+ is one success, 125+ is two successes, 150+ is 3 successes, etc. > >Various adders and subtracters make such rolls more or less likely. > >Something similar could be done with specials in regular RQ, but it means > >that, for instance, characters with really bad rolls would never have the > >chance of getting a special. > > > >Think about it, run a couple of practice combats, let me know what you > >think. > > > >Steve Perrin > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > >. > > > > > > > > > -- > Google Me at : Decision Driven Rolegaming > > -- Lance Dyas > Destiny Diceless Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center > http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.html > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From murfnmurf at suscom.net Tue Nov 30 17:04:36 2004 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:04:36 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest In-Reply-To: <010e01c4d69e$dfbdef00$68417442@wizard> References: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> <41AC013E.8080805@inetnebr.com> <010e01c4d69e$dfbdef00$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: Steve talks a bit about his Black 9 Ops rules. If anyone would like a copy of the rules, let me know. They are rather sizeable bitewise because of the illustrations I tacked in, but if you are interested and can deal with a download of between one and two MB, I'll be happy to pass it along. It's an interesting take off on BRP. Hiya Steve, Yes, I'd be very interested in seeing these rules. Thanks :) -Ken Murphy- From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Nov 30 18:31:59 2004 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:31:59 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest In-Reply-To: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> References: <006001c4d68b$847eb0b0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <41AC21EF.30804@brinkdata.se> Steve Perrin skrev: > > Assume, if you will, that the goal is to be 100% in effect. You are trained > to, say, 55% with your weapon, but you want to be 100% with this particular > blow. You can only rely on chance... > > Which is to say, that the method of deriving success is to roll the d100 and > add your current skill. If your combined roll equals 100 or more, you are > successful. A critical could be a total combined roll of 100, exactly. Not > sure what to do about a special, though. > Why limit the system to combats? I've seen a lot of Target Number and Success Ratio systems for BRP, and one of those would blend nicely with your idea. Let us keep the assumption that 100 is equal to success. Easy tasks should be easier to accomplish and more difficult ones much less so. Here is a list of suggested mods: Difficulty Modification ======================================= Routine Success granted Extremely easy +50 Very easy +25 Easy +15 Easier than normal +5 Normal +0 Somewhat difficult -5 Difficult -15 Very difficult -25 Extremely difficult -50 At this point the result of (Dice roll - 100) will give us an idea of how well the character accomplished his task. As a general rule assume that a result of 100 points more than needed is equal to absolute success and a roll 100 points less than needed is equal to absolute failure. The system could also be extended with an "open ended roll", i.e. all rolls of 96-00 would mean another d100 roll, adding the new roll to the grand total. A roll of 96-00 on the second roll would give a third roll and so on. Rolls of 01-05 would mean a new d100 roll, the result of which would be deducted from the grand total, etc. /Peter Brink From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Nov 30 19:53:25 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:53:25 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Determining success in RuneQuest Message-ID: Steve, Ooh, that sounds interesting, can I have a look please? Probably easiest to abuse work's e-mail rather than my poor domestic dial up (nick at invensys dot com, do the obvious!) Cheers, Nick Middleton >Actually, I used a kind of degree of success roll, subtracting in standard >BRP style, for my Black 9 Ops rules. > >This was a project meant to be a paper and pencil version of a computer >game. Unfortunately, the computer game never got out the door. Fortunately, >I got paid for my work. > >If anyone would like a copy of the rules, let me know. They are rather >sizeable bitewise because of the illustrations I tacked in, but if you are >interested and can deal with a download of between one and two MB, I'll be >happy to pass it along. It's an interesting take off on BRP. > From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Tue Nov 30 21:32:54 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (Patrice BOUSQUET) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:32:54 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Determining_success_in?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_RuneQuest?= Message-ID: I'd like to have a look to this system. Can you send me one copy, steve? Actually, I'm seriously studying another success rating system: I think resolution tables or any calculation during game break the game flow. I wish statistics purists will forgive me but I tried the following method: 1-A dice roll under the skill is a success except if 2- the roll is equal or under the tenth of the skill (i.e. for a 86% skill, 8 or less), where it become a special success 3- the dices give a "double" (don't know english term: i.e. the dices roll 11, 22, 33, 44,...) in wich case we have a critical roll. By the same way, "doubles" over the skill are critical misses. I don't know actually if it's interesting to give a different success if the roll is equal to the skill. For master skills, it's possible to give a "double special" for 1/100th of skill (i.e. 1 or 2 rolled for a 268% skill, 3-26 being still a special) By this way, players know immediately their success and the game get more fluid. I wait for comments... Patrice From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Nov 30 21:40:02 2004 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:40:02 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_=5BRQ-Rules=5D_Det?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ermining_success_in_RuneQuest?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41AC4E02.9060402@brinkdata.se> Patrice BOUSQUET skrev: > > > > I'd like to have a look to this system. Can you send me one copy, steve? > > Actually, I'm seriously studying another success rating system: > I think resolution tables or any calculation during game break the game flow. > I wish statistics purists will forgive me but I tried the following method: > 1-A dice roll under the skill is a success except if > 2- the roll is equal or under the tenth of the skill (i.e. for a 86% skill, 8 or less), where it > become a special success > 3- the dices give a "double" (don't know english term: i.e. the dices roll 11, 22, 33, 44,...) in > wich case we have a critical roll. > By the same way, "doubles" over the skill are critical misses. > I don't know actually if it's interesting to give a different success if the roll is equal to the > skill. > For master skills, it's possible to give a "double special" for 1/100th of skill (i.e. 1 or 2 rolled > for a 268% skill, 3-26 being still a special) > > By this way, players know immediately their success and the game get more fluid. Another way of achieving the same result is to treat all skill rolls where the single digit dice shows 0 or 5 as a special result, if the skill roll is successful then it's a special success otherwise it's a special failure. I find critical's and fumbles easy to figure out, if a roll is 05 or less or 96 or more you know something interesting might have happened and a quick look in a handout can verify this. That table lookup doesn't happen that often and have never slowed down my game. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Nov 30 23:38:44 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:38:44 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge and Parry In-Reply-To: <005701c4d68a$292f8eb0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: >However, in SPQR, I specifically say that dodges or parries may be used >against any and all attacks. Just as in the old RQ I said that an "attack" >was actually a flurry of blows attempting to set up the target for the one >that gets through, I work on the theory that a parry or dodge covers all >incoming attacks. In fact, I don't differentiate between the two actions >very well because I have been ignoring damage to parrying equipment, which >I >intend to change after some recent experience in playtesting another game. Well, I don't like you wiew, as I find it too unrealistic. But I will not start to dispute your rules as Ihave no problem with you playing RPG's the way you like. Prioritizing between realism and playability; it's an eternal dilemma, and those of you who have bothered with scanning through my houserules will know that I'm a detail and realism-freak! _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner