From zomben at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 00:24:23 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skills question In-Reply-To: <063020051215.7424.42C3E258000BE5D000001D002200750330CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20050630142423.84445.qmail@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi! Having recently hit a wave of RQ nostalgia I just joined the list, so figured I'd introduce myself first. To the topic below, I usually fall somewhere in the middle. In situations like these, I'll ask the player to either roleplay out the event, or ask them for a general idea of what they are trying to accomplish. Then ask for a skill roll. The success of the roll, coupled with their original intent gives me an idea of the outcome, or the reaction they get. Keeps everyone happy... --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > Nick Middleton > > I despise the "that shouldn't be rolled, it should > be role-played" > > attitude, as it excludes players. I always take > the view that if the player > > is up for resolving things by role-play, fine, but > equally if the player > > doesn't have the skills but his character does, > then resolving it by dice > > rolls is equally fine. > > Bravo! Bravo! I agree and I play that way. You > may call me a Roll-player, but I prefer to think > that my players are playing the their characters, > which are often different from them selves. Like > Nick says, if we wanted to play our selves we would > do Murder Mystery. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Jul 1 00:43:50 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:43:50 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skills question Message-ID: Firstly: Welcome Zomben Secondly: I could hasve written an essay to say whay you so clearly put into a paragrapgh! Well done My take - Ja nee, you can play it each ay within the same adventure, players who you expect role play from, let them go wuild, but don't ley them overrun roll players where you amy have to step in and flesh out, and vice versa. Keeps evefryone happy and brings as far as I am cobncwerned, quite a bit of balance ot the game Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of zomben Sent: 30 June 2005 04:24 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Skills question Hi! Having recently hit a wave of RQ nostalgia I just joined the list, so figured I'd introduce myself first. To the topic below, I usually fall somewhere in the middle. In situations like these, I'll ask the player to either roleplay out the event, or ask them for a general idea of what they are trying to accomplish. Then ask for a skill roll. The success of the roll, coupled with their original intent gives me an idea of the outcome, or the reaction they get. Keeps everyone happy... --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > Nick Middleton > > I despise the "that shouldn't be rolled, it should > be role-played" > > attitude, as it excludes players. I always take > the view that if the player > > is up for resolving things by role-play, fine, but > equally if the player > > doesn't have the skills but his character does, > then resolving it by dice > > rolls is equally fine. > > Bravo! Bravo! I agree and I play that way. You > may call me a Roll-player, but I prefer to think that my players are > playing the their characters, which are often different from them > selves. Like Nick says, if we wanted to play our selves we would do > Murder Mystery. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 zomben at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 00:52:06 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skills question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050630145206.90384.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Tony, Thanks and thanks! Yeah, I always sort of look at the "role play" portion of any in-game social interation (or what have you... "non-combat stuff, basicaly") as sort of the "Statement of Intent" phase... "What are you going to attempt?" is what the player is describing to me. The results of that attempt are dictated by the success level of the die roll. So, there you have it... --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Firstly: Welcome Zomben > > Secondly: I could hasve written an essay to say whay > you so clearly put into > a paragrapgh! Well done > > My take - Ja nee, you can play it each ay within the > same adventure, players > who you expect role play from, let them go wuild, > but don't ley them overrun > roll players where you amy have to step in and flesh > out, and vice versa. > Keeps evefryone happy and brings as far as I am > cobncwerned, quite a bit of > balance ot the game > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of zomben > Sent: 30 June 2005 04:24 > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Skills question > > Hi! Having recently hit a wave of RQ nostalgia I > just joined the list, so > figured I'd introduce myself first. > > To the topic below, I usually fall somewhere in the > middle. > > In situations like these, I'll ask the player to > either roleplay out the > event, or ask them for a general idea of what they > are trying to accomplish. > > Then ask for a skill roll. The success of the roll, > coupled with their > original intent gives me an idea of the outcome, or > the reaction they get. > > Keeps everyone happy... > > --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > > > Nick Middleton > > > I despise the "that shouldn't be rolled, it > should > > be role-played" > > > attitude, as it excludes players. I always take > > the view that if the player > > > is up for resolving things by role-play, fine, > but > > equally if the player > > > doesn't have the skills but his character does, > > then resolving it by dice > > > rolls is equally fine. > > > > Bravo! Bravo! I agree and I play that way. > You > > may call me a Roll-player, but I prefer to think > that my players are > > playing the their characters, which are often > different from them > > selves. Like Nick says, if we wanted to play our > selves we would do > > Murder Mystery. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > > Ben Monroe > Certified Zombie Expert > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 01:10:36 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20050630145220.1AD71222732@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050630151036.57266.qmail@web31012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My players have a wide range of preferred styles and interests, so I've taken the "Roll & Augment with Roleplaying" approach: If a skill is involved, the player will roll for it to check success. If they want, they can roleplay it out and I will give a bonus (NEVER a negative) depending on how well they did. So players who want to roleplay can get big bonuses to their skills, the shy ones can still do fine, and everyone has an incentive (no negatives) to try. This approach also maintains the slightly random responses that I enjoy -- sometimes the king says, "No" even though you had a good reason and presented it well. As GM I like the challenge that it presents to provide the logica behind it. Steve > Nick Middleton > I despise the "that shouldn't be rolled, it should be role-played" > attitude, as it excludes players. I always take the view that if the player > is up for resolving things by role-play, fine, but equally if the player > doesn't have the skills but his character does, then resolving it by dice > rolls is equally fine. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Jul 1 18:52:36 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:52:36 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skills question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >You'd probably quite like the UK's Gathering (largest festival LARP): it >has a thin veneer of rules, but fundamentally all a characters significant >capabilities (actual skill with weapons, ability to bluff or con people) >are the players innate ability (less whatever degree of handicap they >choose to impose on themselves, if any). It is, at least, consistent; one >of it's few merits as a system IME, but that's a separate issue... I probably wouldn't. You misunderstand me. My point is that a rules system should be consiquent; either do it as the way you describe above, or to allow for skill rolls for weapons AND social rolls. Because people can know as little of social stuff as they can know of martial stuff, and rulessystems should not treat theese two areas different = rules must be consiquent. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jul 4 17:54:18 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:54:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A new edition of RuneQuest ? Message-ID: <20050704075418.63677.qmail@web26106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello everyone, Did anybody hear of this : http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=201322 According to this post, a new edition of RuneQuest will be released next year by Mongoose, but with completely different system. As there is a call for RQ fans to help in designing this new game, I guess some of you may be interested. Alban --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Jul 4 18:39:55 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:39:55 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A new edition of RuneQuest ? References: <20050704075418.63677.qmail@web26106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c58074$06a3d8d0$68417442@wizard> Thanks for the heads up. It finally got me to register at RPGNet. And register an opinion... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alban de ROSTOLAN" To: Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:54 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] A new edition of RuneQuest ? > Hello everyone, > > Did anybody hear of this : > > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=201322 > > According to this post, a new edition of RuneQuest will be released next > year by Mongoose, but with completely different system. > As there is a call for RQ fans to help in designing this new game, I guess > some of you may be interested. > > Alban > > > --------------------------------- > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger > T?l?chargez le ici ! > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jul 4 19:47:28 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:47:28 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: Any statement lie this has me worried. While I am sure everyone would love updated and new RQ material, I think we all fear the butchering of core rules at the same time. Looked on Mongooses site and found this forum, not much help http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php 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 talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jul 4 23:06:54 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:06:54 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A new edition of RuneQuest ? In-Reply-To: <20050704075418.63677.qmail@web26106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050704075418.63677.qmail@web26106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42C9346E.9060805@talmeta.net> Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > According to this post, a new edition of RuneQuest will be released next year by Mongoose, but with completely different system. > As there is a call for RQ fans to help in designing this new game, I guess some of you may be interested. Ah, if I only had the time and a group that loved RQ as much as I do.... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - now doesn't that make you feel better? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005 From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Jul 4 23:11:15 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:11:15 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: <20050704131124.AED1822270E@boomstick.screwheads.net> > Any statement lie this has me worried. While I am sure everyone would love > updated and new RQ material, I think we all fear the butchering of core > rules at the same time. > > Looked on Mongooses site and found this forum, not much help > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php Doing a search with the string 'runequest' on their sites yields the following: Gloranthan rolegame, new system. Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? Gianni From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 4 23:20:17 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:20:17 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: >> Any statement lie this has me worried. While I am sure everyone would love >> updated and new RQ material, I think we all fear the butchering of core >> rules at the same time. >> >> Looked on Mongooses site and found this forum, not much help >> http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php > >Doing a search with the string 'runequest' on their sites yields the >following: Gloranthan rolegame, new system. ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a new system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright issues... Does this bother anyone else as much as it does me? >Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? A Gloranthan game for the masses I can see working, I wouldn't even object (well, not much anyway) to it being called RuneQuest: Mongoose could, for example, have used tri-stat, which they have apparently acquired the rights to. But this leaves a rather unpleasant taste in my mouth... Cheers, Nick Middleton. From talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jul 4 23:32:28 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:32:28 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C93A6C.8090505@talmeta.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a new > system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright > issues... Actually, what I got was that Chaosium's ABRPG was the old system with the serial #s filed off; Mongoose's proposed system is more in a line of a v4 rewrite, with updated mechanics for the 21st century. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - That secret you've been guarding, isn't. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005 From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 4 23:38:14 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:38:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: >Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >> ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a new >> system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright >> issues... > >Actually, what I got was that Chaosium's ABRPG was the old system with >the serial #s filed off; Mongoose's proposed system is more in a line of >a v4 rewrite, with updated mechanics for the 21st century. Then Greg should watch his words: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4226258&postcount=26 For those who can't follow the link "The game will be the same system, not the same copyrighted words." seems pretty unambiguous to me... Nick Middleton From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 4 23:43:42 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:43:42 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: Reading between the lines the, it looks like Greg has tasked/encouraged Mongoose to do this. Maybe he is grumpy about the BRP riles story re them monographs. -----Original Message----- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com >Actually, what I got was that Chaosium's ABRPG was the old system with >the serial #s filed off; Mongoose's proposed system is more in a line >of a v4 rewrite, with updated mechanics for the 21st century. Then Greg should watch his words: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4226258&postcount=26 For those who can't follow the link "The game will be the same system, not the same copyrighted words." seems pretty unambiguous to me... Nick Middleton __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 talmeta at talmeta.net Tue Jul 5 00:09:22 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:09:22 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C94312.1090006@talmeta.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > For those who can't follow the link "The game will be the same system, not > the same copyrighted words." > > seems pretty unambiguous to me... Yes, but that quote was in response to what the Chaosium system would be like. Mongoose's posts tell a slightly different story. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - i can try to get away but i've strapped myself in -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005 From aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Jul 5 18:00:38 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:00:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050704131124.AED1822270E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050705080039.37180.qmail@web26103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I think is is obvious that none of US need another Gloranthan RPG. But neither RQ 2 nor RQ3 are still in print, and HeroQuest, despite all his qualities is definitely not the taste of everyone. I guess that in a purely mercantile point of view, a new RQ has a good chance to sell more than HQ. Plus, I would be very pleased if the rules of this new RQ manage to catch the spirit of the original while discarding some unneeded complexities. Gianni a ?crit : Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue Jul 5 20:49:11 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:49:11 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: Oh, just had a bad thought, hope they are not revamiping RuneQuest Slayers! -----Original Message----- Alban de ROSTOLAN I think is is obvious that none of US need another Gloranthan RPG. But neither RQ 2 nor RQ3 are still in print, and HeroQuest, despite all his qualities is definitely not the taste of everyone. I guess that in a purely mercantile point of view, a new RQ has a good chance to sell more than HQ. Plus, I would be very pleased if the rules of this new RQ manage to catch the spirit of the original while discarding some unneeded complexities. Gianni a ?crit : Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 bick10 at comcast.net Wed Jul 6 00:11:45 2005 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:11:45 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: <070520051411.26838.42CA952100033C41000068D62200745672CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > -----Original Message----- > Alban de ROSTOLAN > Oh, just had a bad thought, hope they are not revamiping RuneQuest Slayers! Nay, no chance. RQ: Slayers is now RuneSlayers offered at www.threefates.com as a free download. Including the some of the expansion material planed. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 00:14:37 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 07:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Message-ID: <20050705141437.4574.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> No, Slayers was a still-birth. There are a lot of disagreements on the complexity of RQ. Personally I do not think it is too complex and hope that any adjustments would be minor. In any case I welcome this development. I am sure that at te least it will fuel a revival of new Gloranthan and non Gloranthan material. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Oh, just had a bad thought, hope they are not revamiping RuneQuest Slayer > s! > > -----Original Message----- > Alban de ROSTOLAN > > I think is is obvious that none of US need another Gloranthan RPG. > But neither RQ 2 nor RQ3 are still in print, and HeroQuest, despite all h > is > qualities is definitely not the taste of everyone. I guess that in a pure > ly > mercantile point of view, a new RQ has a good chance to sell more than HQ > . > Plus, I would be very pleased if the rules of this new RQ manage to catch > > the spirit of the original while discarding some unneeded complexities. > > Gianni a ?crit : > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? > _________________________________________________________________________ > _________________________________________________________ > > 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 Gr > oup Limited > and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and in > tended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receiv > e this e-mail by > mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately an > d do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinion > s > 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 ari > sing, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not w > arrant the integrity > of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or in > terference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised > financial services providers > in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 o > f 2002 (FAIS). > For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website h > ttp://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 ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From grogthing at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 00:17:49 2005 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050705080039.37180.qmail@web26103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050705141750.9746.qmail@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The new rules will be a separate book from the settings. So we will not be forced to suffer with Glorantha, unless we choose to buy the setting book. Greg --- Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > I think is is obvious that none of US need another > Gloranthan RPG. > But neither RQ 2 nor RQ3 are still in print, and > HeroQuest, despite all his qualities is definitely > not the taste of everyone. I guess that in a purely > mercantile point of view, a new RQ has a good chance > to sell more than HQ. > Plus, I would be very pleased if the rules of this > new RQ manage to catch the spirit of the original > while discarding some unneeded complexities. > > Gianni a ?crit : > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? > > > --------------------------------- > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le > nouveau Yahoo! Messenger > T?l?chargez le ici ! > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html From zomben at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 01:21:45 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050705141437.4574.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050705152145.3851.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Agreed. I've recently begun running a RQIII game for a bunch of my pals. Half of them are not familiar with the system/setting at all, and have mostly been playing D&D 3.X for the last few years. Those guys have been absolutely amazed by the "simplicity" of play and are really having a lot of fun. I think a new edition of RQ will be like a breath of fresh air to the hobby. Mongoose will also have the money to put some serious backing into the game, and make it fly. --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > No, Slayers was a still-birth. > > There are a lot of disagreements on the complexity > of > RQ. Personally I do not think it is too complex and > hope that any adjustments would be minor. In any > case > I welcome this development. I am sure that at te > least > it will fuel a revival of new Gloranthan and non > Gloranthan material. > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > Oh, just had a bad thought, hope they are not > revamiping RuneQuest Slayer > > s! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Alban de ROSTOLAN > > > > I think is is obvious that none of US need another > Gloranthan RPG. > > But neither RQ 2 nor RQ3 are still in print, and > HeroQuest, despite all h > > is > > qualities is definitely not the taste of everyone. > I > guess that in a pure > > ly > > mercantile point of view, a new RQ has a good > chance > to sell more than HQ > > . > > Plus, I would be very pleased if the rules of this > new RQ manage to catch > > > > the spirit of the original while discarding some > unneeded complexities. > > > > Gianni a ?crit : > > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan > rolegame?????? > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > 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 Gr > > oup Limited > > and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is > confidential, private and in > > tended for the addressee only. Should you not be > the > addressee and receiv > > e this e-mail by > > mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this > e-mail, immediately an > > d do not disclose or use same in any manner > whatsoever. Views and opinion > > s > > 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 ari > > sing, from the use of this email or its > attachments. > The Group does not w > > arrant the integrity > > of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, > viruses, interception or in > > terference. Licensed divisions of the Standard > Bank > Group are authorised > > financial services providers > > in terms of the Financial Advisory and > Intermediary > Services Act, No 37 o > > f 2002 (FAIS). > > For information about the Standard Bank Group > Limited visit our website h > > ttp://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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 02:17:49 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:17:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050704134404.CDC34222739@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050705161749.95561.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Alban: > Did anybody hear of this : > > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=201322 > > According to this post, a new edition of RuneQuest will be released next > year by Mongoose, but with completely different system. > As there is a call for RQ fans to help in designing this new game, I guess > some of you may be interested. I wondered why all my subscribed RQ groups all fired off at the same time. Tony Den: > Any statement lie this has me worried. While I am sure everyone would love > updated and new RQ material, I think we all fear the butchering of core > rules at the same time. > > Looked on Mongooses site and found this forum, not much help > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php > At the moment, I would guess that all forums are split between comments such as "Cor, what a jolly good idea" and "What? Another version of a dead game?" or between the "Let's have more Gloranthan RuneQuest" and "Let's have non-Gloranthan RuneQuest". Things should die down after a while and some proper information should come out. Gianni: > Doing a search with the string 'runequest' on their sites yields the > following: Gloranthan rolegame, new system. > > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? YES!!! If it is RuneQuest. Nick Middleton: > ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a new > system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright > issues... > > Does this bother anyone else as much as it does me? I'm not bothered about the copyright issue - that's why copyright lawyers earn fortunes. What I am bothered about is the obvious amount of shit-stirring that is involved. 1. Issaries launches HeroWars and the HeroQuest in order to produce a Gloranthan RPG that is not RuneQuest. 2. Chaosium decided to reprint the Basic Roleplaying Monographs for non-Glorantha, probably to cash in on the anti-HeroQuest groundswell amongst die-hard RQ fans. 3. Issaries buys up the RuneQuest Trademark. 4. Issaries licenses another company, not Chaosium, to produce a versio of RuneQuest, which they can do as they own the trademark, and which they have a history for as RQ and Glorantha went hand in hand. The only thing I can see is that Issaries are deliberately going up against Chaosium with the RQ/Glorantha combination. Now, many RQ die-hards will say that they won't touch it as it is Gloranthan. But, equally many will say that they would buy it as it is where Glorantha belongs. Tal Meta: > > ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a new > > system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright > > issues... > > Actually, what I got was that Chaosium's ABRPG was the old system with > the serial #s filed off; Mongoose's proposed system is more in a line of > a v4 rewrite, with updated mechanics for the 21st century. >From the press blurn at Mongoose, they are looking at ways to improve the rules, that's why they are asking people which rules were good from the old versions. At least they are asking. It couldn't be RQ3 or RQ2 again as they are owned by various people, but it could be a reworking of the rules as the basic rules appear to be non-copyrightable. Nick: > For those who can't follow the link "The game will be the same system, not > the same copyrighted words." > > seems pretty unambiguous to me... But, "the same system" is in itself ambiguous. RQ3 was the same system as RQ2 as was RQ4. As to the future, I heartily welcome a new version of RuneQuest. I have been playing HeroQuest for a year and it is not the same. Better in some ways, but not what I love, which is RQ. What remains to be seen is how it is going to be supported. How long will it be before Issaries stops helping them with Gloranthan products? How many people will buy the Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan versions? Don't forget that HeroQuest is going non-Gloranthan with the Questworld series. Can we cope with HeroQuest and RuneQuest versions of the same worlds? My first thoughts were "Yippee!" but I can't see how it is going to work, unless Issaries is going to scale down HeroQuest and go back to RuneQuest, which would be interesting .... Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From jdurall at austin.rr.com Wed Jul 6 02:57:14 2005 From: jdurall at austin.rr.com (Jason Durall) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:57:14 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050705161818.7C97A222736@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050705161818.7C97A222736@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050705114223.01ac55a0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> This is my first post to this list, I think, and sadly I must delurk then go back into hiding (I'm leaving town for a couple of weeks tomorrow and will be away from the internet for most of the time), but the announcement of a Mongoose RQ seems to have stirred a lot of confusion and consternation, so I'd pitch in with a voice of reason. I don't know what the situation is between Greg Stafford, Steve Perrin, Charlie Krank, Mongoose, Chaosium, and Issaries, and I'd caution about ascribing motives or malice to anything any of these folks is doing without statements from the parties concerned. However, it seems clear that: a) Chaosium is doing a generic. deluxe version of the BRP system (which I am co-writing, taking time out for this post). They have no further interest in Glorantha material. They are publishing a new BRP specifically to serve as a nice core book for further game expansions and as a entry-level game product. b) Issaries has published HeroQuest, which, though being very cool, was/is NOT RuneQuest. Different system entirely. It was designed for a dramatically different style of play, with radically different goals and a distinct view of the game world of Glorantha. c) Issaries has licensed Mongoose to do a new RPG set in Glorantha that harkens back to the pre-HeroQuest Glorantha. Many people feel that charm of RQ 2 (and even 3) was the system. The Mongoose system will be similar to BRP, but how much so is undetermined at this time. So, there are three different products, with three different audiences: the BRP corebook, HeroQuest, and the new RuneQuest. There does not seem to be much overlap there. If anything, the real conflict should be between HeroQuest players and the new RuneQuest audience, but Messrs. Perrin and Stafford seem to be quite fine with that. My thought is that the new BRP and the new Mongoose RQ will probably cross-fertilize each other after release, with fans taking bits and pieces from each to synthesize their ideal system. The real question that no one seems to be asking is what this means for HeroQuest. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 03:03:49 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: <20050705170349.47269.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> >The real question that no one seems to be asking is what this means for HeroQuest. IMO, who cares. I never liked it. I do not wish it ill, but I wont cry if it goes away. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > This is my first post to this list, I think, and sadly I must delurk then > go back into hiding (I'm leaving town for a couple of weeks tomorrow and > will be away from the internet for most of the time), but the announcement > of a Mongoose RQ seems to have stirred a lot of confusion and > consternation, so I'd pitch in with a voice of reason. > > I don't know what the situation is between Greg Stafford, Steve Perrin, > Charlie Krank, Mongoose, Chaosium, and Issaries, and I'd caution about > ascribing motives or malice to anything any of these folks is doing without > statements from the parties concerned. > > However, it seems clear that: > > a) Chaosium is doing a generic. deluxe version of the BRP system (which I > am co-writing, taking time out for this post). They have no further > interest in Glorantha material. They are publishing a new BRP specifically > to serve as a nice core book for further game expansions and as a > entry-level game product. > > b) Issaries has published HeroQuest, which, though being very cool, was/is > NOT RuneQuest. Different system entirely. It was designed for a > dramatically different style of play, with radically different goals and a > distinct view of the game world of Glorantha. > > c) Issaries has licensed Mongoose to do a new RPG set in Glorantha that > harkens back to the pre-HeroQuest Glorantha. Many people feel that charm of > RQ 2 (and even 3) was the system. The Mongoose system will be similar to > BRP, but how much so is undetermined at this time. > > So, there are three different products, with three different audiences: the > BRP corebook, HeroQuest, and the new RuneQuest. There does not seem to be > much overlap there. If anything, the real conflict should be between > HeroQuest players and the new RuneQuest audience, but Messrs. Perrin and > Stafford seem to be quite fine with that. > > My thought is that the new BRP and the new Mongoose RQ will probably > cross-fertilize each other after release, with fans taking bits and pieces > from each to synthesize their ideal system. > > The real question that no one seems to be asking is what this means for > HeroQuest. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com From nphillis at shaw.ca Wed Jul 6 03:30:42 2005 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:30:42 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <20050705161749.95561.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a601c58187$44fe1f00$65334d18@wp.shawcable.net> For me, this news brings hope that my current group may finally be convinced to play the game I have always loved [RQ]. Currently we are locked-into D&D v3.x. While my group is open to trying new games, not a single player was willing to get "hooked" on a game that was no longer in print (having everyone buy it 'used' from e-bay was not going to happen), nor could they get enthused about a game that did not show up on the shelves of their favorite game store. But now, with news of my favorite game going to the mass market, I have a fighting chance of getting all my players converted! And who knows, with both Chaosium (deluxe version of BRP) and Mongoose with the new version of RQ, we may even see the 'ground-swell' of support like we did with the OGL of d20! Happy Times Indeed. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 6 06:17:28 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:17:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: <1765968.1120594648643.JavaMail.root@wamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Please sing out when it's ready for purchase. I'm practically drooling to see a copy. David -----Original Message----- From: Jason Durall Sent: Jul 5, 2005 11:57 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ a) Chaosium is doing a generic. deluxe version of the BRP system (which I am co-writing, taking time out for this post). They have no further interest in Glorantha material. They are publishing a new BRP specifically to serve as a nice core book for further game expansions and as a entry-level game product. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 16:43:13 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:43:13 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050705170349.47269.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I like it because it steems with idealism, and it is there (unlike RQ3 wich haven't had anything new for 10+ years) I play RQ3 with my own houserules, and I will be ever thankful to Heroquest for their publications as I use them as sourcebooks to fill in the blanks (important areas that never even were described in RQ3), and to provide me new inspiration for the areas I allready know about. I've bought the rulebook for HQ, and consider using that system when (if) my players go Heroquesting on the Heroplane. >IMO, who cares. I never liked it. I do not wish it >ill, but I wont cry if it goes away. > >Leon >--- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > This is my first post to this list, I think, and >sadly I must delurk then > > go back into hiding (I'm leaving town for a couple >of weeks tomorrow and > > will be away from the internet for most of the >time), but the announcement > > of a Mongoose RQ seems to have stirred a lot of >confusion and > > consternation, so I'd pitch in with a voice of >reason. > > > > I don't know what the situation is between Greg >Stafford, Steve Perrin, > > Charlie Krank, Mongoose, Chaosium, and Issaries, and >I'd caution about > > ascribing motives or malice to anything any of these >folks is doing without > > statements from the parties concerned. > > > > However, it seems clear that: > > > > a) Chaosium is doing a generic. deluxe version of >the BRP system (which I > > am co-writing, taking time out for this post). They >have no further > > interest in Glorantha material. They are publishing >a new BRP specifically > > to serve as a nice core book for further game >expansions and as a > > entry-level game product. > > > > b) Issaries has published HeroQuest, which, though >being very cool, was/is > > NOT RuneQuest. Different system entirely. It was >designed for a > > dramatically different style of play, with radically >different goals and a > > distinct view of the game world of Glorantha. > > > > c) Issaries has licensed Mongoose to do a new RPG >set in Glorantha that > > harkens back to the pre-HeroQuest Glorantha. Many >people feel that charm of > > RQ 2 (and even 3) was the system. The Mongoose >system will be similar to > > BRP, but how much so is undetermined at this time. > > > > So, there are three different products, with three >different audiences: the > > BRP corebook, HeroQuest, and the new RuneQuest. >There does not seem to be > > much overlap there. If anything, the real conflict >should be between > > HeroQuest players and the new RuneQuest audience, >but Messrs. Perrin and > > Stafford seem to be quite fine with that. > > > > My thought is that the new BRP and the new Mongoose >RQ will probably > > cross-fertilize each other after release, with fans >taking bits and pieces > > from each to synthesize their ideal system. > > > > The real question that no one seems to be asking is >what this means for > > HeroQuest. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > >____________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Sports >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football >http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed Jul 6 18:45:55 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:45:55 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: I reckon I am going to try and punt myself to Mongoose as a play tester. Will be a nice way to lay hands on their palns and hopefully guide them in the right (not D20) direction:) -----Original Message----- Bjorn Stolen Sent: 06 July 2005 08:43 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Well, I like it because it steems with idealism, and it is there (unlike RQ3 wich haven't had anything new for 10+ years) I play RQ3 with my own houserules, and I will be ever thankful to Heroquest for their publications as I use them as sourcebooks to fill in the blanks (important areas that never even were described in RQ3), and to provide me new inspiration for the areas I allready know about. I've bought the rulebook for HQ, and consider using that system when (if) my players go Heroquesting on the Heroplane. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 6 18:53:15 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 01:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050706085315.47491.qmail@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> *waves* Already done so here. The rules to date are pretty light, but include a lot of RQ favourites. One substantial change I've noticed is that the RQIII societies (primitive, nomad, barbarian, civilised) is gone in favour of the RQII backgrounds (peasant, townsman, barbarian, lesser noble, greater noble). This is not a good move in my opinion, but then again as sociologist, I'm biased ;-) Kind regards, Lev --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > I reckon I am going to try and punt myself to > Mongoose as a play tester. > Will be a nice way to lay hands on their palns and > hopefully guide them in > the right (not D20) direction:) > > -----Original Message----- > Bjorn Stolen > Sent: 06 July 2005 08:43 > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > > Well, I like it because it steems with idealism, and > it is there (unlike RQ3 > wich haven't had anything new for 10+ years) I play > RQ3 with my own > houserules, and I will be ever thankful to Heroquest > for their publications > as I use them as sourcebooks to fill in the blanks > (important areas that > never even were described in RQ3), and to provide me > new inspiration for the > areas I allready know about. I've bought the > rulebook for HQ, and consider > using that system when (if) my players go > Heroquesting on the Heroplane. > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Jul 7 00:03:10 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:03:10 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: Good news re some work done, but I also like the cultures, add a very nice flavour tio the game and have basicaly structured my hoem grown world a bit. I woud actually build on cultures to allow Civilized Orcs and Barbarian Orcs instead of just Generic Orcs (No, I don't want to start an Orc vs Gloantha Troll conversation:) Who did you contact to get on the bandwagon? Tony -----Original Message----- f Lev Lafayette Sent: 06 July 2005 10:53 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ *waves* Already done so here. The rules to date are pretty light, but include a lot of RQ favourites. One substantial change I've noticed is that the RQIII societies (primitive, nomad, barbarian, civilised) is gone in favour of the RQII backgrounds (peasant, townsman, barbarian, lesser noble, greater noble). This is not a good move in my opinion, but then again as sociologist, I'm biased ;-) Kind regards, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 7 20:14:59 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:14:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: <20050707101459.97790.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> --- steve at perrinworlds.com wrote: > To: soltakss at yahoo.com > From: steve at perrinworlds.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:34:52 -0000 > > Simon, > > Any attempt I make to respond to this list from my work computer ends up > just going to the person who posted, no matter what I put in the "To" line. > Could you please forward this to the list? > > From some of Greg's comments, I have the idea that HeroQuest and > MonRuneQuest will be dealing with different areas of Glorantha, which is > certainly big enough for it. > > I think this is an opportunity for a more extensive exploration of > Glorantha, with books from each publisher covering different areas and a > translation system to coordinate them. > > Alternately, of course, Mongoose could just put out a general purpose > Glorantha book and refer those who want more to Issaries, and meanwhile > carry on with non-Glorantha projects. > > Either would probably work, and Issaries would probably want to go with the > latter unless they just have so much material that they need a second > publisher to get it all out. > > And for those who have seen the exchanges on RPGNet, yes Matthew Sprange > and I are at least in the opening throes of communication and I may be > doing something or other for the Mongoose product. > > I wonder if they'll switch to a role high system? > > Onward! > > Steve Perrin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: soltakss at yahoo.com > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:17:49 +0100 (BST) > > Alban: > > > > > Did anybody hear of this : > > > > > > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=201322 > > > > > > According to this post, a new edition of RuneQuest will be released > next > > > year by Mongoose, but with completely different system. > > > As there is a call for RQ fans to help in designing this new game, I > guess > > > some of you may be interested. > > > > I wondered why all my subscribed RQ groups all fired off at the same > time. > > > > Tony Den: > > > > > Any statement lie this has me worried. While I am sure everyone would > love > > > updated and new RQ material, I think we all fear the butchering of core > > > rules at the same time. > > > > > > Looked on Mongooses site and found this forum, not much help > > > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/forum.php > > > > > > > At the moment, I would guess that all forums are split between comments > such > > as "Cor, what a jolly good idea" and "What? Another version of a dead > game?" > > or between the "Let's have more Gloranthan RuneQuest" and "Let's have > > non-Gloranthan RuneQuest". Things should die down after a while and some > > proper information should come out. > > > > Gianni: > > > > > Doing a search with the string 'runequest' on their sites yields the > > > following: Gloranthan rolegame, new system. > > > > > > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? > > > > YES!!! If it is RuneQuest. > > > > Nick Middleton: > > > ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a > new > > > system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright > > > issues... > > > > > > Does this bother anyone else as much as it does me? > > > > I'm not bothered about the copyright issue - that's why copyright lawyers > > earn fortunes. > > > > What I am bothered about is the obvious amount of shit-stirring that is > > involved. > > > > 1. Issaries launches HeroWars and the HeroQuest in order to produce a > > Gloranthan RPG that is not RuneQuest. > > > > 2. Chaosium decided to reprint the Basic Roleplaying Monographs for > > non-Glorantha, probably to cash in on the anti-HeroQuest groundswell > amongst > > die-hard RQ fans. > > > > 3. Issaries buys up the RuneQuest Trademark. > > > > 4. Issaries licenses another company, not Chaosium, to produce a versio > of > > RuneQuest, which they can do as they own the trademark, and which they > have a > > history for as RQ and Glorantha went hand in hand. > > > > The only thing I can see is that Issaries are deliberately going up > against > > Chaosium with the RQ/Glorantha combination. > > > > Now, many RQ die-hards will say that they won't touch it as it is > Gloranthan. > > But, equally many will say that they would buy it as it is where > Glorantha > > belongs. > > > > Tal Meta: > > > > ah, but according to Greg Stafford's own post at RPGNet it's _not_ a > new > > > > system: it's the old one re-written just enough to avoid Copyright > > > > issues... > > > > > > Actually, what I got was that Chaosium's ABRPG was the old system with > > > the serial #s filed off; Mongoose's proposed system is more in a line > of > > > a v4 rewrite, with updated mechanics for the 21st century. > > > > >From the press blurn at Mongoose, they are looking at ways to improve > the > > rules, that's why they are asking people which rules were good from the > old > > versions. At least they are asking. It couldn't be RQ3 or RQ2 again as > they > > are owned by various people, but it could be a reworking of the rules as > the > > basic rules appear to be non-copyrightable. > > > > Nick: > > > For those who can't follow the link "The game will be the same system, > not > > > the same copyrighted words." > > > > > > seems pretty unambiguous to me... > > > > > > But, "the same system" is in itself ambiguous. RQ3 was the same system as > RQ2 > > as was RQ4. > > > > As to the future, I heartily welcome a new version of RuneQuest. I have > been > > playing HeroQuest for a year and it is not the same. Better in some ways, > but > > not what I love, which is RQ. > > > > What remains to be seen is how it is going to be supported. How long will > it > > be before Issaries stops helping them with Gloranthan products? How many > > people will buy the Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan versions? Don't forget > that > > HeroQuest is going non-Gloranthan with the Questworld series. Can we cope > > with HeroQuest and RuneQuest versions of the same worlds? > > > > My first thoughts were "Yippee!" but I can't see how it is going to work, > > unless Issaries is going to scale down HeroQuest and go back to > RuneQuest, > > which would be interesting .... > > > > > > Simon ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 13:16:16 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:16:16 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: * Lev Lafayette (lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au ) wrote: This is not a good move in my opinion, but then again as sociologist, I'm > biased ;-) > Wait a minute. How many sociologists ARE there on this list? :D ->Peter (BA in Soc/Anth.) -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 13:35:53 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:35:53 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: I've been away and mostly offline, on vacation. But the news of the new "RQ" reached me. It bugs me that there's so much confusion out there. I appreciate that Jason made an attempt to clarify things, but I'm still worried. In part, that's because Matt of Mongoose Publishing and Greg have been making contradictory statements. The new RQ will be a new system...or not. It will be BRP, but in new language. It has the same "feeling" as RQ, but is substantially changed. My fear is that the RuneQuest name is being slapped on some new HeroQuest-lite system, or one that has little to do with the real RuneQuest. I hope I'm wrong. But at this point I don't know if EITHER DBRP or Mongoose-RQ are really going to contain the qualities that made RuneQuest such a great system. And that means I don't know which system to support on my site. Because there's no way I'm going to support a system that falls short of the real RuneQuest. Which, just to clarify, does NOT mean that I'm demanding a word-for-word reprint of RQIII. I already have my copy, after all. And I'd be the last to deny that RQIII needed fixes and updates in some areas. But after RuneQuest: Slayers, and the disappointment of HeroQuest (which I still heartily detest), I'm feeling twice burned. I mean, what if the whole point of the new RuneQuest is to confuse the issue and split up the RuneQuest *system* fan base? That whole Glorantha/RuneQuest trademark battle a few years ago makes me wonder how relations are between Greg and Chaosium. And if Greg has decided to try to co-opt or scuttle the traditional RQ-system fanbase, this would be a great way to do it. Sigh. I HATE being kept in the dark... ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Jul 9 17:38:41 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:38:41 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: Message-ID: <002001c58459$4cf38270$68417442@wizard> First of all, I'm an English major. But my minor was Anthropology. My co-author Steve Henderson was an Anthro major. Second, there is no good feeling between Greg and the Chaosium. He says he was forced out of Chaosium by his partners. I've never heard their side of the story, though Charlie has said he'll sit down with me and discuss it sometime when we are both in the same place - a very rare occurrence since he doesn't come to DunDraCon and that's the only time I'm in the Bay Area. Maybe he'll come to GenConSoCal some time. There are two threads on RPGNet on the subject of the new RQ. I haven't visited either since last weekend. At that time Matt Sprange said he would be contacting me, but I haven't heard a thing. To the best of my knowledge, Mongoose is intending to present a version of RuneQuest that is like its predecessors. You've seen the report from one of our confreres on this list that he has seen what they have so far and it is very RuneQuesty, with 2nd edition terminology if not rules. I haven't seen it yet. I'm hoping something comes out of all this that we'll all like, but I doubt that can happen. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: "RuneQuest-Rules" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:35 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ I've been away and mostly offline, on vacation. But the news of the new "RQ" reached me. It bugs me that there's so much confusion out there. I appreciate that Jason made an attempt to clarify things, but I'm still worried. In part, that's because Matt of Mongoose Publishing and Greg have been making contradictory statements. The new RQ will be a new system...or not. It will be BRP, but in new language. It has the same "feeling" as RQ, but is substantially changed. My fear is that the RuneQuest name is being slapped on some new HeroQuest-lite system, or one that has little to do with the real RuneQuest. I hope I'm wrong. But at this point I don't know if EITHER DBRP or Mongoose-RQ are really going to contain the qualities that made RuneQuest such a great system. And that means I don't know which system to support on my site. Because there's no way I'm going to support a system that falls short of the real RuneQuest. Which, just to clarify, does NOT mean that I'm demanding a word-for-word reprint of RQIII. I already have my copy, after all. And I'd be the last to deny that RQIII needed fixes and updates in some areas. But after RuneQuest: Slayers, and the disappointment of HeroQuest (which I still heartily detest), I'm feeling twice burned. I mean, what if the whole point of the new RuneQuest is to confuse the issue and split up the RuneQuest *system* fan base? That whole Glorantha/RuneQuest trademark battle a few years ago makes me wonder how relations are between Greg and Chaosium. And if Greg has decided to try to co-opt or scuttle the traditional RQ-system fanbase, this would be a great way to do it. Sigh. I HATE being kept in the dark... ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jul 9 23:47:02 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:47:02 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: <20050709134718.48457222701@boomstick.screwheads.net> > Gianni: > > Doing a search with the string 'runequest' on their sites yields the > > following: Gloranthan rolegame, new system. > > > > Now do we need YET ANOTHER Gloranthan rolegame?????? > > YES!!! If it is RuneQuest. I've received a copy of the Mongoose RQ playtest pack. I've just skimmed through the rules (I'm on holiday right now and forgot my copy of the rules in Paris) so what follows has to be read with the caveat that I've only read through chapters I and II. My first impressions are: 1/ with regard to the Glorantha vs non-Glorantha debate, the Mongoose version seems to be driven by a "have your cake and eat it" philosophy: the game has both orcs and ducks, and hence caters for both publics. 2/ the rules look like re-worded RuneQuest III (there is fatigue and dodge, and there is no defence), with apparently a major upheaval of the actual combat mechanics. And I haven't read the chapter about Magic yet. 3/ the overall impression is that the rules were written by a true fan of RuneQuest, and not by someone trying to make an easy buck (or quid) out of the name "RuneQuest", which anyway isn't too familiar to today's rolegamers (alas). So overall my impression is good. Apparently, I'll be able to play in both Glorantha and Bronze Age China using these rules. But then I ask myself: what of DBRP? cheers Gianni (in sunny Italy) From pmaranci at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 00:26:44 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:26:44 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: Thanks, Steve. That clears up a lot for me; it pretty much confirms my fears and suspicions. I hate when that happens. So Greg/Mongoose are using the copyright/trademark loophole (i.e. you can't copyright a game system, only the specific wording used to describe it) to make their own copy of BRP, which they will market as "RuneQuest". This will compete with Chaosium's new DBRP. And all of this is probably the continuation of a feud between Greg and Chaosium. Interesting. It does seem kind of unfair! At the least both systems should credit Steve, and probably include a plug for SPQR as well. The implications are also kind of disturbing; if Greg can use the BRP system without Chaosium's permission, then so can anyone else. *I* could. And the same applies to any other RPG. Sounds, well, chaotic. In a way, it's like forcing BRP to become open source, at least until someone with lawyers gets involved. The whole thing bothers me. If the Mongoose RQ is being made against the will of the creators and owners of BRP, then I don't know if I could support it in good conscience - even if it IS a well-made version (which I don't know, since I haven't seen it). Damn. Stupid political infighting. Why the hell do people always have to screw everything up with their personality issues? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Jul 10 01:54:20 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050709155420.47405.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> Good question. My MS was interdisciplinary, but involved anthropology, recreation, education (adult and gifted children), and journalism. I also promote basing game characters on actual cultures in order to bring in the whole cultural baggage in a way that makes a certain amount of sense in that, unlike chosing a bunch of arbitrary features, there is some cohesiveness to the array. Paul Cardwell --- Peter Maranci wrote: > * Lev Lafayette (lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > ) wrote: > > This is not a good move in my opinion, but then > again as sociologist, I'm > > biased ;-) > > > > Wait a minute. How many sociologists ARE there on > this list? :D > > ->Peter (BA in Soc/Anth.) > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jul 10 04:06:29 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:06:29 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <20050709155420.47405.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001e01c584b0$feee2e60$68417442@wizard> Maybe RuneQuest should be promoted through Anthropology departments... :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cardwell" To: "Peter Maranci" ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > Good question. My MS was interdisciplinary, but > involved anthropology, recreation, education (adult > and gifted children), and journalism. I also promote > basing game characters on actual cultures in order to > bring in the whole cultural baggage in a way that > makes a certain amount of sense in that, unlike > chosing a bunch of arbitrary features, there is some > cohesiveness to the array. > > Paul Cardwell > > > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > >> * Lev Lafayette (lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au >> ) wrote: >> >> This is not a good move in my opinion, but then >> again as sociologist, I'm >> > biased ;-) >> > >> >> Wait a minute. How many sociologists ARE there on >> this list? :D >> >> ->Peter (BA in Soc/Anth.) >> -- >> Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >> Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! >> http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items. > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jul 10 07:14:42 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:14:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050709180714.6D7C322272C@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050709211442.32044.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Steve Perrin: > Second, there is no good feeling between Greg and the Chaosium. He says he > was forced out of Chaosium by his partners. I've never heard their side of > the story, though Charlie has said he'll sit down with me and discuss it > sometime when we are both in the same place - a very rare occurrence since > he doesn't come to DunDraCon and that's the only time I'm in the Bay Area. > Maybe he'll come to GenConSoCal some time. Which helps to give us an idea of possibly why certain things are happening. Thanks. > I'm hoping something comes out of all this that we'll all like, but I doubt > that can happen. Bearing in mind that I know people who will not touch RQ3 with a barge-pole, twenty (sob!) years after it came out, I doubt whether any new version of RQ will please everyone, even everyone on this list. However, if most of it pleases most people, they will be doing well. It strikes me that with the new RQ, BRP, Gloranthan Classics and Glorantha from HeroQuest, it looks as though this might be the best-supported RQ ever. Gianni: > I've received a copy of the Mongoose RQ playtest pack. I've just skimmed > through the rules (I'm on holiday right now and forgot my copy of the rules > in Paris) so what follows has to be read with the caveat that I've only > read > through chapters I and II. > > My first impressions are: > 1/ with regard to the Glorantha vs non-Glorantha debate, the Mongoose > version > seems to be driven by a "have your cake and eat it" philosophy: the game > has > both orcs and ducks, and hence caters for both publics. Good. > 2/ the rules look like re-worded RuneQuest III (there is fatigue and dodge, > and there is no defence), with apparently a major upheaval of the actual > combat mechanics. And I haven't read the chapter about Magic yet. As long as it doesn't go down the RQ4-ish extreme tabletop path of manouvers, hex movement and so many tactics it makes your head spin. > 3/ the overall impression is that the rules were written by a true fan of > RuneQuest, and not by someone trying to make an easy buck (or quid) out of > the name "RuneQuest", which anyway isn't too familiar to today's rolegamers > (alas). Even better. > So overall my impression is good. Apparently, I'll be able to play in both > Glorantha and Bronze Age China using these rules. Well, rules do not make background. You always could play in different settings using RQ, that was its charm. If you have the concept of hitting someone with something then RQ can be applied. What makes settings different is how things like magic works and what beasties are there. > But then I ask myself: what of DBRP? If Chaosium bring BRP out as planned, then they can bring other supplements that we could use for RQ. For the players and fans it is a win-win situation. For Chaoisum it probably isn't, but most of us don't work in the industry. > cheers > > Gianni > (in sunny Italy) Grrr, you get to go to sunny Italy, I get to see my in-laws. Where's the justice there? Peter Maranc: > So Greg/Mongoose are using the copyright/trademark loophole (i.e. you can't > copyright a game system, only the specific wording used to describe it) to > make their own copy of BRP, which they will market as "RuneQuest". This > will > compete with Chaosium's new DBRP. And all of this is probably the > continuation of a feud between Greg and Chaosium. > > Interesting. > > It does seem kind of unfair! At the least both systems should credit Steve, > and probably include a plug for SPQR as well. Well, if you can't copyright a system then there's no need to credit the system's designers. > The implications are also kind of disturbing; if Greg can use the BRP > system > without Chaosium's permission, then so can anyone else. *I* could. And the > same applies to any other RPG. Sounds, well, chaotic. In a way, it's like > forcing BRP to become open source, at least until someone with lawyers gets > involved. Well, in a way this has happened in the past. Other Suns was originally designed as a BRP game, but changed itself slightly, but can still be used as source material. Isn't Mythworld a RQ variant as well? BRP and RQ co-existed since 1982, or perhaps earlier, although BRP was a pale shadow of RQ. Chaosium themselves have been using versions of BRP for many of their games from the simplistic rules of Cthulhu to the more complex Eternal Champion variants and the incredibly convoluited Ringworld rules. Admittedly, they are all from the same company, but Ringworld used rules similar to RQ3 as opposed to the RQ2-ish rules of Stormbringer, and this was during the Avalon Hill stewardship of RQ. So, having competing systems is not necessarily a bad idea. Most people who support RQ will buy, or at least look at, the different variants that will be out there and the companies might even briong out more supplements to show that THEIR version of RQ/BRP is better than those other people's. We are promised conversion notes from HeroQuest to RQ. I am sure that someone will draw up similar conversions for RQ/BRP/Gloranthan Classics to allow everything to be used with everything else. And won't that be nice? > The whole thing bothers me. If the Mongoose RQ is being made against the > will of the creators and owners of BRP, then I don't know if I could > support > it in good conscience - even if it IS a well-made version (which I don't > know, since I haven't seen it). A lot of people turned their backs on RQ after the Avalon Hill period. Some will turn their backs on it after this. Personally, I don't care who owns it, makes it, stabs whom in the back. If RQ comes back and is a good version then I will be happy. I don't have any particular loyalty to Chaosium, except to recognise that they've produced some very good work in the past. But for RQ that was 20 years ago. How loyal do you have to be to a company that has been out of RQ for so long? > Damn. Stupid political infighting. Why the hell do people always have to > screw everything up with their personality issues? Because that's life. Money is involved as well. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From mechashef at emailme.net.au Sun Jul 10 07:18:05 2005 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 07:18:05 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050709211807.C5BC097C161@mail.velocitynet.com.au> Peter Maranci wrote: >So Greg/Mongoose are using the copyright/trademark loophole (i.e. you can't >copyright a game system, only the specific wording used to describe it) to >make their own copy of BRP, which they will market as "RuneQuest". I have done some play testing of the Mongoose offering. The combat system in particular is quite different from RQ2 and RQ3(I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say about it). I'm not familiar with BRP, but based on what I've seen on the net, and the character sheet I just downloaded I think that the Mongoose offering is very very different. Of course, what is being play tested now, and what makes it into the commercial release may not be the same thing! From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Jul 10 05:35:07 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:35:07 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D026EB.3060600@brinkdata.se> Peter Maranci skrev: > > So Greg/Mongoose are using the copyright/trademark loophole (i.e. you can't > copyright a game system, only the specific wording used to describe it) That's not a bug it's a feature :-). It's a good and necessary thing that ideas and concepts cannot be copyright protected. > The implications are also kind of disturbing; if Greg can use the BRP system > without Chaosium's permission, then so can anyone else. *I* could. And the > same applies to any other RPG. Sounds, well, chaotic. In a way, it's like > forcing BRP to become open source, at least until someone with lawyers gets > involved. Why should it be disturbing? Ideas cannot be owned and therefore there it's no way anyone can own the methods and processes of a game (well perhaps partly in the US, since you can patent games in the US). In Sweden there's a score of RPGs that use game mechanics that are similar to BRP (and each of course other). In fact the rules of most RPGs are more or less similar. That people reword and reuse game rules from other games is nothing to be upset about it something that has been going on as long as mankind has been playing games (which is at least 7000 years...). In Scandinavia (at least) even the way a game rule is expressed, that is the way it's described, is not normally considered copyrightable. Such expressions are only very rarely original enough to qualify for copyright protection. /Peter Brink From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jul 10 11:38:49 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:38:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <20050709211442.32044.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002801c584f0$2fc14560$68417442@wizard> Just a note re who created and who owns BRP. BRP was Greg's creation, modeled extensively on RuneQuest. So we have the situation of Greg's game being owned by Chaosium (but not Greg). So if you buy both or either you are being loyal or disloyal, depending on your perceptions, to the creator and owner of BRP. There was also a small print game many many years ago called something like Elemental Masters. The author gave a copy to Greg saying "You'll like it. It's exactly like RuneQuest except for the magic system." And sure enough, he had copied the entire RuneQuest game system and appended his magic system. Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Phipp" To: Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > snip>< Peter Maranci and Simon's notes: >> The whole thing bothers me. If the Mongoose RQ is being made against the >> will of the creators and owners of BRP, then I don't know if I could >> support >> it in good conscience - even if it IS a well-made version (which I don't >> know, since I haven't seen it). > > A lot of people turned their backs on RQ after the Avalon Hill period. > Some > will turn their backs on it after this. Personally, I don't care who owns > it, > makes it, stabs whom in the back. If RQ comes back and is a good version > then > I will be happy. > > I don't have any particular loyalty to Chaosium, except to recognise that > they've produced some very good work in the past. But for RQ that was 20 > years ago. How loyal do you have to be to a company that has been out of > RQ > for so long? > >> Damn. Stupid political infighting. Why the hell do people always have to >> screw everything up with their personality issues? > > Because that's life. Money is involved as well. > > See Ya > > Simon > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with > voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jul 10 11:41:10 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:41:10 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <42D026EB.3060600@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <002a01c584f0$86e72580$68417442@wizard> Actually, the Swedish game Drakar ach Demoner was originally my Magic World from Worlds of Wonder. I understand it has undergone a lot of evolution since then, but that was its origin. And I didn't get a penny because it was a work for hire for Chaosium. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Brink" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > Peter Maranci skrev: >> >> So Greg/Mongoose are using the copyright/trademark loophole (i.e. you >> can't copyright a game system, only the specific wording used to describe >> it) > > That's not a bug it's a feature :-). It's a good and necessary thing that > ideas and concepts cannot be copyright protected. > >> The implications are also kind of disturbing; if Greg can use the BRP >> system without Chaosium's permission, then so can anyone else. *I* could. >> And the same applies to any other RPG. Sounds, well, chaotic. In a way, >> it's like forcing BRP to become open source, at least until someone with >> lawyers gets involved. > > Why should it be disturbing? Ideas cannot be owned and therefore there > it's no way anyone can own the methods and processes of a game (well > perhaps partly in the US, since you can patent games in the US). In Sweden > there's a score of RPGs that use game mechanics that are similar to BRP > (and each of course other). In fact the rules of most RPGs are more or > less similar. That people reword and reuse game rules from other games is > nothing to be upset about it something that has been going on as long as > mankind has been playing games (which is at least 7000 years...). > > In Scandinavia (at least) even the way a game rule is expressed, that is > the way it's described, is not normally considered copyrightable. Such > expressions are only very rarely original enough to qualify for copyright > protection. > > /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 > From pmaranci at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 14:24:02 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:24:02 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: All this seems to indicate that we may be debating an interesting point, a few months from now: Which versions of RuneQuest do we support here? "All of them" is the inevitable reply. But we don't discuss RuneQuest: Slayers, I believe. We certainly don't discuss HeroQuest, thank goodness. When it comes down to DBRP and MongooseRQ (which I suggest could be called "MRQ" for short), will we support both? What do you think? And I don't think we should leave out SPQR. Steve, I'll buy a copy as soon as I have a little money to spare. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From jellen at ameritech.net Sun Jul 10 19:30:51 2005 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 04:30:51 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: Message-ID: <01bb01c58532$158cdfa0$3410fea9@home> To advance the plot. --J (English degree, now in pre-med) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: "RuneQuest-Rules" Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:26 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ ...Why the hell do people always have to screw everything up with their personality issues? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From aluban at yahoo.fr Sun Jul 10 21:02:39 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050709134718.48457222701@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050710110239.38026.qmail@web26107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Gianni a ?crit : I've received a copy of the Mongoose RQ playtest pack. I've just skimmed through the rules (I'm on holiday right now and forgot my copy of the rules in Paris) so what follows has to be read with the caveat that I've only read through chapters I and II. I also got my copy, so I can share my opinions with you (I hope I won't reveal more than I'm allowed to...) My first impressions are: 1/ with regard to the Glorantha vs non-Glorantha debate, the Mongoose version seems to be driven by a "have your cake and eat it" philosophy: the game has both orcs and ducks, and hence caters for both publics. No orcs but ogres, actually, which are a Gloranthan race. However, there are stats for Halflings. 2/ the rules look like re-worded RuneQuest III (there is fatigue and dodge, and there is no defence), with apparently a major upheaval of the actual combat mechanics. I'm not familiar with RQ2, but I can see lots of difference with RQ3 in this new project. And I haven't read the chapter about Magic yet. As there is no magic rules in the pack, it is no surprise ;) 3/ the overall impression is that the rules were written by a true fan of RuneQuest, and not by someone trying to make an easy buck (or quid) out of the name "RuneQuest", which anyway isn't too familiar to today's rolegamers (alas). I feel the same. So overall my impression is good. Apparently, I'll be able to play in both Glorantha and Bronze Age China using these rules. Personnally, those rules didn't really hook me. Right now, I see no reason to ditch my own version of BRPS in favor of this new RQ. To me, the authors'main concern seems to be speeding up combat, not keeping rules consistancy. Alban --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Jul 10 18:50:28 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:50:28 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <002a01c584f0$86e72580$68417442@wizard> References: <42D026EB.3060600@brinkdata.se> <002a01c584f0$86e72580$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <42D0E154.4030709@brinkdata.se> Stephen Perrin skrev: > Actually, the Swedish game Drakar ach Demoner was originally my Magic > World from Worlds of Wonder. I understand it has undergone a lot of > evolution since then, but that was its origin. > Quite true. However Target Games, who produced Drakar & Demoner, licensed the game system from Chaosium and credited Steve Perrin on the title page. The reason Target Games payed a license fee was probably to avoid a possible law suit based on unfair competition. AFAIK the case law on games (in Scandinavia) are of a later date than the first edition of Drakar & Demoner. The cases (known to me) basically prove the point made above, no game manufacturer has been able to assert a copyright on games but they have been able to get damages based on claims of unfair competition when the other game has been a verbatim copy or very close to a verbatim copy. As later editions of Drakar & Demons more and more different from the original and Target Games could stop paying licenses. > And I didn't get a penny because it was a work for hire for Chaosium. > Thankfully we don't have anything like "work for hire" in European Copyright law... /Peter Brink From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Jul 11 11:54:11 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:54:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: <21299642.1121046851639.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Exactly. I'd rather see some adventures and world content that's compatible with the BRP rules. Or at least easily converted. David Alban posted: Right now, I see no reason to ditch my own version of BRPS in favor of this new RQ. From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 11 15:09:39 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:09:39 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: Element masters, I recall a write up in one of my old dragon magazines. They mentioned it was very similar to RQ, didn't realise it was so similar though. Wonder what Greg had to say at the time. -----Original Message----- Stephen Perrin There was also a small print game many many years ago called something like Elemental Masters. The author gave a copy to Greg saying "You'll like it. It's exactly like RuneQuest except for the magic system." And sure enough, he had copied the entire RuneQuest game system and appended his magic system. Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery. Steve Perrin __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Jul 11 16:06:58 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:06:58 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: Message-ID: <003201c585de$cf96af00$68417442@wizard> Pretty much what I said below. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Den, Tony T" To: "'RuneQuest rules discussion.'" Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 10:09 PM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > Element masters, I recall a write up in one of my old dragon magazines. > They > mentioned it was very similar to RQ, didn't realise it was so similar > though. Wonder what Greg had to say at the time. > > -----Original Message----- > Stephen Perrin > > > > There was also a small print game many many years ago called something > like > Elemental Masters. The author gave a copy to Greg saying "You'll like it. > It's exactly like RuneQuest except for the magic system." And sure enough, > he had copied the entire RuneQuest game system and appended his magic > system. > > Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery. > > Steve Perrin > > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 11 18:00:30 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:00:30 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: > >> And I didn't get a penny because it was a work for hire for Chaosium. >> > >Thankfully we don't have anything like "work for hire" in European >Copyright law... I realise this is largely off topic Peter, but that surprises me, since "work for hire" is basically a contract of employment that includes a clause to the effect that original forms of expression created whilst in that employ belong to the employer, not the employee - hence Newspaper copy would (under these terms) belong to the newspaper, not the individual journalist. Indeed, my impression form various conversations over the years about Games Workshop (*spit*) was that they had used exactly those sorts of terms (and I thought still did), hence a lot of GW RPG material being inaccessible for reprinting these days without GW's cooperation. But I am anything BUT an expert... Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Jul 11 18:57:23 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:57:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D23473.5090102@brinkdata.se> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com skrev: >>>And I didn't get a penny because it was a work for hire for Chaosium. >>> >> >>Thankfully we don't have anything like "work for hire" in European >>Copyright law... > > > I realise this is largely off topic Peter, but that surprises me, since > "work for hire" is basically a contract of employment that includes a > clause to the effect that original forms of expression created whilst in > that employ belong to the employer, not the employee - hence Newspaper copy > would (under these terms) belong to the newspaper, not the individual > journalist. > > Indeed, my impression form various conversations over the years about Games > Workshop (*spit*) was that they had used exactly those sorts of terms (and > I thought still did), hence a lot of GW RPG material being inaccessible > for reprinting these days without GW's cooperation. But I am anything BUT > an expert... > Well, Ireland and the UK *are* the odd men in a European Copyright context. :-) The general rule in Europe (and to large extent the rest of the world) is that a copyright belongs to the one who created the copyrightable work. Employment does not imply the the employer becomes the copyright holder of work created by employees. The employer does have an implied (near) exclusive license to use the work, the extent of which is (usually) regulated by the employment contract. There is a general copyright principle called the "specification rule" stating that a contract dealing with a transfer or assignment of a copyright only covers those rights specifically mentioned. If an employee creates a work as a part of his job but outside his normal sphere of duties then the employer has no implied license to use that work. For example, assume that I write a song for use at a company happening, and my regular job is to write computer software, then the employer may not use my song in, for example, his marketing, without asking for my for permission. I would also (of course) have the right to ask for a license fee, a right which might be a bit tricky to use in many cases. There are however talks about legislation in a few European countries which would make it more difficult for an employer to (ab)use his power in such situations. In the UK and the US that line of reasoning would not hold true. In the UK (as in the US) the rule is that the employer becomes the copyright holder of any works created by his employees. /Peter From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 11 19:04:06 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:04:06 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: >>> >>>Thankfully we don't have anything like "work for hire" in European >>>Copyright law... >> >> >> I realise this is largely off topic Peter, but that surprises me, since >.... (SNIPPAGE)... >> > >Well, Ireland and the UK *are* the odd men in a European Copyright >context. :-) And one or two other contexts as well ;-) but I hope we're getting better! > The general rule in Europe... (SNIP informative summary) Thanks for that Peter! Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 22:23:44 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:23:44 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: Greg has denied any feud with Chaosium in the thread at RPGNet. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=44&pp=10 I'm getting awfully tired of all this. Right now, I'm sick of the entire SUBJECT. All this uncertainty is very trying. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jul 11 22:48:50 2005 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:48:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5225.195.188.213.35.1121086130.squirrel@195.188.213.35> Unlike some others, I am a Glorantha fan rather than simply a BRP fan. I loved the feel of RQII which was achieved mainly by the BRP system. I am quite happy with the current situation where there may be a couple of publishers looking to produce material for Glorantha that I can use to run games. I'm happy with as many as want to produce systems that might actually provide a better model for the system - or be more fun to play under. There are aspects of the BRP that rock, but I like parts of HQ as well for certain things and I hope that I will enjoy Mongoose's effort in part. All of that might mean me using a bastard child of three systems for my Glorantha gaming - but that's fine by me. Stephen > Greg has denied any feud with Chaosium in the thread at RPGNet. > http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=44&pp=10 > I'm getting awfully tired of all this. Right now, I'm sick of the entire > SUBJECT. > All this uncertainty is very trying. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 01:11:44 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:11:44 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] History of RuneQuest Message-ID: Okay, I'm working on an update to the History of RuneQuest article ( http://www.runequest.org/rqpast.htm ). My working title for the new section is "The Great Blurring". But to be honest, I'm considering a complete revision instead. Anyway, if anyone wants to make any suggestions or corrections on the article, I'm all ears. Here, or in email. By the way, I've written to Chaosium asking for confirmation that they're not involved with the Mongoose RQ project. Don't know if I'll get a reply - they usually don't reply to me - but it's worth a try. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 02:40:14 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <001e01c584b0$feee2e60$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <20050711164014.89370.qmail@web51310.mail.yahoo.com> --- Stephen Perrin wrote: > Maybe RuneQuest should be promoted through > Anthropology departments... :) The :) may have indicated it was a facetious comment, but I have actually tried with the even more anthopologically based Mythworld. They claimed to like the idea, but never did anything about it. On the other hand, exhibits curator Walt Davis tried to get RPG (playing animals with no magical powers) into the Dallas Museum of Natural History childrens' program, but could not get approval (or disapproval with any explanation, just a permanent stall) for this method of teaching ecology. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Jul 12 03:21:08 2005 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:21:08 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <21299642.1121046851639.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <034401c5863c$f488e860$3410fea9@home> Hey, wouldn't it be neat if MRQ actually had runes or quests being integral to the game? --J ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Exactly. I'd rather see some adventures and world content that's compatible with the BRP rules. Or at least easily converted. David Alban posted: Right now, I see no reason to ditch my own version of BRPS in favor of this new RQ. From floor13 at bayarea.net Tue Jul 12 04:42:49 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (floor13 at bayarea.net) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:42:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Which Will We Support? In-Reply-To: <20050711164035.082DD22270A@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050711164035.082DD22270A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <1121107369.42d2bda9d6495@myaccount.bayarea.net> Pete Maranci wrote: >Which versions of RuneQuest do we support here? >"All of them" is the inevitable reply. But we don't discuss RuneQuest: >Slayers, I believe. We certainly don't discuss HeroQuest, thank goodness. >When it comes down to DBRP and MongooseRQ (which I suggest could be called >"MRQ" for short), will we support both? >What do you think? I can speak only for myself - I'm interested in discussion of almost any RQ. But it is highly unlikely I will buy the Mongoose system, as I'm 100% satisfied with what I'm playing now. I might buy the new BRP, if there's enough material of interest. From zomben at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 04:59:48 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Which Will We Support? In-Reply-To: <1121107369.42d2bda9d6495@myaccount.bayarea.net> Message-ID: <20050711185948.18206.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't see why there has to be such a schism between DBRP, and MRQ. The thing nobody seems to have brought up yet, is this: MRQ will be a "generic" fantasy implementation of the BRP rules (in one form or another). DBRP will be a full "generic" RPG using BRP. From what I understand it'll have scifi, supers and fantasy in the core book. So, honestly, I think we're kind of talking about apples and organges here. MRQ is going to be primarily focussed on fantasy gaming. DBRP is going to be doing a lot of things that MRQ is not. Or perhaps I'm just not seeing the big picture? Personally, I'll probably be supporting both games. But to be honest, I'm more interested in MRQ, simply because it sounds like they'll be pumping out a bunch of material which I can retrofit into RQIII. Ben --- floor13 at bayarea.net wrote: > Pete Maranci wrote: > > >Which versions of RuneQuest do we support here? > > >"All of them" is the inevitable reply. But we don't > discuss RuneQuest: > >Slayers, I believe. We certainly don't discuss > HeroQuest, thank goodness. > >When it comes down to DBRP and MongooseRQ (which I > suggest could be called > >"MRQ" for short), will we support both? > > >What do you think? > > > I can speak only for myself - I'm interested in > discussion of almost any RQ. > But it is highly unlikely I will buy the Mongoose > system, as I'm 100% satisfied > with what I'm playing now. > > I might buy the new BRP, if there's enough material > of interest. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 08:01:51 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:01:51 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: (I'm posting this on behalf of Steve Perrin, since he can't post there right now. ->PM) My conversation with Greg was about 4 years ago. A lot can change in 4 years. And I may have caught Greg in a particularly down moment. I certainly hope that the two systems will be mostly compatible. And I selfishly hope that they will continue to be at least somewhat compatible with SPQR, at least to the point of allowing one to snatch written-up characters as NPCs for upcoming scenarios. In any case, none of this is life and death. I understand that you want the true scoop for your history of RQ on your website, but "history will lie, as usual." to quote Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne by way of George Bernard Shaw. What's important, now, is what is coming up for RQ. And it looks like I may, indeed, be doing some writing for the new RQ, though probably not in the rules section. Steve Perrin From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 08:04:21 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:04:21 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ Message-ID: (I'm posting this on behalf of Steve Perrin, since he can't post there right now. It's in response to an email I sent, expressing surprise that while he may be working on Mongoose RQ (!), he probably won't be working on the rules. ->PM) There are several reasons why I am not working on the rules. 1. While Matthew and I are on the same industry message board, he did not know if I was at all available, or even necessarily who I was, since his company just got into the RPG trade with the opening up of the OGL. 2. I'm not really available for extensive rules writing, even if it is rules I wrote originally 25+ years ago. I'm a full time technical writer, making far more than I ever made in the game industry. And it's frightening how what I make is barely enough for two people to live on these days. 3. Matthew already has people he employs working on the rules. From all accounts, they are enthused fans of the system - I hope that's an indication that it will be okay. 4. And I have, in fact, offered to help in development and maybe for some specialized rules. We'll see. So far we have yet to have a conversation/ correspondence as such. Just shots fired off into the blue and hoping for some kind of return. 5. He did say that he would send me a copy of the playtest rules. I should have an opinion in a few days, with luck and depending on how he sent the rules. Steve Perrin From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jul 12 12:27:02 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:27:02 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ References: <21299642.1121046851639.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <034401c5863c$f488e860$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <003901c58689$441d2750$68417442@wizard> Dreamer ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > Hey, wouldn't it be neat if MRQ actually had runes or quests being > integral > to the game? > > --J > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Smart" > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:54 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ > > > Exactly. I'd rather see some adventures and world content that's > compatible > with the BRP rules. Or at least easily converted. > > David > > > Alban posted: > > Right now, I see no reason to ditch my own version of BRPS in favor of > this > new RQ. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jul 12 15:42:30 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:42:30 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Trade Rune Message-ID: Just been going through a list of RQ runes and note that Trade Rune, looks a bit like a H is not included in the runic font. Am I just looking skew or was that an omission? 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 pmj at comhem.se Tue Jul 12 16:26:55 2005 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:26:55 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Trade Rune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D362AF.5030708@comhem.se> The Trade Rune is the number sign (#) => [Shift]3 on a Swedish keyboard. Don't know were it is placed on an English keyboard. /Peter J Den, Tony T wrote: >Just been going through a list of RQ runes and note that Trade Rune, looks a >bit like a H is not included in the runic font. Am I just looking skew or >was that an omission? > > >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 aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Jul 12 19:02:31 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:02:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <034401c5863c$f488e860$3410fea9@home> Message-ID: <20050712090232.70006.qmail@web26102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Actually, there are plans for that in a section of Playtest rules, though no actual rules were written on the subjest. Alban J and/or Ellen a ?crit : Hey, wouldn't it be neat if MRQ actually had runes or quests being integral to the game? --J --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Jul 12 21:08:02 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:08:02 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <20050712090232.70006.qmail@web26102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20050712090232.70006.qmail@web26102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42D3A492.9010205@brinkdata.se> I've just read an interesting discussion on a Swedish RPG forum (forum.rollspel.nu). A guy had just bough RQ3 with the intention of stealing an idea or two for his house-rule set. He was very surprised when he found out that RQ, even though it's an almost 20 year old game, solved many problems in better ways than the more recent Swedish BRP spin-offs have done. The discussion then moved on to talk about why the Swedish games had drifted off so much from the original. From this lists perspective it's however another question that's interesting and that is: why is it that people still get hooked on RQ, after all it's an old game. What are the enduring qualities of RQ? The answers to those questions would perhaps answer the question of whether Mongoose's RQ project is needed or not. I think that one of the reasons RQ can still be seen as a "fresh" game is that it has a small core set of rules and that those rules does the job well. The rules are not bloated, they are simple but yet elegant and because of that there is little need of any "modernisation" so I think Mongoose needs to be careful so that they don't "overdevelop" their new version of RQ. /Peter Brink From aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Jul 12 21:46:54 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:46:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <42D3A492.9010205@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <20050712114654.96175.qmail@web26102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Peter Brink a ?crit : I've just read an interesting discussion on a Swedish RPG forum (forum.rollspel.nu). A guy had just bough RQ3 with the intention of stealing an idea or two for his house-rule set. He was very surprised when he found out that RQ, even though it's an almost 20 year old game, solved many problems in better ways than the more recent Swedish BRP spin-offs have done. The discussion then moved on to talk about why the Swedish games had drifted off so much from the original. >From this lists perspective it's however another question that's interesting and that is: why is it that people still get hooked on RQ, after all it's an old game. What are the enduring qualities of RQ? To me, the greatest strength of RuneQuest is that the rules are highly flexible. You can almost ditch whatever rule you don't like, and still have a very playable game. Another strength is the consistency of the stats/HP/MP system. --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From rjmeints at aol.com Tue Jul 12 23:05:46 2005 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:05:46 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New Mongoose RQ In-Reply-To: <20050712110857.7707822272B@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050712110857.7707822272B@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <8C754F98D593322-8E8-FEF9@FWM-R34.sysops.aol.com> Peter Maranci grows weary of the uncertainty... -------------------------------------------------- >"I'm getting awfully tired of all this. Right now, >I'm sick of the entire SUBJECT. >All this uncertainty is very trying." Sorry Peter, but uncertainty is a fact of life, although I can't be certain of that... After all, the roleplaying industry is hardly the sole owner of rumor, ego, personality conflicts, poor business decisions, business competition, alternate agendas, massive creativity, wishful thinking or any other number of things that happen in good old everyday life. In this case Mongoose is finding their way through playtesting a rules system that will probably go through a number of revisions and changes in direction, content, and scope. Come to think of it, this sounds a lot like my day job in IT. Considering that Runequest has been out of print since the 90's, and Chaosium has only stuck in a few toes to test the water with their BRP monographs, I would think all of the recent events related to the possibility of a Deluxe Basic Roleplaying book and a new Runequest game from Mongoose would be exciting, encouraging, and invigorating. If they aren't to your or anyone else's liking, you really won't be any worse off than were before either possibility came along. Peter then seeks information from Chaosium... ----------------------------------------------- >"By the way, I've written to Chaosium asking for confirmation >that they're not involved with the Mongoose RQ project. While anything is possible, I am quite certain that their involvement in the project will probably be 0.00%. They will be producing a competing product with their DBRP. Mongoose is a competitor of Chaosium. Issaries Inc. would almost certainly not want Chaosium involved. Being a small company, Chaosium probably has many much higher priorities. I wouldn't be surprised if Chaosium increases their efforts to get the DBRP book out several months before Mongoose releases their Runequest game. Getting to market first is a prudent strategy. Zomben (Ben) states: ------------------------------ >"I'm more interested in MRQ, simply because it sounds >like they'll be pumping out a bunch of material which >I can retrofit into RQIII." I agree. The supporting material that Chaosium and Mongoose will potentially be producing is of much more interest to me than the rules systems either will be publishing. Chaosium hasn't really said much about what material they may release to go along with their DBRP book, at least not beyond the fact that it will support a large number of genres like supers, sci-fi, etc. Mongoose hasn't said much either, including even what era of Gloranthan history it may choose to produce supplements for, or which non-gloranthan supplements either. It's early days though and it will be exciting to see which directions both companies go with their products to support their systems. There is a high probability that the DBRP book will basically be a lot like RQIII, if the monographs are anything to go by. I'm sure they will tweak it, but probably not too much. The Mongoose RQ could very well end up looking a lot like an RQ2/RQ3 hybrid, with a focus on a little less number crunching and swifter moving play. I could easily be totally wrong in both predictions though. Rick Meints www.glorantha.info From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 23:34:14 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:34:14 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Trade Rune Message-ID: * rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > Peter then seeks information from Chaosium... > ...I am quite certain that their involvement in the project will probably > be 0.00%. > No doubt. But I've already been snarked at and scolded for not having thoroughly documented everything I say on that thread over at RPGNet, so I'm going the extra mile. Chaosium hasn't replied to me, by the way; they almost never do. I'm not sure why that is. I actually have never met anyone who works there now, unless I ran into them at RQ Con 1 and forgot about it. I hope I didn't offend anyone back then! > There is a high probability that the DBRP book will basically be a lot > like RQIII, if the monographs are anything to go by. > Apparently they aren't. Jason posted that he and his co-author weren't made aware of the monograph reprints before they started work on DBRP, and that DBRP will NOT be RQIII nor (and I'm a little shaky on this), BASED on RQIII. I'm going to try to stop speculating about all this, though, because A) too many people have said one thing, and then reversed themselves (not you, Jason), B) the odds seem very good that there's some lying going on, and C) I'm sick of trying to figure out what everyone really means. It's not worth the tsuris. I'll see if I can become a playtester for both games, so at least I'll have a better idea of what's going on - even if I won't be able to talk about it. Oh, on another tack: someone asked about the Trade rune in the RQ font? I can confirm that it's #, i.e. shift-3. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed Jul 13 01:33:16 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:33:16 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Trade Rune Message-ID: Roger that. Wa sjust looking at a document detailing the runes and it looke dmore like a H with the cross piece extended than a hash #. Thanks for the info. T -----Original Message----- Peter Johansson e The Trade Rune is the number sign (#) => [Shift]3 on a Swedish keyboard. Don't know were it is placed on an English keyboard. /Peter J __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 03:14:01 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:14:01 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ In-Reply-To: <42D3A492.9010205@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Similarly to the Swedish Experience (LOL), I recently attended PolyCon in San Luis Obisbo, where I was talking to some game designers from Odins Eye who were pimping their game Sandstorm (or something like that) which was a D&D knock-off with their personal additions. As they were explaining the game concepts, I kept pointing out the ways RQ handled it better until finally I just pulled out my copy. As he browsed through the rules I kept hearing "Damn it! They handled XXXXXX better than we did & they did it 30 years ago!" or variants there of. It ended up rather than demo-ing their game they asked me to host an off the cuff RQ adventure which impressed them even more since it was so easy to do. RQ is still the best & most versatile game ever written. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Brink Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:08 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: New RQ I've just read an interesting discussion on a Swedish RPG forum (forum.rollspel.nu). A guy had just bough RQ3 with the intention of stealing an idea or two for his house-rule set. He was very surprised when he found out that RQ, even though it's an almost 20 year old game, solved many problems in better ways than the more recent Swedish BRP spin-offs have done. The discussion then moved on to talk about why the Swedish games had drifted off so much from the original. From this lists perspective it's however another question that's interesting and that is: why is it that people still get hooked on RQ, after all it's an old game. What are the enduring qualities of RQ? The answers to those questions would perhaps answer the question of whether Mongoose's RQ project is needed or not. I think that one of the reasons RQ can still be seen as a "fresh" game is that it has a small core set of rules and that those rules does the job well. The rules are not bloated, they are simple but yet elegant and because of that there is little need of any "modernisation" so I think Mongoose needs to be careful so that they don't "overdevelop" their new version of RQ. /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 From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 13 03:16:58 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Message-ID: Everyone, A few years ago I started engineering my own set of rules for a RQ like homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was performance improvements. Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict easier. For example one thing we have done is to switch to a d20 instead of %. We then had to make a mechanism to deal with skill increase and whatnot provide the same sort of increase granularity, but otherwise the conversion was pretty straiglforward. We found that adding modifiers and dealing with the math and even rolling is much faster. What sort of things have you guys done? -Andrew From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 13 03:56:18 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ Message-ID: Everyone, I generally prefer more magic in RQ than the default rules provide. So for example we do things like spells don't cost MP unless they go off or something like that. Has anyone else done anything like this? -Andrew From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 13 07:34:22 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:34:22 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Message-ID: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Andrew, Would you happen to have your modifications available on a website anywhere? My group's gaming time has become severely restricted and we're looking for ways to speed up combat without losing the BRP flavor we all enjoy. David -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Mellinger Sent: Jul 12, 2005 12:16 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Everyone, A few years ago I started engineering my own set of rules for a RQ like homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was performance improvements. Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict easier. For example one thing we have done is to switch to a d20 instead of %. We then had to make a mechanism to deal with skill increase and whatnot provide the same sort of increase granularity, but otherwise the conversion was pretty straiglforward. We found that adding modifiers and dealing with the math and even rolling is much faster. What sort of things have you guys done? From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 09:55:11 2005 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050712235511.62860.qmail@web53010.mail.yahoo.com> Meanwhile, I've been complicating things. I've increased the die roll to a D1,000,000. This way I can represent the proverbial one in a million shot... --- Andrew Mellinger wrote: > Everyone, > > A few years ago I started engineering my own set > of rules for a RQ like > homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was > performance improvements. > Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict > easier. > > For example one thing we have done is to switch > to a d20 instead of %. > We then had to make a mechanism to deal with skill > increase and whatnot > provide the same sort of increase granularity, but > otherwise the > conversion was pretty straiglforward. We found that > adding modifiers and > dealing with the math and even rolling is much > faster. > > What sort of things have you guys done? > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Jul 13 14:57:41 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57:41 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ References: Message-ID: <007301c58767$a38830c0$68417442@wizard> My current ideas on magic is that a spell that fails to go off does not cost MP. A spell that fumbles, of course, does. If the spell has some kind of outside activator, such as a projectile spell that needs a successful throw roll, if the spell roll is successful and the throw is not, too bad. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Mellinger" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:56 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ > Everyone, > > I generally prefer more magic in RQ than the default rules provide. So > for example we do things like spells don't cost MP unless they go off or > something like that. > > Has anyone else done anything like this? > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 13 22:18:54 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Yes and no. Unfortunately my homebrew is *significantly* changed. It has semblances to RQ but also has a ton of Harn and Ars Magica thrown in. It is currently at 250 pages so sifting through would probably be tedious for you. I can send the whole PDF if you want to try it. -ANdrew On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Smart wrote: > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:34:22 -0500 (GMT-05:00) > From: David Smart > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > Andrew, > > Would you happen to have your modifications available on a website anywhere? My group's gaming time has become severely restricted and we're looking for ways to speed up combat without losing the BRP flavor we all enjoy. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Mellinger > Sent: Jul 12, 2005 12:16 PM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > Everyone, > > A few years ago I started engineering my own set of rules for a RQ like > homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was performance improvements. > Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict easier. > > For example one thing we have done is to switch to a d20 instead of %. > We then had to make a mechanism to deal with skill increase and whatnot > provide the same sort of increase granularity, but otherwise the > conversion was pretty straiglforward. We found that adding modifiers and > dealing with the math and even rolling is much faster. > > What sort of things have you guys done? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 14 00:49:33 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:49:33 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Yes and no. Unfortunately my homebrew is *significantly* changed. It has semblances to RQ but also has a ton of Harn and Ars Magica thrown in. It is currently at 250 pages so sifting through would probably be tedious for you. I can send the whole PDF if you want to try it. -ANdrew Heck, Andrew, If you're sending something around, could I get a copy too? :) -Ken- From zomben at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 01:47:09 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ In-Reply-To: <007301c58767$a38830c0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <20050713154709.82248.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Steve, On a fumble, do you charge the full MP cost, or just one point? --- Stephen Perrin wrote: > My current ideas on magic is that a spell that fails > to go off does not cost > MP. A spell that fumbles, of course, does. If the > spell has some kind of > outside activator, such as a projectile spell that > needs a successful throw > roll, if the spell roll is successful and the throw > is not, too bad. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Mellinger" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:56 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ > > > > Everyone, > > > > I generally prefer more magic in RQ than the > default rules provide. So > > for example we do things like spells don't cost MP > unless they go off or > > something like that. > > > > Has anyone else done anything like this? > > > > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From zomben at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 01:58:01 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: Re: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ Message-ID: <20050713155801.78278.qmail@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Steve's answer to my question, forwarded below... Note: forwarded message attached. Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jul 14 02:04:40 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: BE WARNED: This is a very complex version at this point. It has many optional rules, and additional systems that make is significantly heavier than RQ. We put in all the rules we wanted/like and now we are rendering things down. This is a work in progress and not in any way close to finished. I would appreciate feedback beyond "This is too complex." http://www.crashbox.com/aq/andrewquest.pdf -Andrew On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 murfnmurf at suscom.net wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:49:33 -0400 > From: murfnmurf at suscom.net > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. , > David Smart > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > Yes and no. Unfortunately my homebrew is *significantly* > changed. It has semblances to RQ but also has a ton of > Harn and Ars Magica thrown in. It is currently at 250 > pages so sifting through would probably be tedious for > you. > I can send the whole PDF if you want to try it. > -ANdrew > > Heck, Andrew, > If you're sending something around, could I get a copy too? :) > -Ken- > _______________________________________________ > 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 nphillis at shaw.ca Thu Jul 14 02:15:44 2005 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <006601c587c6$1f464360$0e334d18@wp.shawcable.net> Tried to open the pdf, but your link (crashbox) needs a user name/password.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Mellinger" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Cc: "David Smart" Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > BE WARNED: This is a very complex version at this point. It has many > optional rules, and additional systems that make is significantly heavier > than RQ. We put in all the rules we wanted/like and now we are rendering > things down. This is a work in progress and not in any way close to finished. > > I would appreciate feedback beyond "This is too complex." > > http://www.crashbox.com/aq/andrewquest.pdf > > -Andrew > From slposey at concentric.net Thu Jul 14 02:11:06 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:11:06 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42D53D1A.5000803@concentric.net> Andrew Mellinger wrote: > Yes and no. Unfortunately my homebrew is *significantly* changed. It > has semblances to RQ but also has a ton of Harn and Ars Magica thrown > in. It is currently at 250 pages so sifting through would probably be > tedious for you. > > I can send the whole PDF if you want to try it. Picasso is sometimes quoted "If you're going to steal, steal from the best". Both Harn and Ars Magica are highly respectable systems to use as source material, IMO. Sounds like an interesting fusion, I for one would like to see it. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Thu Jul 14 02:14:27 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:14:27 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: <006601c587c6$1f464360$0e334d18@wp.shawcable.net> References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <006601c587c6$1f464360$0e334d18@wp.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <42D53DE3.1020108@concentric.net> Newton Philis wrote: > Tried to open the pdf, but your link (crashbox) needs a user > name/password.... Ditto. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Thu Jul 14 02:20:35 2005 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:20:35 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Message-ID: <66843F9F2730F9468F0418D28D17866CC131DE@frpar-exch1.eu.uis.unisys.com> Ditto here, Tried to use the RQList authentification :D but didn't work :( Cordialement Pascal Dury -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Stephen Posey Envoy? : mercredi 13 juillet 2005 18:14 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Newton Philis wrote: > Tried to open the pdf, but your link (crashbox) needs a user > name/password.... Ditto. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jul 14 02:33:23 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: <006601c587c6$1f464360$0e334d18@wp.shawcable.net> References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <006601c587c6$1f464360$0e334d18@wp.shawcable.net> Message-ID: Sorry everyone. I *did* test it, but my browser retained my login/password. Please try: http://www.crashbox.com/andrew/andrewquest.pdf -Andrew On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Newton Philis wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:15:44 -0500 > From: Newton Philis > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > Tried to open the pdf, but your link (crashbox) needs a user > name/password.... > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Mellinger" > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Cc: "David Smart" > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements > > >> >> BE WARNED: This is a very complex version at this point. It has many >> optional rules, and additional systems that make is significantly heavier >> than RQ. We put in all the rules we wanted/like and now we are rendering >> things down. This is a work in progress and not in any way close to > finished. >> >> I would appreciate feedback beyond "This is too complex." >> >> http://www.crashbox.com/aq/andrewquest.pdf >> >> -Andrew >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 03:02:54 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:02:54 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Likewise I would love a copy too. Thank you, Sven -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of murfnmurf at suscom.net Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:50 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion.; David Smart Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements Yes and no. Unfortunately my homebrew is *significantly* changed. It has semblances to RQ but also has a ton of Harn and Ars Magica thrown in. It is currently at 250 pages so sifting through would probably be tedious for you. I can send the whole PDF if you want to try it. -ANdrew Heck, Andrew, If you're sending something around, could I get a copy too? :) -Ken- _______________________________________________ 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 03:15:03 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:15:03 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: More magic in RQ Message-ID: *zomben (zomben at yahoo.com ) wrote: > Steve's answer to my question, forwarded below... Um...I don't see anything. We really need to figure out a way to let Steve post directly from work. :D ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jul 14 03:20:31 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: More magic in RQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is the problem? -Andrew On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Peter Maranci wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:15:03 -0400 > From: Peter Maranci > To: RuneQuest-Rules > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: More magic in RQ > > *zomben (zomben at yahoo.com ) wrote: > >> Steve's answer to my question, forwarded below... > > > > Um...I don't see anything. > We really need to figure out a way to let Steve post directly from work. > :D > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 03:21:25 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:21:25 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] History of RQ updated Message-ID: It's not the complete rewrite that I still plan to do, but I've made some major additions and revisions to the "History of RuneQuest" article. As always, comments and corrections are welcome. And thanks, Steve, for letting me put that "early RQ" info up. http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm I also revised the "What is RuneQuest" article, in large part by moving some out-of-place material from the History piece into it. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From zomben at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 03:31:21 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: Re: [RQ-Rules] More magic in RQ Message-ID: <20050713173121.58551.qmail@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> D'oh! The message I sent went as an attachment. Here's Steve's answer: Hi Ben, I generally charge the full cost. Most of the time I come up with some creative (I hope) way of showing the spell worked, just not the way it was intended. Could you please forward this to the list, as I have my usual problem with posting to the list from work. Steve Perrin > -----Original Message----- > From: zomben at yahoo.com > To: Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From murfnmurf at suscom.net Thu Jul 14 04:30:38 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:30:38 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I would appreciate feedback beyond "This is too complex." http://www.crashbox.com/aq/andrewquest.pdf I can get only so far. Then it tells me I'm not authorized :( -Ken- From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 04:48:10 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050713184810.99311.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> I got the same blockage - in Spanish and English! Paul Cardwell --- murfnmurf at suscom.net wrote: > I would appreciate feedback beyond "This is too > complex." > > http://www.crashbox.com/aq/andrewquest.pdf > > > I can get only so far. Then it tells me I'm not > authorized :( > -Ken- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From murfnmurf at suscom.net Thu Jul 14 04:49:59 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:49:59 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Performance improvements In-Reply-To: References: <792329.1121204062957.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I can get only so far. Then it tells me I'm not authorized :( -Ken- Okay, went to the corrected URL, and everything worked out fine :) -Ken- From floor13 at bayarea.net Thu Jul 14 16:14:01 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:14:01 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Andrewquest References: <20050713170425.5F2EA2226FE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <001301c5883b$3b506660$6742dbcd@alphamind> Hi Andrew; Alas, all I got was a broken image icon when I tried the second URL. Would love to see it! From floor13 at bayarea.net Thu Jul 14 16:36:41 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:36:41 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements References: <20050713074625.C4E3822271A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <001e01c5883e$65c84220$6742dbcd@alphamind> > From: Andrew Mellinger > Everyone, > > A few years ago I started engineering my own set of rules for a RQ like > homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was performance improvements. > Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict easier. RQ got "homebrewed" gradually over the last 20 years to where I'm at with it now. Where it is now (off the top of my head): Combat is now more "Stormbringer" than RQ. Hit locations are gone (but retained as optionals for special cases). Eliminated critical hits but retained Impale and the Slash and Crush options - so those are now the "critical" hits. Armor is an average of the AP the character is wearing. Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries that came with it. Gave a more generous hit point bonus. --- most of this is because we wanted a more "D&D" like kind of campaign, where the characters were less brittle, a little more superheroic - BUT not falling into the D&D "Oh, I'm tenth level - watch me wipe out an army of orcs single-handed" thing. PCs can be rolled up any reasonable way the players want (3d6, 4d6 and drop lowest, whatever); or they can use a GURPS-type points system if they prefer. Also included some of the advantages/disadvantages from GURPS, as an option. NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always will. Also now use a FileMaker Pro file to complete character generation - player provides the stats - plug `em into FMPro and it does all the calculations for you. Also use it to modify for XP checks. Saves a lot of time! And it prints out character sheets for us. I want to stress that I don't consider any of these things to be "improvements" in any way. They're just modifications made in order to meet some particular preferences. RQ as it is is superb. I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha model. I've been developing a campiagn background with a kind of fantasy/Celtic feel for several years now, and the sticking point was mainly the religious and magic systems. I really couldn't wrap my head around it until I decided to stop trying to develop Glorantha-style cults and instead take what I learned from GOG etc to develop something that felt more right for my setting. GURPS Celtic Myth helped a lot in the magic system, too --- currently tweaking the Sorcery system to something along the lines of the "Tree Magic" system in that book. The thing I have always loved about BRP is that it's simple and fast, and if you want to modify, change, or create new rules its very easy and very intuitive to do so - as opposed to AD&D (where I started - probably very much like many of you) where you had to basically reinvent the wheel to deal with anything not already covered in the books. From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Jul 14 19:36:24 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:36:24 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb Message-ID: Planning a session where the party and the wee cohort they are in is going to come up against a spot of the old Greek Fire and or Naphtha (still deciding which). As a rule of thumb, I was considering using normal fire damage, but adding a duration - possible based on a dice roll or maybe on extent of exposure (How long you were exposed etc). This should simulate the fire sticking to the character. Any ideas, reasons why damage should differ from normal fire damage? Don't want to annulated the cohort mind. I think technically naphtha will just stick and burn normally, but from descriptions of Greek fire I have read, it seems it may have some sort of possessive qualities to it as well, so maybe add an extra point or two to normal fire damage. PS - Keep on saying normal fire damage as I am at work and don't have the exact rules with me. 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 andrew at crashbox.com Thu Jul 14 23:31:51 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements In-Reply-To: <001e01c5883e$65c84220$6742dbcd@alphamind> References: <20050713074625.C4E3822271A@boomstick.screwheads.net> <001e01c5883e$65c84220$6742dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Alan K. Crandall wrote: > Combat is now more "Stormbringer" than RQ. Hit locations are gone (but > retained as optionals for special cases). > Eliminated critical hits but retained Impale and the Slash and Crush > options - so those are now the "critical" hits. > Armor is an average of the AP the character is wearing. When I was playing a stormbringer game a few years back we made a table that generages an armor randomizer based on the pieces instead of an average. I'll dig it up and try to send it. > Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries > that came with it. > Gave a more generous hit point bonus. > > --- most of this is because we wanted a more "D&D" like kind of campaign, > where the characters were less brittle, a little more superheroic - BUT not > falling into the D&D "Oh, I'm tenth level - watch me wipe out an army of > orcs single-handed" thing. Right we've tried to do that too but keep the the lethality. One of the central focus of AQ was the ability to support characters with skills well above 100% and even play superheroes up in the 400% percent. I borrowed some ideas from Mr. Perrin and reworked them to d20. > NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept > insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate > description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always > will. I've always had problems with CHA. I think that CHA is such a complicated aspect that I've never liked having it as an attribute. Big discussion here, this could use a new thread. > I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha > model. Absolutely. Glorantha has such a special feel that it is hard to work with. Harn also has a really different feel, and it is nice to contrast the two. -Andrew From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jul 15 01:34:50 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:34:50 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D6861A.5030607@concentric.net> Den, Tony T wrote: > Planning a session where the party and the wee cohort they are in is going > to come up against a spot of the old Greek Fire and or Naphtha (still > deciding which). As a rule of thumb, I was considering using normal fire > damage, but adding a duration - possible based on a dice roll or maybe on > extent of exposure (How long you were exposed etc). This should simulate the > fire sticking to the character. > > Any ideas, reasons why damage should differ from normal fire damage? Don't > want to annulated the cohort mind. I think technically naphtha will just > stick and burn normally, but from descriptions of Greek fire I have read, it > seems it may have some sort of possessive qualities to it as well, so maybe > add an extra point or two to normal fire damage. Arguably standard fire damage is based on the temperature of "normal" fire (e.g. burning wood or oil) which is relatively cool as fire goes. The reputation of Greek Fire was that it burned very hot, which could equate to additional damage. It was also supposed to be very hard to douse and so would tend to burn at full effect until its chemical fuel was consumed (at which point it would become a normal fire, subject to dousing, if it was stuck to combustibles). So your idea regarding duration is probably also on target. As a first pass on "rules", one could assign Fire a Potency (POT) much like poisons. Normal fire would rate average (e.g. 9-11), Greek Fire might be a 15 or 16. There might be magical fires even more powerful. Conversely a smoldering fire in damp vegetable matter might rate a only 6 or 7. You could then compare the POTx2 on the Damage Bonus table to get a modifier to standard fire damage. Because of Greek Fire's nature, you might also consider determining hit locations where the GF has stuck and apply damage to the locations separately. Duration should probably be determined based on the volume of GF involved. Something like one Round per Liter of GF or some such. How's that sound? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 01:56:41 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:56:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb In-Reply-To: <20050714133205.D6E4E2226ED@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050714155641.59453.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Tony Den: > Planning a session where the party and the wee cohort they are in is going > to come up against a spot of the old Greek Fire and or Naphtha (still > deciding which). As a rule of thumb, I was considering using normal fire > damage, but adding a duration - possible based on a dice roll or maybe on > extent of exposure (How long you were exposed etc). This should simulate > the > fire sticking to the character. > > Any ideas, reasons why damage should differ from normal fire damage? Don't > want to annulated the cohort mind. I think technically naphtha will just > stick and burn normally, but from descriptions of Greek fire I have read, > it > seems it may have some sort of possessive qualities to it as well, so maybe > add an extra point or two to normal fire damage. > > PS - Keep on saying normal fire damage as I am at work and don't have the > exact rules with me. For fiery balls thrown or catapulted, we used to use a straight 3D6 damage to 1D6 locations for 1D6 rounds, or until the person managed to brush off the burning material. Perhaps something sticky would be harder to get off or lasts for 2D6 rounds. Also, we played that damage was cumulative until it got through any armour, then it went direct - this simulated the armour getting hotter and hotter until it was burned away or fell off. What is even better is to stick a Salamander in the fireball as well, that way you get damage to general hits instead and it can move to someone else. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jul 15 02:02:57 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:02:57 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements In-Reply-To: <001e01c5883e$65c84220$6742dbcd@alphamind> References: <20050713074625.C4E3822271A@boomstick.screwheads.net> <001e01c5883e$65c84220$6742dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: <42D68CB1.9050801@concentric.net> Alan K. Crandall wrote: >>From: Andrew Mellinger >>Everyone, >> >> A few years ago I started engineering my own set of rules for a RQ like >>homebrew. One of the areas I focused on was performance improvements. >>Like how do I roll fewer dice, or resolve a conflict easier. > > > RQ got "homebrewed" gradually over the last 20 years to where I'm at with it > now. Where it is now (off the top of my head): > > Combat is now more "Stormbringer" than RQ. Hit locations are gone (but > retained as optionals for special cases). > Eliminated critical hits but retained Impale and the Slash and Crush > options - so those are now the "critical" hits. > Armor is an average of the AP the character is wearing. > Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries > that came with it. I've been working sporadically on adapting the Warhammer FRP critical injury system into an alternative Major Wound determination. Using something like that would fall somewhere inbetween old style RQ hit locations and the undetermined default Stormbringer/Elric! approach. > Gave a more generous hit point bonus. One thing I've been toying with here is drawing a distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage (an idea borrowed from FGU's Aftermath!). Both come off HP, but non-lethal points recover more quickly. > PCs can be rolled up any reasonable way the players want (3d6, 4d6 and drop > lowest, whatever); or they can use a GURPS-type points system if they > prefer. Also included some of the advantages/disadvantages from GURPS, as > an option. I've tried including GURPS advantages/disadvantages and found you had to be pretty careful and selective on which were permissable. Some just plain don't make sense in the BRP model, others are too unbalancing (some of them are even unbalancing in GURPS). Which GURPS advs/disadvs do you permit? How are you determining the number of starting points and how do they equate to BRP/RQ characteristics? > NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept > insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate > description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always > will. I can see a role for both of them personally. > I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha > model. I've been developing a campiagn background with a kind of > fantasy/Celtic feel for several years now, and the sticking point was mainly > the religious and magic systems. I really couldn't wrap my head around it > until I decided to stop trying to develop Glorantha-style cults and instead > take what I learned from GOG etc to develop something that felt more right > for my setting. GURPS Celtic Myth helped a lot in the magic system, too --- > currently tweaking the Sorcery system to something along the lines of the > "Tree Magic" system in that book. That sounds very cool, do you have any writeups of that? BTW if anyone is interested, on my RPG web space I have pdfs of a couple of articles from old White Dwarf magazines with some "Celtic" flavored "Rune" spells: http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Gamelinks.htm > The thing I have always loved about BRP is that it's simple and fast, and if > you want to modify, change, or create new rules its very easy and very > intuitive to do so - as opposed to AD&D (where I started - probably very > much like many of you) where you had to basically reinvent the wheel to deal > with anything not already covered in the books. I think the major distinction is the "modularity" of BRP, it's generally fairly straightforward to replace a major system in the game without adversely affecting other systems. D&D/D20 suffers from many of its systems being so tightly interlocked and interdependent that its usually hard to extract one without having to address things breaking elsewhere. The major sticky point for me is that so many effects in the game are based on "Level" that most versions of the game end up including some equivalent of Levels, even if "Classes" per se are absent. I've seen some valiant attempts at replacing the "armor class/level based HP" combat system with something more BRP-like (armor protects vs. damage, limits on HP); but all I've seen feel klugey and include caveats for other game mechanics that have to be tweaked or disallowed for the alternate system to work. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jul 15 02:08:16 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:08:16 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Andrewquest In-Reply-To: <001301c5883b$3b506660$6742dbcd@alphamind> References: <20050713170425.5F2EA2226FE@boomstick.screwheads.net> <001301c5883b$3b506660$6742dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: <42D68DF0.5050903@concentric.net> Alan K. Crandall wrote: > Hi Andrew; > > Alas, all I got was a broken image icon when I tried the second URL. Would > love to see it! The file is fairly large and time consuming to download, if your Browser timed out that could explain the broken image result, it took a couple of tries for me to get it completely. Andrew: in addition to providing a direct URL to the .PDF, can you also add a link to it in one of your pages? That would allow folks to treat it as a download rather than having the Browser try to open the file internally which is more likely to time out. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Jul 15 02:11:24 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:11:24 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb Message-ID: Sound sgood, kinda along the lines Iw as thinking, but with some nice ideas. Cheers mate. -----Original Message----- Stephen Posey Arguably standard fire damage is based on the temperature of "normal" fire (e.g. burning wood or oil) which is relatively cool as fire goes. The reputation of Greek Fire was that it burned very hot, which could equate to additional damage. It was also supposed to be very hard to douse and so would tend to burn at full effect until its chemical fuel was consumed (at which point it would become a normal fire, subject to dousing, if it was stuck to combustibles). So your idea regarding duration is probably also on target. As a first pass on "rules", one could assign Fire a Potency (POT) much like poisons. Normal fire would rate average (e.g. 9-11), Greek Fire might be a 15 or 16. There might be magical fires even more powerful. Conversely a smoldering fire in damp vegetable matter might rate a only 6 or 7. You could then compare the POTx2 on the Damage Bonus table to get a modifier to standard fire damage. Because of Greek Fire's nature, you might also consider determining hit locations where the GF has stuck and apply damage to the locations separately. Duration should probably be determined based on the volume of GF involved. Something like one Round per Liter of GF or some such. How's that sound? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 andrew at crashbox.com Fri Jul 15 02:21:49 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Andrewquest In-Reply-To: <42D68DF0.5050903@concentric.net> References: <20050713170425.5F2EA2226FE@boomstick.screwheads.net> <001301c5883b$3b506660$6742dbcd@alphamind> <42D68DF0.5050903@concentric.net> Message-ID: Done. On my homepage you can find a link to andrewquest. http://www.crashbox.com/andrew Look for AndrewQuest. -Andrew On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Stephen Posey wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:08:16 -0600 > From: Stephen Posey > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Andrewquest > > Alan K. Crandall wrote: > >> Hi Andrew; >> >> Alas, all I got was a broken image icon when I tried the second URL. >> Would >> love to see it! > > The file is fairly large and time consuming to download, if your Browser > timed out that could explain the broken image result, it took a couple of > tries for me to get it completely. > > Andrew: in addition to providing a direct URL to the .PDF, can you also add a > link to it in one of your pages? > > That would allow folks to treat it as a download rather than having the > Browser try to open the file internally which is more likely to time out. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Jul 15 02:24:58 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:24:58 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb Message-ID: <20904262.1121358298425.JavaMail.root@wamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> True, but sometimes it can be fun to use BRPS for a fairly historical (i.e. primitive tech, no magic) campaign. That's how I brought a couple ancients tabletop battles buddies over to the Dark Si..er.. RuneQuest. Excellent discussion, all. Greek fire will add some "oomph" to the dwarves in my campaign without my having to open up the "gunpowder" can of worms. David -----Original Message----- From: Simon Phipp Sent: Jul 14, 2005 10:56 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Naphtha & Greek Fire rule of thumb What is even better is to stick a Salamander in the fireball as well, that way you get damage to general hits instead and it can move to someone else. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 08:53:26 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:53:26 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? Message-ID: Quick question: does anyone know what happened to Ken Rolston? I just noticed that I have no idea why he was running RQ for Avalon Hill at one point, shepherding in the RuneQuest Renassance, and the next minute he was gone. It leaves kind of a gap in the History article, a gap I'd like to fill. To be honest, I'd also love to know what HAPPENED to everyone who used to work on RQ in the old days. Where are they all? Of course I don't mean you, Steve. And I have some idea where Greg and Charlie are. :D But what about everyone else? Just wondering! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 11:37:19 2005 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050715013719.64229.qmail@web53003.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Mellinger wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Alan K. Crandall wrote: > > > Combat is now more "Stormbringer" than RQ. Hit > locations are gone (but > > retained as optionals for special cases). > > Eliminated critical hits but retained Impale and > the Slash and Crush > > options - so those are now the "critical" hits. > > Armor is an average of the AP the character is > wearing. > > When I was playing a stormbringer game a few years > back we made a table > that generages an armor randomizer based on the > pieces instead of an > average. I'll dig it up and try to send it. Hey Andrew, if you do dig this up, I'd love to see it. I did something similar awhile ago but ended up scraping it. I'd love to see a system that worked. -Shea __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From zomben at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 00:28:17 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050715142817.9811.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I've no idea what happened to Ken. Sandy Petersen is now working for Ensemble Studios, designing computer games. William Dunn is also in the computer games industry, though I'm not 100% sure where. My own input into the RQ line was minimal (worked at Chaosium from 1987-1990) so probably not worth including in your history. Who else are you trying to track down? --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Quick question: does anyone know what happened to > Ken Rolston? I just > noticed that I have no idea why he was running RQ > for Avalon Hill at > one point, shepherding in the RuneQuest Renassance, > and the next > minute he was gone. It leaves kind of a gap in the > History article, a > gap I'd like to fill. > > To be honest, I'd also love to know what HAPPENED to > everyone who used > to work on RQ in the old days. Where are they all? > Of course I don't > mean you, Steve. And I have some idea where Greg and > Charlie are. :D > > But what about everyone else? > > Just wondering! > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sat Jul 16 00:52:26 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:52:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? Message-ID: Zomben ( Peter ) >I've no idea what happened to Ken. The Moby Games "Rapsheet" for him Google pulled up suggests he's working in Computer Games for Bethesda, Ubisoft or Mindscapes. He gets credits on the recent Elder Scrolls / Morrowind titles IIRC. >My own input into the RQ line was minimal (worked at >Chaosium from 1987-1990) so probably not worth >including in your history. Well, you did some good stuff for Cthulhu and even if I didn't like the end result, Stormbringer 4th edition was a good concept... :D Cheers, Nick Middleton From zomben at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 01:46:56 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050715154656.17419.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Well, you did some good stuff for Cthulhu and even > if I didn't like the end > result, Stormbringer 4th edition was a good > concept... :D Thanks! Yeah, I really wanted to do more of an overhaul of the book, but TPTB weren't interested in many of my ideas. So, in the end I just got to revise the magic system. It's one of those things where I can look back on it now, 15 years later, and I know exactly what I was trying to get at, but just didn't know how to explain it at the time. Ah well. That's what happens when you're 20, I suppose. Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jul 16 02:00:42 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:00:42 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? In-Reply-To: <20050715154656.17419.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050715154656.17419.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42D7DDAA.1020204@concentric.net> zomben wrote: >>Well, you did some good stuff for Cthulhu and even >>if I didn't like the end >>result, Stormbringer 4th edition was a good >>concept... :D > > > Thanks! > > Yeah, I really wanted to do more of an overhaul of the > book, but TPTB weren't interested in many of my ideas. > So, in the end I just got to revise the magic system. > It's one of those things where I can look back on it > now, 15 years later, and I know exactly what I was > trying to get at, but just didn't know how to explain > it at the time. Ah well. That's what happens when > you're 20, I suppose. Care to elaborate on what you would have done if they'd let you? How would it compare with how Elric!/SB5e turned out? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From zomben at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 02:16:33 2005 From: zomben at yahoo.com (zomben) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] What happened to Ken Rolston? In-Reply-To: <42D7DDAA.1020204@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20050715161633.7700.qmail@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Okay... Well, remember this was like 15 years ago, and I don't remember everything I wanted to do... That being said, my main things were these: 1) revise the magic system. Which I did. I wanted the magic to feel more like that portrayed in the stories, with less emphasis on Demon Magic. My initial idea was actually very much like an Ars Magica system. In the end, it was agreed that we could jsut get rid of classes of demons and go for a more menu-driven system. My hope was that people might not think of "The RIng of Kings" as a demon bound into a ring, but just as a cool magical rign that gave its wearer cool powers. 2) revise the backgrounds. One of the things I remember from playtesting, was how many of my friends got pissed off because they kept rolling up farmers. I was going to ditch a lot of the background packages, and boil them down to ones that we actually saw in the stories (Sailor, Warrior, Scholar, etc.). Also, I was probably going to do away with random occupations and nationalities, and just allow players to choose what they wanted to be. I think I was going to have an "Other" occupation that would allow you to customize your skills, etc. so if you really wanted to play a farmer, you could. 3) Lastly, I wanted to codify the whole book. The thing was, SB3 was a combination of the original SB boxed set rules, along with the Demon Magic and SBC supplements. It was really a bunch of material sort of smashed together with no rhyme or reason. I had wanted to combine all of the material together as much as possible. In the end, there just wasn't time to make all the changes I wanted to (we got screwed over when GW decided to drop SB, and we were going to have to print it ourselves) so I had to choose the most important ones, which I decided was the overhaul of the magic system. --- Stephen Posey wrote: > zomben wrote: > > >>Well, you did some good stuff for Cthulhu and even > >>if I didn't like the end > >>result, Stormbringer 4th edition was a good > >>concept... :D > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Yeah, I really wanted to do more of an overhaul of > the > > book, but TPTB weren't interested in many of my > ideas. > > So, in the end I just got to revise the magic > system. > > It's one of those things where I can look back on > it > > now, 15 years later, and I know exactly what I was > > trying to get at, but just didn't know how to > explain > > it at the time. Ah well. That's what happens > when > > you're 20, I suppose. > > Care to elaborate on what you would have done if > they'd let you? > > How would it compare with how Elric!/SB5e turned > out? > > 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 > Ben Monroe Certified Zombie Expert ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 03:04:42 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:04:42 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] New RQ Setting Poll Message-ID: I've put up a new poll on the settings you use or would like to see for RuneQuest. It's "RuneQuest Settings" at http://www.runequest.org/quizpoll.htm . Oh, and I have, once again, updated and cleaned the History of RQ page. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 03:16:02 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:16:02 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What happened to Ken Rolston? Message-ID: *zomben (zomben at yahoo.com) wrote: > Who else are you trying to track down? Not trying to track down, just curious. A lot of those guys are just old names I read about in old RQ books, and I've always been a little curious about them. I did game with ONE guy who claimed to have hung out with the old Chaosium crowd, but I have my doubts - wait a second. Is he here? Steve Levine? Just checking...he's not the sort of guy you want to piss off. Although believe me, I could tell some stories... :D Anyway, I quite liked Alan LaVergne's two Gloranthan detective stories, for example, and I always wondered if he'd written any more. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 14:19:38 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:19:38 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm wondering if I was right. So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 16 14:31:13 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:31:13 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D88D91.9070301@sbcglobal.net> Peter Maranci wrote: >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > > I'm 44. Started playing D&D in 1976, the white box edition. Picked up RQ 1 in 1979, and was instantly hooked. Guy From bobathome at aqfl.com Sat Jul 16 14:54:49 2005 From: bobathome at aqfl.com (Bob Eldred) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:54:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm 37. Been a huge fan of RuneQuest since I first played it in 1986, which might make me one of the latecomers around here. -----Original Message----- So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 16 14:57:58 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: <42D88D91.9070301@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20050716045759.87270.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > Peter Maranci wrote: > > >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were > probably older, on > >average, than fans of most other systems; > particularly D&D. Now I'm > >wondering if I was right. > > > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, > of course. > > > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > > > > > I'm 44. Started playing D&D in 1976, the white box > edition. Picked up RQ > 1 in 1979, and was instantly hooked. > I'm 37. Started RQ II in 1981 at my junior high library. ... and would you believe, never played in Glorantha until last night.... Now that must be some sort of record! Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jul 16 15:29:26 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:29:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D89B36.3090700@concentric.net> Peter Maranci wrote: > I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on > average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm > wondering if I was right. > > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > > I'll start off: I'm 41. 45. I started rpging with original "White Box" D&D back in 1977. A friend introduced me to RQ in '80 or '81 and I never looked back. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From murfnmurf at suscom.net Sat Jul 16 15:51:45 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:51:45 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. 43 1/2 right now. -Ken Murphy- From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 15:58:04 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:58:04 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm 50+ & if you read Steve's History, I've been lucky enough to be part of the RQ community since the original playtest rules. I started playing Historical Wargaming since 1959 & played D&D when it was called Chainmail. RQ is still my favorite set of rules. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:20 PM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm wondering if I was right. So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jul 16 16:00:46 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:00:46 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? References: <42D89B36.3090700@concentric.net> Message-ID: <00b401c589cb$c5747fc0$68417442@wizard> Well, at 59, I think I have a very young following... :) Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: "Peter Maranci" ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? > Peter Maranci wrote: >> I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >> average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >> wondering if I was right. >> >> So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. >> >> I'll start off: I'm 41. > > 45. I started rpging with original "White Box" D&D back in 1977. > > A friend introduced me to RQ in '80 or '81 and I never looked back. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr Sat Jul 16 16:13:19 2005 From: s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_FRANCOIS?=) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:13:19 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D8A57F.8070006@wanadoo.fr> Peter Maranci a ?crit : >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > >->Peter > > At 35 I'm the youngest to answer so far... Never expected this on a RPG mailing list ! From nshapero at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 16 16:36:51 2005 From: nshapero at ix.netcom.com (Niall Shapero) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:36:51 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 References: <20050716045815.DB9D522272F@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <001d01c589d0$c0348f00$4fa8e704@hppav> > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:19:38 -0400 > From: Peter Maranci > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? > To: RuneQuest-Rules > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on > average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm > wondering if I was right. > > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > > I'll start off: I'm 41. > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm I was in grad school when D&D came out, and working as a senior software engineer when RuneQuest made its appearance. I'm one of these old timers (crotchety and irritable, grumpier and grumpier as the years go by) -- and I clock in at age 55. And while I don't play RQ per se any more, I use similar skills based systems for my games. I still run my OTHER SUNS campaign and an odd-ball near-future/near-past (early 22nd century meets an equivalent 1942-43 Earth) thing -- the OS campaign has been going on for about 26 years (two of the original playtesters are still in the campaign) and the odd-ball future/past thing has been going on for about seven or eight years. -- N. C. Shapero From floor13 at bayarea.net Sat Jul 16 16:52:54 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:52:54 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements Message-ID: <00cd01c589d2$fe98ee60$7d42dbcd@alphamind> From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements >> PCs can be rolled up any reasonable way the players want (3d6, 4d6 and drop >> lowest, whatever); or they can use a GURPS-type points system if they >> prefer. Also included some of the advantages/disadvantages from GURPS, as >> an option. >I've tried including GURPS advantages/disadvantages and found you >had to be pretty careful and selective on which were permissable. >Some just plain don't make sense in the BRP model, others are too >unbalancing (some of them are even unbalancing in GURPS). >Which GURPS advs/disadvs do you permit? Look at the end of this message - there's my notes on which ones I've kept and how they're applied. >How are you determining the number of starting points and how do >they equate to BRP/RQ characteristics? For what we're doing now, they start off with 94 points and they divvy that up however they wish among the seven characteristics. Advantages or disadvantages come out of (or add to) points used to purchase skills. Some advantages got dropped because they're otherwise covered by things like CHA, and some just because they don't fit or I don't like them. Fortunately, I play with long-time, trusted mature friends, so a lot of "unbalancing" stuff isn't a concern - none of us are interested in having "supercharacters" or unfair advantages. >> NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept >> insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate >> description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always >> will. >> I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha >> model. I've been developing a campiagn background with a kind of >> fantasy/Celtic feel for several years now, and the sticking point was mainly >> the religious and magic systems. I really couldn't wrap my head around it >> until I decided to stop trying to develop Glorantha-style cults and instead >> take what I learned from GOG etc to develop something that felt more right >> for my setting. GURPS Celtic Myth helped a lot in the magic system, too --- >> currently tweaking the Sorcery system to something along the lines of the >> "Tree Magic" system in that book. >That sounds very cool, do you have any writeups of that? Only in longhand notebooks right now. I'll try to get some of it up in the future. I have those pdfs you mention - in fact I'm pretty sure I snatched `em off your website a couple years ago! They gave me a lot of useful ideas. >I think the major distinction is the "modularity" of BRP, it's >generally fairly straightforward to replace a major system in the >game without adversely affecting other systems. I can't fairly comment on D&D/D20 - my last D&D experience goes back to AD&D. I've skimmed through the new D&D - and the main thought I have is "gee --- these guys took a LOT from RQ." >I've seen some valiant attempts at replacing the "armor >class/level based HP" combat system with something more BRP-like >(armor protects vs. damage, limits on HP); but all I've seen feel >klugey and include caveats for other game mechanics that have to >be tweaked or disallowed for the alternate system to work. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the best thing ever done, I've stuck with BRP all these years cause I haven't seen anything I personally liked better. And at this point I'm not in the market for anything new. From: Andrew Mellinger Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements >When I was playing a stormbringer game a few years back we made a table >that generages an armor randomizer based on the pieces instead of an >average. I'll dig it up and try to send it. I'd be interested in seeing it. I discarded the random armor from "Stormbringer" because I just plain wanted to keep it simple and cut down on any dice-rolling or table-checking. >> Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries >> that came with it. >> Gave a more generous hit point bonus --- most of this is because we wanted a more "D&D" like kind >>of >campaign, where the characters were less brittle, a little more superheroic - BUT not >> falling into the D&D "Oh, I'm tenth level - watch me wipe out an army of orcs single-handed" thing. >Right we've tried to do that too but keep the the lethality. One of >the central focus of AQ was the ability to support characters with skills >well above 100% and even play superheroes up in the 400% percent. I >borrowed some ideas from Mr. Perrin and reworked them to d20. Combat as we've got still has plenty of lethality (vs say AD&D, where a high-level character simply couldn't be threatened by a low-level monster). It's just that the characters have more hit points and don't get taken out by a disabled hit location. So, it's a little more "larger-than-life," but no one's a superhero. >> NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept >> insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate >> description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always >> will. >I've always had problems with CHA. I think that CHA is such a complicated >aspect that I've never liked having it as an attribute. Big discussion >here, this could use a new thread. True! One reason I really like it is that RQ actually got CHA right! One reason I didn't like the switch to APP is that it seemed like a kind of concession to those who just couldn't get their heads around the concept that CHA didn't refer to physical beauty. *** Name Ad/Dis Cost Game Affect Hideous Dis -20 -4 CHA Ugly Dis -10 -2 CHA Attractive Ad 5 +1 CHA Handsome Ad 15 +2 CHA Gorgeous Ad 25 +3 CHA Ambidextrous Ad 10 No off-hand weapon penalty Obese Dis -20 +1d6 SIZ Underweight Dis -15 -1d6 SIZ Odious Personal Habits Dis -5 to -15 -1 to -4 CHA Good Voice Ad 10 +1 CHA Broke Dis -25 Starting money reduced to 0 Poor Dis -15 Starting money 1/2 normal Wealthy Ad 20 Starting money x5 Very Wealthy Ad 30 Starting money x20 Obscenely Wealthy Ad 50 Starting money x100 Ally Ad 5-10 Varies. An ally who's your peer = 5, a superior is 10 Patron Ad 10-30 Varies. Cost depends on power - an individual superior to you is 10, a powerful organization would be 30 Absolute Direction Ad 5 Always know where North is Acute Senses Ad 5 Increased Perception skills - 2% add for skills appropriate to increased sense per Point Cost Alertness Ad 5 1 point bonus to all Perception skills per Point Cost Animal Empathy Ad 5 1 point bonus to all animal handling skills (ride, etc) per Point Cost Combat Reflexes Ad 15 No SR loss for surprise, recover from stuns 1 MR sooner Common Sense Ad 10 Get a Know roll anytime the GM thinks you're about to do something stupid Danger Sense Ad 15 Can roll POWx5 (or less) to sense danger coming Daredevil Ad 15 Get a Luck roll to save your ass if you take great risks Flexible Ad 5 1d3 point bonus on all Manipulation skills Empathy Ad 15 can get a feeling for people (friend or foe?) High Pain Threshold Ad 10 Any pain-based attacks you get a better CON roll - CONx6 Language Talent Ad 10 +5 bonus on any language Rapid Healing Ad 15 You regain hit points at 1.3 times the normal rate Power of Concentration Ad 5 +5 to any skill benefiting from concentration Poor Eyesight Dis -25 -20 on all attacks and skills requiring use of eyesight, unless wearing glasses/lenses Bad Temper Dis -10 Can lose your temper in stressful situations - have to roleplay your tantrums Compulsive Behavior Dis -15 Given to compulsive behavior - may have to make CON, POW, or INT rolls to avoid Greed Dis -10 Excessively motivated by money - may have to make CON, POW or INT rolls to avoid Poor Hearing Dis -25 -20 on any skill based on hearing unless corrected Compulsive Honesty Dis -10 May suffer -10 to -20 penalties on fast talks or communication skills involving dishonest or questionably honest approaches Handicapped Dis -15 to -35 Limited mobility, may affect other skills Weak Will Dis -10 Others' get +10 when using Communication skills on you "Ev'ry little soul must shine..." From floor13 at bayarea.net Sat Jul 16 17:43:06 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:43:06 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older References: <20050716045815.7815C22272E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <01ae01c589da$02053a20$7d42dbcd@alphamind> I'm 39, so I seem to be roughly the same age as others. To add - I started out playing D&D (of course). Actually, first exposure was "Dungeon" - anyone remember that? Basically a simplified D&D dungeon crawl as a board game. Got introduced to D&D (the blue basic edition) by a friend, then the AD&D books came in. Got introduced to RQ when I checked out a local library-supported RPG thing (they let kids play RPGs in one of their public rooms on weekends). This is when I was about 14. The RQ gang was a little older (17-18). Was floored by the game. Also impressed by the maturity of the players - seriously - and not just from the perspective of a 14 year-old! These guys didn't argue, handled themselves seriously and in a reasonable, adult fascination. I realize now they were a rarity and this wasn't necessarily inherent in the game, but it formed my opinion of how RPGing should be from then on. Anyway, RQ just had qualities D&D did not. Kept playing AD&D for a long time, though, and even ran a campaign, as no one wanted to switch over. By way of introduction - also an avid COC player since 1982. And if you look in the old "Cthulhu Companion," you'll see my name in the credits. Also corresponded with Sandy Petersen for several years - heck of a nice guy. From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 18:53:33 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050716085333.68723.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> --- Bob Eldred wrote: > I'm 37. Been a huge fan of RuneQuest since I first > played it in 1986, which > might make me one of the latecomers around here. Most certainly not ;) I'm 35 and only recently got a copy of Runequest (within the last year). I think it's a great game, but have no one to play it with. Cheers, John They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 16 19:32:46 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older In-Reply-To: <01ae01c589da$02053a20$7d42dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: <20050716093246.3224.qmail@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Alan K. Crandall" wrote: > > By way of introduction - also an avid COC player > since 1982. And if you > look in the old "Cthulhu Companion," you'll see my > name in the credits. > Also corresponded with Sandy Petersen for several > years - heck of a nice > guy. > *nods* I like Abhoth. He works pretty well in Cthulhu Now! settings, or even GURPS Cthulhupunk. Hmmm... That was published in 1983. You must have been pretty damn young for writing supplements for one of the greatest rpgs on the planet.... Kind regards, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kruch7 at cox.net Sat Jul 16 19:56:37 2005 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:56:37 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? References: Message-ID: <005d01c589ec$a7f2c6c0$1208a8c0@kenneith93j41k> 40 be 41 in October Ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: "RuneQuest-Rules" Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:19 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm wondering if I was right. So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/2005 From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Jul 16 22:35:46 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:35:46 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D8FF22.7000005@talmeta.net> Peter Maranci wrote: > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. 39, will be 40 at the end of August. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - To a sea of fly-covered hickies! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/2005 From pmj at comhem.se Sat Jul 16 23:48:28 2005 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:48:28 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D9102C.50709@comhem.se> Hi! Turning 38 in a month. Was introduced to role playing by an older classmate in 1983; Future World from Worlds of Wonder. After a few months we switched to the first version of Drakar och Demoner (Dragons and Demons in English) a Swedish translation of Magic World from Worlds of Wonder. Switched to RQ2 in 1984. Still playing it, with some additions from RQ 3 and some house rules. The guys I play RQ with are basically the same as in the 80's, putting them in the age range of 35 to 43. We have also been playing CoC and Pendragon since the 80's. These are the only games that seem to have appealed to us in the longer run, although we've gone through most of the RPG's that was available in Sweden (or to be more precise - in our gaming group network) in the 80's and early 90's, e.g. Ad&D, Aftermath, Marvel Super Heroes, Space Opera, Twilight 2000, Traveller in different versions, MERP/RM, Stormbringer, RQ3, Chivalry and Sorcery, Mutant (Swedish game?), Star Wars and a probably a few more that I can't even remember at the moment... and of course some home made RPGs. Always coming back to RQ2 though - why change a winning concept? :-) /Peter J Peter Maranci wrote: >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > >->Peter > > From collwood at harborside.com Sat Jul 16 23:50:39 2005 From: collwood at harborside.com (James Collins and/or Sarah Wood) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:39 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c58a0d$5d51b150$0100a8c0@cthulhu> Hello: I'll be 43 in October. James D. Collins Painted Frog Productions -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.15/49 - Release Date: 7/14/2005 From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 17 00:19:36 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:19:36 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older In-Reply-To: <01ae01c589da$02053a20$7d42dbcd@alphamind> References: <20050716045815.7815C22272E@boomstick.screwheads.net> <01ae01c589da$02053a20$7d42dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: <42D91778.5090102@sbcglobal.net> Alan K. Crandall wrote: >By way of introduction - also an avid COC player since 1982. And if you >look in the old "Cthulhu Companion," you'll see my name in the credits. >Also corresponded with Sandy Petersen for several years - heck of a nice >guy. > > I'll second your opinion of Sandy; I've been playing in his RQ campaign for over 10 years now. Guy From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Sun Jul 17 00:33:31 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:33:31 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ages and webpages Message-ID: <1121524411.6ca5ada8b10be@webmail3.leeds.ac.uk> I'm only 26, and with the exception of some members of my old roleplaying club (currently they have a player who's about sixteen or seventeen I think) that's the youngest I've met in recent years. Also, my webpage is here. Some of the articles are almost nearly complete (such as the spell fumbles and undead monsters) so you might have to wait a few weeks for them to be finished http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl0nje/runequest/ Nikk From jhellbek at chromebob.com Sun Jul 17 00:37:58 2005 From: jhellbek at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:37:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: <20050716045815.DB9D522272F@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050716045815.DB9D522272F@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <62352.208.191.93.169.1121524678.squirrel@208.191.93.169> > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? > > Peter Maranci wrote: > >>I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >>average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >>wondering if I was right. >> >>So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. >> well, i'm 35 - let's see, i started playing RQ2 back in '87 - '89, with the obligatory AD&D experiences from '81 or so. having seen / played in Glorantha from that far back in my gaming experience has had a profound effect on my gaming. Glorantha taught me about the effects of culture on roleplaying (i.e., the way the cults helped define the setting, how the setting helped shape the experience of the game). what a wild ride! -- Gerall Kahla / jhellbek / JaenChronicler remember: all waves collapse. From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 17 01:16:48 2005 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:16:48 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: How old In-Reply-To: <20050716085357.7C63B222728@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050716085357.7C63B222728@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: 30 on Tuesday Hooray I'm the youngest replying so far (This is more important to me than you might think) From aelarsen at mac.com Sun Jul 17 01:28:09 2005 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:28:09 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are Runequest fans older? In-Reply-To: <20050716085357.7C63B222728@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: I just turned 38 last week, and I've been gaming since I was about 9 years old. My older brothers discovered Empire of the Petal Throne, and we all played it, but then one of my brothers ran into the White Box D&D set, and we switched over. Sometime around 1980 or 81, the same brother found RQ, and we switched over to that. I haven't played D&D since (unless Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate count). I played a lot of other game systems, but I always eventually come back to RQ. Andrew E. Larsen From andrew at crashbox.com Sun Jul 17 01:44:09 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O.Mellinger) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:44:09 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? Message-ID: Has anyone had a chance to glance through it? -Andrew From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 02:14:23 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050716161423.70240.qmail@web51306.mail.yahoo.com> If you children would quit squabbling! RPG fans in general are older on average than in the past. Originally the average was in undergraduate school. Younger siblings took up playing and the average dropped to high school. Those out of college were relatively rare because there was no way to get accurate information in the mass media after September 1997 (when the attacks started and the pro-game side was reduced to the occasional "no it isn't" letter to the editor without any chance to refute the charges). Gamers, of course, kept playing after graduation, spreading the games through work contacts, and the average slowly rose. This is across all playing systems, even D&D which still targets transpubescent males virtually exclusively (although they will never admit it). When they do a market survey, they refuse to count anyone over 35. The only accurate figures are from the international RPG research network, CAR-PGa. Their average is currently 38.6 years old. Of course, anyone willing to spend time away from gaming and the income-producing job (in that order, of course) to do academic research on use in curriculum and therapy as well as recreation, defending against the still active but less organized game attacks, trying to improve the state of the art in rules and playing techniques, getting more women and ethnic minorities involved, removing bans on RPG in state prisons (federal has no problem except for the dice - how do you shoot craps with D20s?), etc., will have had a fairly substantial academic background and maturity. Their separate discussion list on Yahoogroups is not as accurate on ages since there it is voluntary and about half don't tell. Still it seems to be about five years or so younger. I got into RPG in the first place because of RQ - D&D was just too illogical and arbitrary for my tastes. Oh yes, I am 72 - 13 months younger than the oldest in CAR-PGa. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From floor13 at bayarea.net Sun Jul 17 03:13:06 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:13:06 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Perofrmance Improvements Message-ID: <002a01c58a29$a29fc8c0$7d42dbcd@alphamind> (pardon me if this posts twice) From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements >> PCs can be rolled up any reasonable way the players want (3d6, 4d6 and drop >> lowest, whatever); or they can use a GURPS-type points system if they >> prefer. Also included some of the advantages/disadvantages from GURPS, as >> an option. >I've tried including GURPS advantages/disadvantages and found you >had to be pretty careful and selective on which were permissable. >Some just plain don't make sense in the BRP model, others are too >unbalancing (some of them are even unbalancing in GURPS). >Which GURPS advs/disadvs do you permit? Look at the end of this message - there's my notes on which ones I've kept and how they're applied. >How are you determining the number of starting points and how do >they equate to BRP/RQ characteristics? For what we're doing now, they start off with 94 points and they divvy that up however they wish among the seven characteristics. Advantages or disadvantages come out of (or add to) points used to purchase skills. Some advantages got dropped because they're otherwise covered by things like CHA, and some just because they don't fit or I don't like them. Fortunately, I play with long-time, trusted mature friends, so a lot of "unbalancing" stuff isn't a concern - none of us are interested in having "supercharacters" or unfair advantages. >> NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept >> insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate >> description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always >> will. >> I also learned that you can't just shoehorn everything into the Glorantha >> model. I've been developing a campiagn background with a kind of >> fantasy/Celtic feel for several years now, and the sticking point was mainly >> the religious and magic systems. I really couldn't wrap my head around it >> until I decided to stop trying to develop Glorantha-style cults and instead >> take what I learned from GOG etc to develop something that felt more right >> for my setting. GURPS Celtic Myth helped a lot in the magic system, too --- >> currently tweaking the Sorcery system to something along the lines of the >> "Tree Magic" system in that book. >That sounds very cool, do you have any writeups of that? Only in longhand notebooks right now. I'll try to get some of it up in the future. I have those pdfs you mention - in fact I'm pretty sure I snatched `em off your website a couple years ago! They gave me a lot of useful ideas. >I think the major distinction is the "modularity" of BRP, it's >generally fairly straightforward to replace a major system in the >game without adversely affecting other systems. I can't fairly comment on D&D/D20 - my last D&D experience goes back to AD&D. I've skimmed through the new D&D - and the main thought I have is "gee --- these guys took a LOT from RQ." >I've seen some valiant attempts at replacing the "armor >class/level based HP" combat system with something more BRP-like >(armor protects vs. damage, limits on HP); but all I've seen feel >klugey and include caveats for other game mechanics that have to >be tweaked or disallowed for the alternate system to work. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the best thing ever done, I've stuck with BRP all these years cause I haven't seen anything I personally liked better. And at this point I'm not in the market for anything new. From: Andrew Mellinger Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Performance Improvements >When I was playing a stormbringer game a few years back we made a table >that generages an armor randomizer based on the pieces instead of an >average. I'll dig it up and try to send it. I'd be interested in seeing it. I discarded the random armor from "Stormbringer" because I just plain wanted to keep it simple and cut down on any dice-rolling or table-checking. >> Kept the "Stormbringer" major wound thing but bagged the table of inuries >> that came with it. >> Gave a more generous hit point bonus --- most of this is because we wanted a more "D&D" like kind >>of >campaign, where the characters were less brittle, a little more superheroic - BUT not >> falling into the D&D "Oh, I'm tenth level - watch me wipe out an army of orcs single-handed" thing. >Right we've tried to do that too but keep the the lethality. One of >the central focus of AQ was the ability to support characters with skills >well above 100% and even play superheroes up in the 400% percent. I >borrowed some ideas from Mr. Perrin and reworked them to d20. Combat as we've got still has plenty of lethality (vs say AD&D, where a high-level character simply couldn't be threatened by a low-level monster). It's just that the characters have more hit points and don't get taken out by a disabled hit location. So, it's a little more "larger-than-life," but no one's a superhero. >> NEVER ever ever substituted APP for CHA. Never! I found the whole concept >> insulting - especially since the original RQ gave such a beautiful, accurate >> description of the whole concept of CHA. We use CHA. Always have, always >> will. >I've always had problems with CHA. I think that CHA is such a complicated >aspect that I've never liked having it as an attribute. Big discussion >here, this could use a new thread. True! One reason I really like it is that RQ actually got CHA right! One reason I didn't like the switch to APP is that it seemed like a kind of concession to those who just couldn't get their heads around the concept that CHA didn't refer to physical beauty. *** Name Ad/Dis Cost Game Affect Hideous Dis -20 -4 CHA Ugly Dis -10 -2 CHA Attractive Ad 5 +1 CHA Handsome Ad 15 +2 CHA Gorgeous Ad 25 +3 CHA Ambidextrous Ad 10 No off-hand weapon penalty Obese Dis -20 +1d6 SIZ Underweight Dis -15 -1d6 SIZ Odious Personal Habits Dis -5 to -15 -1 to -4 CHA Good Voice Ad 10 +1 CHA Broke Dis -25 Starting money reduced to 0 Poor Dis -15 Starting money 1/2 normal Wealthy Ad 20 Starting money x5 Very Wealthy Ad 30 Starting money x20 Obscenely Wealthy Ad 50 Starting money x100 Ally Ad 5-10 Varies. An ally who's your peer = 5, a superior is 10 Patron Ad 10-30 Varies. Cost depends on power - an individual superior to you is 10, a powerful organization would be 30 Absolute Direction Ad 5 Always know where North is Acute Senses Ad 5 Increased Perception skills - 2% add for skills appropriate to increased sense per Point Cost Alertness Ad 5 1 point bonus to all Perception skills per Point Cost Animal Empathy Ad 5 1 point bonus to all animal handling skills (ride, etc) per Point Cost Combat Reflexes Ad 15 No SR loss for surprise, recover from stuns 1 MR sooner Common Sense Ad 10 Get a Know roll anytime the GM thinks you're about to do something stupid Danger Sense Ad 15 Can roll POWx5 (or less) to sense danger coming Daredevil Ad 15 Get a Luck roll to save your ass if you take great risks Flexible Ad 5 1d3 point bonus on all Manipulation skills Empathy Ad 15 can get a feeling for people (friend or foe?) High Pain Threshold Ad 10 Any pain-based attacks you get a better CON roll - CONx6 Language Talent Ad 10 +5 bonus on any language Rapid Healing Ad 15 You regain hit points at 1.3 times the normal rate Power of Concentration Ad 5 +5 to any skill benefiting from concentration Poor Eyesight Dis -25 -20 on all attacks and skills requiring use of eyesight, unless wearing glasses/lenses Bad Temper Dis -10 Can lose your temper in stressful situations - have to roleplay your tantrums Compulsive Behavior Dis -15 Given to compulsive behavior - may have to make CON, POW, or INT rolls to avoid Greed Dis -10 Excessively motivated by money - may have to make CON, POW or INT rolls to avoid Poor Hearing Dis -25 -20 on any skill based on hearing unless corrected Compulsive Honesty Dis -10 May suffer -10 to -20 penalties on fast talks or communication skills involving dishonest or questionably honest approaches Handicapped Dis -15 to -35 Limited mobility, may affect other skills Weak Will Dis -10 Others' get +10 when using Communication skills on you "Ev'ry little soul must shine..." "Ev'ry little soul must shine..." From floor13 at bayarea.net Sun Jul 17 03:17:25 2005 From: floor13 at bayarea.net (Alan K. Crandall) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:17:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older References: <20050716161440.407792226F4@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <003401c58a2a$3d1e90c0$7d42dbcd@alphamind> From: Lev Lafayette > > *nods* > > I like Abhoth. He works pretty well in Cthulhu Now! > settings, or even GURPS Cthulhupunk. > > Hmmm... That was published in 1983. You must have been > pretty damn young for writing supplements for one of > the greatest rpgs on the planet.... Thanks. Yes ... I was 16-17 when I did that. Sandy edited the prose, though I don't think the changes were major. Some years later I was working on a big treatment of the "tomes" (Necronomicon, etc) that I still think was better than what Chaosium eventually went with. Sandy expressed interested and offered me first crack, but like a lazy slob I never got around to finishing it, and he left the company soon after. From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 03:12:05 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:12:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: <20050716045815.DB9D522272F@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050716171205.9826.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'm 41 and a bit. I was introduced to RQ at university in my first year (1982) by a chappie called Dave Rewhorn who is probably a respectable lawyer by now. I played a bit of AD&D afterwards, a bit of CoC and a few other systems, but always loved RQ and Glorantha. I joined another gaming group in 1985 and never looked back. I'm on my third gaming group now and play HeroQuest, but I'd jump ship and go back to RQ like a shot, given the chance. Having seen the other replies, 41 doesn't seem too bad at all and I feel a lot younger than I did beforehand. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 03:21:14 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:21:14 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: <20050716085333.68723.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Where are you located? -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of John Raner Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:54 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? --- Bob Eldred wrote: > I'm 37. Been a huge fan of RuneQuest since I first > played it in 1986, which > might make me one of the latecomers around here. Most certainly not ;) I'm 35 and only recently got a copy of Runequest (within the last year). I think it's a great game, but have no one to play it with. Cheers, John They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From DevinC at aol.com Sun Jul 17 03:26:00 2005 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:26:00 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: <1c0.2cb1d733.300a9d28@aol.com> 38. Started playing regularly in about 1986. Now mostly play D&D, Devin From esoteric at crashbox.com Sun Jul 17 04:27:29 2005 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:27:29 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm 51 years old. >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > >->Peter -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 04:56:16 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050716185616.6493.qmail@web53709.mail.yahoo.com> --- Viking Jarl wrote: > Where are you located? Cheyenne, Wyoming, U.S.A It's not the end of the Earth but you can see it from there ;) Cheers, John They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bick10 at comcast.net Sun Jul 17 04:59:44 2005 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: <071620051859.1797.42D959200000F9A2000007052205886172CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. Well, looks like I'm starting the downhill side of the curve at 44. (Although, Paul Cardwell shifted the curve my way.) I started gaming with board and miniatures and quickly fell into RPG. Of course in 76 it was D&D (brown books). But also had my share of T&T not long after. I want to give a shout out to a guy I served with in Okinawa. In 1982, Menard started me in RQ and I never looked back. So Menard, if you are out there, thanks for showing what a great gaming system RQ is. Jim Bickmeyer From gloomshark at hotmail.com Sun Jul 17 05:04:39 2005 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:04:39 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: /lurk off/ 34 here, Started D&D in 82ish and found RQ about 90. Wish still had my group, but being military means I leave em behind every few years... so now I lurk this list and long for my old gaming days :) /lurk on/ ~Gloom >From: Peter Maranci >Reply-To: Peter Maranci ,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: RuneQuest-Rules >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? >Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:19:38 -0400 > >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > >->Peter >-- >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From talmeta at talmeta.net Sun Jul 17 05:20:35 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:20:35 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] In the beginning... Message-ID: <42D95E03.6050200@talmeta.net> Well, I already spouted my age, but not my background... I encountered RPGs in the form of the Blue Box D&D basic set in January, 1984, when one of the guys in my USAF dorm received it for Christmas. We all quickly discovered AD&D from there. I borrowed (and never actually returned) a copy of the 1st edition Stormbringer game from friend, and while trying to reverse engineer many of it's concepts to D&D, remembered what one of the B-52 gunners had told me once, how he loved this game called RuneQuest. I bought a copy of the brand new 3E rules, and was hooked hard and fast... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Whenever possible, put people on hold. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/2005 From zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 06:26:05 2005 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050716202605.29771.qmail@web53005.mail.yahoo.com> Just to help Nikk scew the average downwards abit, I clock in at a ripe old age of 27. Started with Stormbringer and moved to Elric! and CoC. Found RQIII on ebay. Loved it. Found RQII later. Loved it more. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 06:32:59 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:32:59 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: <20050716185616.6493.qmail@web53709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I don't know any RQ gamers in the area, but maybe others do. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of John Raner Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:56 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? --- Viking Jarl wrote: > Where are you located? Cheyenne, Wyoming, U.S.A It's not the end of the Earth but you can see it from there ;) Cheers, John They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Sun Jul 17 07:21:14 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:21:14 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: <20050716212124.2436A2226D7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Hey > I'm 37. Been a huge fan of RuneQuest since I first played it in 1986, which > might make me one of the latecomers around here. I'm 37 too; although I've played various BRPS-based rolegames for a long time, I've only played RQ for 4/5 years now. I must then be the absolute late comer :-) Gianni From mechashef at emailme.net.au Sun Jul 17 07:25:34 2005 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:25:34 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050716212536.8E37797C10F@mail.velocitynet.com.au> 36 Mechashef -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Saturday, 16 July 2005 2:20 PM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm wondering if I was right. So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ 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 gloomshark at hotmail.com Sun Jul 17 12:23:02 2005 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:23:02 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] In the beginning... Message-ID: Tal, how long were you AF, or are you still? I used to work comm/nav in Fairchild on KC-135s and we did a lot of excercises with B-52's. I miss all your old gods of greyhawk posts. Are you still doing the greyhawk RQ game? >From: Tal Meta >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest Rules @Crashbox" >Subject: [RQ-Rules] In the beginning... >Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:20:35 -0400 > >Well, I already spouted my age, but not my background... > >I encountered RPGs in the form of the Blue Box D&D basic set in January, >1984, when one of the guys in my USAF dorm received it for Christmas. We >all quickly discovered AD&D from there. > >I borrowed (and never actually returned) a copy of the 1st edition >Stormbringer game from friend, and while trying to reverse engineer many >of it's concepts to D&D, remembered what one of the B-52 gunners had told >me once, how he loved this game called RuneQuest. I bought a copy of the >brand new 3E rules, and was hooked hard and fast... > >-- >talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine >AIM - talmeta >ICQ - 12594453 >Homepage - > >Whenever possible, put people on hold. > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/2005 > >_______________________________________________ >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 ericla at ultranet.com Sun Jul 17 15:18:03 2005 From: ericla at ultranet.com (Eric Leventhal Arthen) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:18:03 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050717011552.0316e728@pop.rcn.com> I'm 44 - when I left college in '83 I switched from D&D to RQ2 (and then 3) and have never looked back. My son (now 17) and some of his friends also play RQ - along with various other game systems. He's currently partial to Heros. -Eric At 12:19 AM 7/16/2005, you wrote: >I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on >average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm >wondering if I was right. > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. > >I'll start off: I'm 41. > >->Peter >-- >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules ------ Eric Leventhal Arthen ericla at ultranet.com From talmeta at talmeta.net Sun Jul 17 15:08:34 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] In the beginning... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42D9E7D2.6090705@talmeta.net> Dana Myers wrote: > Tal, how long were you AF, or are you still? I used to work comm/nav in > Fairchild on KC-135s and we did a lot of excercises with B-52's. I miss > all your old gods of greyhawk posts. Are you still doing the greyhawk RQ > game? I was in from '83 to '87; my visits to Fairchild were thankfully brief. :) I was a KC-135 boom operator at the time... My RQ/GH game ended awhile back, with no definitive victory for the party over the main bad guys, so I'm currently plotting out a d20 sequel to it, possibly involving the children of the original characters. I'm also working on porting INT, POW, and Magic Spirits over to d20... hopefully, the final version of my project will fix the flaws in the d20 Dragon Lords demon summoning/binding too... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - "Pillage pillage pillage ... loot loot loot!" --S -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.16/50 - Release Date: 7/15/2005 From aluban at yahoo.fr Sun Jul 17 18:36:35 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:36:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050717083635.79194.qmail@web26103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Yesterday was my 30th anniversary. Alban Peter Maranci a ?crit :I recently asserted that RuneQuest fans were probably older, on average, than fans of most other systems; particularly D&D. Now I'm wondering if I was right. So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of course. I'll start off: I'm 41. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Mon Jul 18 04:16:09 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050717181609.19797.qmail@web53701.mail.yahoo.com> --- Viking Jarl wrote: > Sorry, I don't know any RQ gamers in the area, but > maybe others do. Well, there have to be some... After all, I picked up my copy of RQIII in a local used bookstore.... Cheers, John They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Jul 18 05:02:48 2005 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:02:48 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey In-Reply-To: <20050716192116.441672226FC@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050716192116.441672226FC@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <5DE667C8-F6F5-11D9-B4D1-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Well, I'm going to be forty on my next birthday, so I guess I'm pretty close to the mean. However, I'm by far the oldest of my local RQ group. Actually, my local RQ group is a subset of my usual Sunday afternoon game, for when the other three can't make it. THAT group consists of four adults and three eight-year olds, playing a table-top version of my own LARP system, Sunfall. The RQ subset includes two of those eight-year olds (one of whom is my son). We are playing in Harn with RQ3, and some of my own house rules. My introduction to roleplaying came in 1980/81, when I first encountered Traveller while living in Maine during my dad's sabbatical. I was hooked, and insisted that on our way back to Edmonton, we stop off and buy a copy in Illinois. A year or two later, I started playing RQ, and still haven't found anything that really competes with it. Possibly Harnmaster, which I've only recently discovered and which deals with some concepts (particularly wounding) in an intriguing way, but I haven't actually played it yet to see how it works in practice. My own LARP borrows elements from RQ, GURPS, and Traveller, and was also designed to be backwards-compatible with a commercial LARP that folded around that time, so we could keep our beloved characters going. I've always been inspired by the elegance and versatility of RQ, although like everyone else I have continued to tweak and adjust it to taste. And it's helped to develop my own philosophy of rules and similar systems, which in fact led me to my current calling, law. Anyone else from this list live in Alberta? Or Canada, for that matter? From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jul 18 05:50:09 2005 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen McGinness) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:50:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW In-Reply-To: <5DE667C8-F6F5-11D9-B4D1-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: I've already mentioned that I intend using Hero to play in Glorantha. I have recently been thinking of the magic system. I have been looking at the effect of POW - I like that aspect of having a limited amount of magical ability and you expend that to cast magic. Do I have it correct that in RQII your POW decreased with magic use and was replenished with time and thatg you became easier to affect with magic due to that lowered POW but in RQIII you used magic points and your POW stayed the same - and so you were as difficult to hit regardless of whether you had used all you magic points or not? (I could go and dig all my books out of the attic but then why be a member of groups like this if you HAVE to consult books?) Personally I'm thinking that I'll go for the RQII version until someone becomes a Rune Priest and then use the RQIII for them. What system do people prefer? From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jul 18 06:07:45 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:07:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050717200745.63799.qmail@web26103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In RQ3, you could find spells using POW vs POW contests, but most of them used MP vs MP contests. In my view, Magic points are basically "temporary POW" and make things easier to understand. Stephen McGinness a ?crit : I've already mentioned that I intend using Hero to play in Glorantha. I have recently been thinking of the magic system. I have been looking at the effect of POW - I like that aspect of having a limited amount of magical ability and you expend that to cast magic. Do I have it correct that in RQII your POW decreased with magic use and was replenished with time and thatg you became easier to affect with magic due to that lowered POW but in RQIII you used magic points and your POW stayed the same - and so you were as difficult to hit regardless of whether you had used all you magic points or not? (I could go and dig all my books out of the attic but then why be a member of groups like this if you HAVE to consult books?) Personally I'm thinking that I'll go for the RQII version until someone becomes a Rune Priest and then use the RQIII for them. What system do people prefer? _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jul 18 06:37:38 2005 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen McGinness) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:37:38 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW In-Reply-To: <20050717200745.63799.qmail@web26103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And so you find my poor grounding in RQIII - most of my RQ gaming has used 2nd edition despite me having most of the third edition stuff... Is this how everyone plays it then? WHat do you think of the idea of POW vs POW contests being fixed for Rune Priests? > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Alban de ROSTOLAN > Sent: 17 July 2005 21:08 > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] POW > > > > In RQ3, you could find spells using POW vs POW contests, but most > of them used MP vs MP contests. > > In my view, Magic points are basically "temporary POW" and make > things easier to understand. > > Stephen McGinness a ?crit : > I've already mentioned that I intend using Hero to play in Glorantha. > > I have recently been thinking of the magic system. I have been looking at > the effect of POW - I like that aspect of having a limited amount > of magical > ability and you expend that to cast magic. > > Do I have it correct that in RQII your POW decreased with magic > use and was > replenished with time and thatg you became easier to affect with magic due > to that lowered POW but in RQIII you used magic points and your POW stayed > the same - and so you were as difficult to hit regardless of > whether you had > used all you magic points or not? (I could go and dig all my books out of > the attic but then why be a member of groups like this if you HAVE to > consult books?) > > Personally I'm thinking that I'll go for the RQII version until someone > becomes a Rune Priest and then use the RQIII for them. > > What system do people prefer? > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > --------------------------------- > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! > Messenger > T?l?chargez le ici ! > _______________________________________________ > 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 degordon3000 at btconnect.com Mon Jul 18 07:21:10 2005 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:21:10 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? References: <20050717195047.C272C2226DE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <01be01c58b15$746dbc90$0401a8c0@2373993GCH7> I'm 39. RQ was the first fantasy RPG I bought - Traveller was the first (and only SFRPG I was interested in at the time) back in 1980. I've been playing RQ ever since. I was in David Hall's Sartarpak home campaign when it began then it moved to Pendragon Pass (using the Pendragon rules melded with RQ magic) then Hero Wars. RQ is still my favourite. I use Elric a lot and I love Ringworld - I'm a devoted Niven fan (see www.ringworldrpg.org) DG From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Jul 18 07:56:54 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:56:54 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW References: Message-ID: <005401c58b1a$eb5edb40$68417442@wizard> I have gone to using POW vs POW despite the current status of power points. The contest is between the stats, the points are just the fuel. I never felt good about MP vs MP, but I was outvoted on that one. And I thought we went to magic points with RQII, though I could be misremembering and don't feel like hauling my books off the shelf. The MP vs MP was definitely a RQ3 construction, though we may have used it for some exotic monsters in RQII. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen McGinness" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] POW > And so you find my poor grounding in RQIII - most of my RQ gaming has used > 2nd edition despite me having most of the third edition stuff... > > Is this how everyone plays it then? WHat do you think of the idea of POW > vs > POW contests being fixed for Rune Priests? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com >> [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Alban de ROSTOLAN >> Sent: 17 July 2005 21:08 >> To: RuneQuest rules discussion. >> Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] POW >> >> >> >> In RQ3, you could find spells using POW vs POW contests, but most >> of them used MP vs MP contests. >> >> In my view, Magic points are basically "temporary POW" and make >> things easier to understand. >> >> Stephen McGinness a ?crit : >> I've already mentioned that I intend using Hero to play in Glorantha. >> >> I have recently been thinking of the magic system. I have been looking at >> the effect of POW - I like that aspect of having a limited amount >> of magical >> ability and you expend that to cast magic. >> >> Do I have it correct that in RQII your POW decreased with magic >> use and was >> replenished with time and thatg you became easier to affect with magic >> due >> to that lowered POW but in RQIII you used magic points and your POW >> stayed >> the same - and so you were as difficult to hit regardless of >> whether you had >> used all you magic points or not? (I could go and dig all my books out of >> the attic but then why be a member of groups like this if you HAVE to >> consult books?) >> >> Personally I'm thinking that I'll go for the RQII version until someone >> becomes a Rune Priest and then use the RQIII for them. >> >> What system do people prefer? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! >> Messenger >> T?l?chargez le ici ! >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From davidakeys at hotmail.com Mon Jul 18 10:44:34 2005 From: davidakeys at hotmail.com (davidakeys at hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:44:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: 38. Was an early starter - first played D&D in 1975 and RuneQuest in 1979. By 1981, RuneQuest was our fantasy game of choice - even at that young age, the setting and the rules stood out. Hoping that Mongoose can revitalise the game so that the new generation of d20ers can see there is more than one fantasy system out there.... David From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 18 13:12:42 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:12:42 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW In-Reply-To: <005401c58b1a$eb5edb40$68417442@wizard> References: <005401c58b1a$eb5edb40$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <42DB1E2A.1020102@sbcglobal.net> Stephen Perrin wrote: > I have gone to using POW vs POW despite the current status of power > points. The contest is between the stats, the points are just the > fuel. I never felt good about MP vs MP, but I was outvoted on that one. > > And I thought we went to magic points with RQII, though I could be > misremembering and don't feel like hauling my books off the shelf. The > MP vs MP was definitely a RQ3 construction, though we may have used it > for some exotic monsters in RQII. I think the suggestion of "temporary POW" was included with the original Prollpak, IIRC. Guy From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 18 13:21:18 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:21:18 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] POW In-Reply-To: <42DB1E2A.1020102@sbcglobal.net> References: <005401c58b1a$eb5edb40$68417442@wizard> <42DB1E2A.1020102@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <42DB202E.4090901@sbcglobal.net> Guy Hoyle wrote: > I think the suggestion of "temporary POW" was included with the > original Prollpak, IIRC. Of course, that's "Trollpak". Been a long day. Guy From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 13:25:09 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:25:09 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: POW Message-ID: *Stephen Perrin (steve at perrinworlds.com) wrote: > I have gone to using POW vs POW despite the current status of power points. I'm glad that I'm not the only one. The MP vs. MP thing wasn't a BAD idea, but it added more bookkeeping unnecessarily and somehow felt wrong. I like POW vs. POW much better...and come to think of it, that's actually more logical to use when you consider the POW increase mechanic. If current MP are the only reflection of difficulty in overcoming (or resisting) a target, then why couldn't somone with high power simply use up some of their MP and then overcome a low-POW/MP opponent in order to earn a POW gain roll? I mean, if characteristic POW is the deciding factor in getting a POW gain roll, then it should by the standard that's used to GET that roll. If that makes any sense. On a related note, does anyone else award POW gain rolls for successfully RESISTING an enemy spell cast by an opponent of roughly equal or great POW? *Guy Hoyle (ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net) wrote: >I think the suggestion of "temporary POW" was included with the original >Prollpak, IIRC. "Prolepak"? Wasn't that the award-winning supplement to MarxQuest? :D ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmj at comhem.se Mon Jul 18 17:45:01 2005 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:01 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: POW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42DB5DFD.1030701@comhem.se> We do, and we use that rule in CoC as well. /Peter J Peter Maranci wrote: >On a related note, does anyone else award POW gain rolls for >successfully RESISTING an enemy spell cast by an opponent of roughly >equal or great POW? > > > >->Peter > > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jul 18 18:06:20 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:06:20 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? Message-ID: I'll be 38 this August. I started playing RPG's in the first half of my first year at secondary school (Autumn 1978/Spring 1979) with a hybrid of single book D&D (the blue covered GW edition of what was subsequently named Basic D&D) and the AD&D Players Handbook - I distinctly remember the long wait for the DMG... One of the older kids who'd introduced me to D&D went to American on holiday in the summer of 1979 and came back with another game that he decided he didn't like, and sold to me: the cover was a line drawing on a sepia tint background of a woman in a breastplate with a large shield, fighting a large lizard like creature... I've subsequently played a LOT of different RPG's, but the core system I always fall back on is what I tend to call BRP: some variation of the RQ rules, details added or removed depending on what feel I'm after. I ran SF campaigns (using Niall Shapero's other Suns and borrowings from Future World), my Stormbringer games regularly departed the Young Kingdoms to roam across the multiverse with the aid of Other Suns, Worlds of Wonder and Call of Cthulhu. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 18 18:38:17 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:38:17 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm merely a baby, just 30 years old, RQ(3) was my first encounter with rpg's, and I bought it from the one that was the GM. That was around 1993, in other words exactly when things started to really go downhill with RQ..... >From: >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: Peter Maranci ,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? >Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:51:45 -0400 > >So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, of >course. > I'll start off: I'm 41. > > > > > 43 1/2 right now. > -Ken Murphy- > _______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From RobynCleverley at aol.com Mon Jul 18 19:29:04 2005 From: RobynCleverley at aol.com (RobynCleverley at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:29:04 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Middle aged gamers...lol Message-ID: <180384DE.514E7070.102FA1A1@aol.com> Hi, Head lurker here. Im 48 this year.Been gaming since the white D&D box. Still believe that RQ is the best system. Bye for now Robyn From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jul 18 22:54:18 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:54:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: POW In-Reply-To: <20050718083836.8A6212226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050718125418.45809.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Stephen McGinness: > Do I have it correct that in RQII your POW decreased with magic use and was > replenished with time and thatg you became easier to affect with magic due > to that lowered POW but in RQIII you used magic points and your POW stayed > the same - and so you were as difficult to hit regardless of whether you > had > used all you magic points or not? (I could go and dig all my books out of > the attic but then why be a member of groups like this if you HAVE to > consult books?) > > Personally I'm thinking that I'll go for the RQII version until someone > becomes a Rune Priest and then use the RQIII for them. > > What system do people prefer? Well, RQ3 is better as you can go to 0MPs and not die, in RQ2 if you reached 0POW you died, even if you were talking about temporary POW. Also, there was a huge ambiguity in RQ2 as to which POW you were talking about. Battle Magic costs temporary POW to cast and you got it back after a while. Rune Magic cost permanent POW to sacrifice for. Normal people defended against magic using their Current POW, but Rune Lords defended at their POW, even if their current POW was lower. In RQ3, you have POW as the Characteristic and Magic Points as the equivalent of Temporary POW in RQ2. It works a lot better. So, Battle Magic/Spirit Magic/Sorcery normally costs Magic Points to work, Divine/Rune Magic costs POW to sacrifice for, many magic items cost POW to attune, many cost Magic Points to use. Most people defend with their Magic Points, Rune Lords defend with their POW (or at least if they don't then they should do). Magic Points reaching 0 is unconscious, not dead. Vampires drain Magic Points until you reach 0, then they drain POW. As for terminology, the RQ2 POWvsPOW roll is so easy to remember that people carried on using it, even though they meant Magic Points vs Magic Points. I think that most, if not all, spells in RQ3 used MPvsMP rolls. Similarly, we used to say "Overcoming POW" as opposed to "Overcoming Magic Points". Alban de ROSTOLAN: > In my view, Magic points are basically "temporary POW" and make things > easier to understand. Hear, hear. Stephen McGinness: > And so you find my poor grounding in RQIII - most of my RQ gaming has used > 2nd edition despite me having most of the third edition stuff... > > Is this how everyone plays it then? WHat do you think of the idea of POW > vs > POW contests being fixed for Rune Priests? I think that Rune Lords should defend with their POW rather than MPs, as it gives them an edge. In RQ2, Priests got an increased POW gain chance, which they lost in RQ3, so if they had that advantage they wouldn't need to defend with POW so much. Stephen Perrin: > I have gone to using POW vs POW despite the current status of power points. > The contest is between the stats, the points are just the fuel. I never > felt > good about MP vs MP, but I was outvoted on that one. We rationalised it so that someone who had weakened themselves by casting spells should be easier to beat than someone who hadn't. Guy Hoyle: > I think the suggestion of "temporary POW" was included with the original > Prollpak, IIRC. I thought it was always there, from RQ2 onwards. Anyone casting Battle Magic used Temporary POW. Perhaps it wasn't made clear until TrollPak. > Of course, that's "Trollpak". Been a long day. Prollpak sounds better, more political. Peter Maranci: > *Stephen Perrin (steve at perrinworlds.com) wrote: > > I have gone to using POW vs POW despite the current status of power > points. > > I'm glad that I'm not the only one. The MP vs. MP thing wasn't a BAD > idea, but it added more bookkeeping unnecessarily and somehow felt > wrong. I like POW vs. POW much better...and come to think of it, > that's actually more logical to use when you consider the POW increase > mechanic. If current MP are the only reflection of difficulty in > overcoming (or resisting) a target, then why couldn't somone with high > power simply use up some of their MP and then overcome a low-POW/MP > opponent in order to earn a POW gain roll? Well, they could, but then they would resist at a lower number and find it easier to be hurt by spells. In RQ2, you attacked at your current POW, not your full POW, so if I had POW 15 and had cast 10 points of Battle Magic I would have POW 5 and would be attacking and resisting at POW 5. At least, that's how we always played it. > I mean, if characteristic POW is the deciding factor in getting a POW > gain roll, then it should by the standard that's used to GET that > roll. If that makes any sense. I suppose so, I hate it when people use logic. But, again, in RQ2 you attacked/defended using current POW, not full POW, so the same thing applies. > On a related note, does anyone else award POW gain rolls for > successfully RESISTING an enemy spell cast by an opponent of roughly > equal or great POW? Not normally, we did if they rolled below 5% or if they criticalled a Luck Roll. In our campaigns there was ample opportunity to get POW gain rolls, even after a Divine Intervention if someone had POW 4, say, then we would line up zombies and skeletons for them to have a go at. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 18 23:05:19 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:05:19 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: POW In-Reply-To: <20050718125418.45809.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050718125418.45809.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <42DBA90F.3040006@sbcglobal.net> Simon Phipp wrote: >Guy Hoyle: > > > >>I think the suggestion of "temporary POW" was included with the original >>Prollpak, IIRC. >> >> > >I thought it was always there, from RQ2 onwards. Anyone casting Battle Magic >used Temporary POW. Perhaps it wasn't made clear until TrollPak. > > Well, I could be wrong; I was going by 20+ year old memories here, admittedly. > > >>Of course, that's "Trollpak". Been a long day. >> >> > >Prollpak sounds better, more political. > > "MarxQuest"? Or "1984: The RPG", anyone? Guy From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 01:10:18 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:10:18 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Middle aged gamers...lol Message-ID: <7028601.1121699418526.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> 46 here. Like Robyn, I started RPGing with the white D&D box in 1977 and I also believe BRPS is the best system ever devised. Over the decades, I think I've weaned about 40 people off of what would come to be called D20 (bleh) and brought them into the RQ/BRPS fold. About 1/4 still RPG. Strange how BRPS keeps popping up in my hobbies. Before my current BRPS campaign, the only PC games I played consistently (Morrowind, Ultima Online) had skills systems reminiscent of BRPS. David -----Original Message----- From: RobynCleverley at aol.com Sent: Jul 18, 2005 4:29 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Middle aged gamers...lol Hi, Head lurker here. I'm 48 this year. Been gaming since the white D&D box. Still believe that RQ is the best system. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 01:13:10 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:13:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey Message-ID: <5757256.1121699590333.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Only in my dreams... David (roasting in Texas) Smart -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cantine Sent: Jul 17, 2005 2:02 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey Anyone else from this list live in Alberta? Or Canada, for that matter? From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 19 01:19:10 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey In-Reply-To: <5757256.1121699590333.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <5757256.1121699590333.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I'm in Pittsbugh PA. The list server (crashbox.com) is in Portland OR. -Andrew On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, David Smart wrote: > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:13:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) > From: David Smart > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey > > Only in my dreams... > > David (roasting in Texas) Smart > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Cantine > Sent: Jul 17, 2005 2:02 PM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey > > > Anyone else from this list live in Alberta? Or Canada, for that matter? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 19 01:28:56 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:28:56 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 Message-ID: <18363364.1121700536891.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Gerall has brought up a good point. Aside from the BRPS engine, RQ affected my RPGing the most by showing the impact culture can have on character generation and gameplay. It made playing a human fun for me and has really improved how I GM campaigns. David -----Original Message----- From: Gerall Kahla Sent: Jul 16, 2005 9:37 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 having seen / played in Glorantha from that far back in my gaming experience has had a profound effect on my gaming. Glorantha taught me about the effects of culture on roleplaying (i.e., the way the cults helped define the setting, how the setting helped shape the experience of the game). what a wild ride! From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 19 01:37:04 2005 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:37:04 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Magic In-Reply-To: <20050718083836.8A6212226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050718083836.8A6212226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <8d07eadb332bb387dc26bae76e2e9518@ntlworld.com> I came to RQ via a game called Dragon Warriors which was very 'influenced' by RQ. (I found out subsequently that the authors David Morris and Oliver Dickinson were big contributors to WD when it used to cover RQ - or indeed roleplaying). In DW you spend Magic Points to fuel spells (sometimes, sometimes there was another rule) and roll Magical Attack vs. Magical Defence to see if the spell worked. This left a real mark on me so I used spend MPs but roll POW vs. POW to get the spell to work. Alan From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Jul 19 01:45:41 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Magic In-Reply-To: <8d07eadb332bb387dc26bae76e2e9518@ntlworld.com> References: <20050718083836.8A6212226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> <8d07eadb332bb387dc26bae76e2e9518@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: That was one of the things that bugged me about RQ the MP vs POW thing. The only way to do high-powered attack spellcasters was if they had a pile of items. -Andrew On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, alan richards wrote: > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:37:04 +0100 > From: alan richards > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Magic > > I came to RQ via a game called Dragon Warriors which was very 'influenced' by > RQ. (I found out subsequently that the authors David Morris and Oliver > Dickinson were big contributors to WD when it used to cover RQ - or indeed > roleplaying). > > In DW you spend Magic Points to fuel spells (sometimes, sometimes there was > another rule) and roll Magical Attack vs. Magical Defence to see if the spell > worked. This left a real mark on me so I used spend MPs but roll POW vs. POW > to get the spell to work. > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 02:29:14 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Are RuneQuest fans older? In-Reply-To: <071620051859.1797.42D959200000F9A2000007052205886172CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20050718162914.89389.qmail@web51307.mail.yahoo.com> --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > So...how old is everyone? Feel free not to answer, > of course. > > Well, looks like I'm starting the downhill side of > the curve at 44. (Although, Paul Cardwell shifted > the curve my way.) Anything to help. :-) Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 19 02:49:26 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:49:26 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: <18363364.1121700536891.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <18363364.1121700536891.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42DBDD96.6040601@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > Gerall has brought up a good point. > > Aside from the BRPS engine, RQ affected my RPGing the most by > showing the impact culture can have on character generation > and gameplay. It made playing a human fun for me and has > really improved how I GM campaigns. Ditto, though I also have to give credit to Empire of the Petal Throne/Tekumel for those lessons. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 19 04:50:10 2005 From: nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk (Nick Middleton) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:50:10 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <20050718164959.08373222702@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050718164959.08373222702@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <42DBF9E2.1040605@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> >I came to RQ via a game called Dragon Warriors which was very >'influenced' by RQ. (I found out subsequently that the authors David >Morris and Oliver Dickinson were big contributors to WD when it used to >cover RQ - or indeed roleplaying). > > In fact, Dave Morris edited the "RuneRites" RuneQuest column for a while - including in the very issue (WD71, he said checking the cover...) that featured the launch of (and a scenario by Dave for) Dragon Warriors. Cracking little game Dragon Warriors, and the setting Legend was beautiful: it looked, and was easy to misjudge as, nothing more than a fantasy europe analogue. But Dave Morris had a real gift for the feel and texture of myth and folktale and it permeated Legend and the scenarios Dave wrote, in a way that I've not seen any other setting manage. And Dave is also of course a Tekumel fan, and wrote the Tirekelu rules for that setting, as well as editing the Eye o fAll Seeing Wonder for it's first few issues... Cheers, Nick Middleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 18/07/2005 From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 06:51:00 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:51:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Magic Message-ID: <1830311.1121719860186.JavaMail.root@wamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Yeah, but as a GM I like this. It keeps the sorcerers in my campaigns constantly juggling between keeping their POW up and creating those items. It also makes sorcerers rather predatory as they try to find the items used by their competitors. David -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Mellinger Sent: Jul 18, 2005 10:45 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Magic That was one of the things that bugged me about RQ the MP vs POW thing. The only way to do high-powered attack spellcasters was if they had a pile of items. -Andrew From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 07:08:52 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] TekumelQuest Message-ID: <20018323.1121720932125.JavaMail.root@wamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Same here but, for me, RQ turned culture into something that was reflected a great deal in a character's abilities while being less restrictive than the Swords and Glory rules. Just personal taste, really. The day I discovered the various "TekumelQuest" crossover rules and conversions on the Web was the day I thought I'd entered Paradise. BRPS-based Black Ssu are scary. Very scary. Good thing their morale is brittle. David -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Posey Sent: Jul 18, 2005 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 19, Issue 12 Ditto, though I also have to give credit to Empire of the Petal Throne/Tekumel for those lessons. From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jul 19 07:43:28 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:43:28 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] TekumelQuest In-Reply-To: <20018323.1121720932125.JavaMail.root@wamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <20018323.1121720932125.JavaMail.root@wamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42DC2280.5030100@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > Same here but, for me, RQ turned culture into something that > was reflected a great deal in a character's abilities while > being less restrictive than the Swords and Glory rules. Just > personal taste, really. I'm there with you on the rules. EPT was pretty much a D&D clone, and Swords and Glory was complex to the point of unplayability (though we did try). Gardasiyal is a bit easier to absorb. I haven't looked at the new GOO "Tristat" rules (rumor is there's a D20 version afoot as well). > The day I discovered the various "TekumelQuest" crossover > rules and conversions on the Web was the day I thought I'd > entered Paradise. We ended up doing a GURPS adaptation that served us pretty well, though I'd have preferred something more like BRP personally. Whose conversion(s) did you use? > BRPS-based Black Ssu are scary. Very scary. Good thing their > morale is brittle. They're pretty scary regardless of the system. I think we only ran into them once though, our GM liked seaborne adventures, so we more often ran into Hluss. He also seemed to like Shunned Ones. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 19 08:21:03 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:21:03 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey In-Reply-To: <5757256.1121699590333.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <5757256.1121699590333.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42DC2B4F.3070904@sbcglobal.net> Heh. Dame here, in Dallas, although the recent spate of afternoon thunderstorms has been nice. Guy David Smart wrote: >Only in my dreams... > >David (roasting in Texas) Smart > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom Cantine >Sent: Jul 17, 2005 2:02 PM >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey > > >Anyone else from this list live in Alberta? Or Canada, for that matter? > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jul 19 10:14:49 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:14:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] TekumelQuest Message-ID: <2052966.1121732089517.JavaMail.root@wamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I've used Sandy Petersen's "EPT for RQ rules" as my core rules since I grabbed 'em way back in February 1994. I grabbed an updated version in February/March 1997 and haven't used anything else since. I don't count my group's dabbling with S&G as "using" them. I did pick up a copy of Gardasiyal and associated publications from Theatre of the Mind's Eye but never saw a reason to learn the rules. I'm partial to Shunned Ones myself. Tech throws a nice curve every now and then. But then I'm also a long-time Traveller fan. I'm currently working on consolidating various BRPS-esque rules into a kind of TravellerQuest. David -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Posey Sent: Jul 18, 2005 4:43 PM To: David Smart , "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] TekumelQuest Whose conversion(s) did you use? > BRPS-based Black Ssu are scary. Very scary. Good thing their > morale is brittle. They're pretty scary regardless of the system. I think we only ran into them once though, our GM liked seaborne adventures, so we more often ran into Hluss. He also seemed to like Shunned Ones. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From bobathome at aqfl.com Tue Jul 19 10:48:20 2005 From: bobathome at aqfl.com (Bob Eldred) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:48:20 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As is everything else worthwhile. :) Bob (in Beaverton, a suburb of Portland) -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Mellinger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:19 AM To: David Smart; RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] The demographic survey I'm in Pittsbugh PA. The list server (crashbox.com) is in Portland OR. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 20 00:53:07 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:53:07 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? Message-ID: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I'm actually going through it in detail. The amount of work you and your friends have put into it is worth the time. David -----Original Message----- From: "Andrew O.Mellinger" Sent: Jul 16, 2005 10:44 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? Has anyone had a chance to glance through it? -Andrew _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 20 01:48:48 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:48:48 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > I'm actually going through it in detail. The amount of work > you and your friends have put into it is worth the time. > > David Ditto. Andrew, what sort of evaluation are you looking for? Do you want critique of the approach, the rules, the text itself? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Jul 20 02:38:09 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:38:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Review: AndrewQuest Message-ID: <29732753.1121791089611.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Andrew (et al), I was going to wait for a reply to Stephen Posey's question but decided to post anyway. When I review an RPG set of rules, I'm essentially unfair. I naturally bring with me my own biases which are derived from what I find to be fun yet playable within the time I have to play. One of my biggest biases is, because of the extremely limited time my group and I have to play, speed of game mechanics is critical. That means either minimal chart lookups, _or_ dice rolls that either combine functions or can be rolled simultaneously (i.e. no linear dice rolling for effects). It doesn't matter to me what the charts or linear dice rolls are for, I'm against it and I refuse as a GM to look at both charts and dice rolls while trying to coordinate campaign activity. It's just too much work and RPGing should be fun for the GM too. Keeping these requirements and biases in mind, here are my thoughts on the AndrewQuest rules set. Overall, there is a moderate learning curve for new players and a heavy learning curve for GMs but about half of the rules can be referenced when needed. This can be offset by a GM sharing his "rules-tracking" amongst some of the players. Also, the details of the rules would seem to require large blocks of play time to get alot accomplished (IMO). The good news is character generation is detailed enough to allow modeling of any kind of action a player or GM could want. There are a couple of things that put me off (here's my biases coming out). - Large number of stats. I waver on this one. As a GM, I greatly appreciate the flexibility this gives me but as a player I get annoyed at the more complex calculations on skill adjustments that a large number of stats cause. Even though I use software for character generation and management, I prefer not to and a large number of stats makes NPC generation slow. - Low # of advantages compared to disadvantages. I'd like to see advantages expanded to provide more options such as ambidexterity, uncanny direction sense, perfect balance, extra language/area knowledge, etc. Anything that makes a character more unique and valued without being overpowering. Combat rules are comprehensive with enough detail to allow a great deal of personal tactics. Combat looks to be alot of fun! - Unarmed combat/martial arts include a number of combat styles and 2 weapons use makes sense - A downside I see is combat requires a combination of dice rolling and chart referencing (bias, bias). This has always proven in my campaigns to slow down play unnecessarily (again, IMO). I found the team rules to be contra-intuitive and the implementation to slow down play because of: - team luck pool usage consultations among the players, and - recalc'ing of team pool AUR upon a death. I understand the goal of the team rules but respectfully disagree with how "team experience" is modeled. In my mind, I see "team experience" as the ability of long time players to seem to be able to read each other's minds during a mission. I attribute this to the constant intensive training the players receive in each other's presence. Each player personally sees how the others instinctively react to various stress situations and comes to expect those instinctive reactions. I prefer to allocate bonuses to coordinated skill use instead. That is, bonuses to combat skills and communication skills for those characters who have been constantly around each other for at least a year are trying to coordinate their efforts. Bonuses of 5-10% are gained for six or more months of high activity (or 1 year of low activity) or will disappear if there is a separation for three or more months of high activity or 1 year of low activity. The longer the length of time spent in someone' company during periods of stress, the larger the bonus. I really enjoy the detail of your rules, Andrew. I found them to be extremely comprehensive (I don't need any future additions to play for years). It's a pity the time my group and I can allocate to playing limits us to a more streamlined rules set like BRPS. David From vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 03:11:01 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:11:01 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Likewise, I'm a little slow since I'm also studying for finals over the next 2 weeks. However, I want to give you & your friends the respect they deserve by doing a thorough study. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of David Smart Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:53 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? I'm actually going through it in detail. The amount of work you and your friends have put into it is worth the time. David -----Original Message----- From: "Andrew O.Mellinger" Sent: Jul 16, 2005 10:44 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? Has anyone had a chance to glance through it? -Andrew _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 20 03:30:06 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Actually it is mostly me. I'm the writer and editor, everyone else playtested and discussed. I've always wanted to work on RPGs professionally, but never had enough time to work on someone else's schedule, so I just hack on this thing once in a while. -Andrew On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David Smart wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:53:07 -0500 (GMT-05:00) > From: David Smart > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? > > I'm actually going through it in detail. The amount of work you and your friends have put into it is worth the time. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Andrew O.Mellinger" > Sent: Jul 16, 2005 10:44 AM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? > > Has anyone had a chance to glance through it? > > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 20 03:36:16 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> Message-ID: Good question! I know that there are a lot of editing errors and typos, I'm not very good at maintained some 250 odd pages of text. I suppose I'm looking for logic errors, simplifications, rules suggestions, and just to see if it makes sense. In some ways basically a sanity check. Since I basically developed it with one other guy, I would like to know if it "isn't too bad" or "what were you thinkging." But I'll take any feedback people are willing to provide. If someone would be excited to do editing, have at it. In fact if anyone is interested, I can provide CVS access to the source. If people just wanted to spell/check clean up typos, that's good too. I'm not too concerned about marketing selling it, but if it were to become an open source or community supported product, I'd be fine to help out. I put a lot of energy into it I would like for other people to benefit. If everyone says it is junk, that's find too. It serves my purposes. -Andrew On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Stephen Posey wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:48:48 -0600 > From: Stephen Posey > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: David Smart , > RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? > > David Smart wrote: >> I'm actually going through it in detail. The amount of work >> you and your friends have put into it is worth the time. >> >> David > > Ditto. > > Andrew, what sort of evaluation are you looking for? Do you want critique of > the approach, the rules, the text itself? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 20 05:17:32 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:17:32 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> Message-ID: <42DD51CC.6040409@concentric.net> Andrew Mellinger wrote: > Good question! > > I know that there are a lot of editing errors and typos, I'm not very > good at maintained some 250 odd pages of text. > > I suppose I'm looking for logic errors, simplifications, rules > suggestions, and just to see if it makes sense. In some ways basically > a sanity check. Since I basically developed it with one other guy, I > would like to know if it "isn't too bad" or "what were you thinkging." > > But I'll take any feedback people are willing to provide. If someone > would be excited to do editing, have at it. In fact if anyone is > interested, I can provide CVS access to the source. If people just > wanted to spell/check clean up typos, that's good too. > > I'm not too concerned about marketing selling it, but if it were to > become an open source or community supported product, I'd be fine to > help out. I put a lot of energy into it I would like for other people to > benefit. > > If everyone says it is junk, that's find too. It serves my purposes. Definitely not that. First impression is "very nice". I have found some typos and logic errors (or perhaps just poorly worded sections) that I'd be happy to edit or at least point out to you. What format are the originals in? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 20 05:52:10 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <42DD51CC.6040409@concentric.net> References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> <42DD51CC.6040409@concentric.net> Message-ID: >> If everyone says it is junk, that's find too. It serves my purposes. > > Definitely not that. First impression is "very nice". Thanks! > I have found some typos and logic errors (or perhaps just poorly worded > sections) that I'd be happy to edit or at least point out to you. > > What format are the originals in? Bwa Ha Ha Ha! LaTeX! So basically plain text. ;) I'll handle all formatting and whatnot. I can email you chapters unless you are CVS/unix savvy, in which case I can send you login info. -Andrew From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jul 20 06:12:33 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:12:33 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> <42DD51CC.6040409@concentric.net> Message-ID: <42DD5EB1.5020106@concentric.net> Andrew Mellinger wrote: >> What format are the originals in? > > Bwa Ha Ha Ha! > > LaTeX! So basically plain text. ;) I'll handle all formatting and > whatnot. I can email you chapters unless you are CVS/unix savvy, in > which case I can send you login info. Yipe, what do you use to create the documents? Are you editing the LaTeX by hand? Anyways, yes I can hack CVS (though I try to avoid it if at all possible ;-)) Thought about placing it on SourceForge? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 20 08:30:37 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O.Mellinger) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:30:37 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Anyone looked at AndrewQuest? In-Reply-To: <42DD5EB1.5020106@concentric.net> References: <16252311.1121784787638.JavaMail.root@wamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <42DD20E0.8030605@concentric.net> <42DD51CC.6040409@concentric.net> <42DD5EB1.5020106@concentric.net> Message-ID: <0cf5cf42481e44d63bf3841ed73f4a00@crashbox.com> Yes, I'm editing by hand. It isn't that much of a big deal, it is easier than HTML and seems to be more maintainable than word. I've tried large words docs before, and they seem to get out of sync after a while. I like the simplicity of Latex. I've thought about sourceforge. I've just got it so v1.0 so before it wasn't ready yet. Since I'm currently the only one playing I want to make sure it serves my needs (i.e. I don't want anyone else screwing it up.) Also I don't have much time (work, grad school and family) I'm afraid I would be able to run a project like that. -Andrew On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Posey wrote: > Andrew Mellinger wrote: > >>> What format are the originals in? >> Bwa Ha Ha Ha! >> LaTeX! So basically plain text. ;) I'll handle all formatting and >> whatnot. I can email you chapters unless you are CVS/unix savvy, in >> which case I can send you login info. > > Yipe, what do you use to create the documents? Are you editing the > LaTeX by hand? > > Anyways, yes I can hack CVS (though I try to avoid it if at all > possible ;-)) > > Thought about placing it on SourceForge? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Jul 20 11:23:10 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O.Mellinger) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:23:10 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Review: AndrewQuest In-Reply-To: <29732753.1121791089611.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <29732753.1121791089611.JavaMail.root@wamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7d868f7752a76c07f71e7d438fd8efdb@crashbox.com> On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:38 PM, David Smart wrote: > Andrew (et al), > > Also, the details of the rules would seem to require large blocks of > play time to get alot accomplished (IMO). I haven't really playtested that much but I suspect you're right. Many of the rules will be marked as optional or have 'derivative cases' so they shouldn't be needed, but that is one of the major places that it needs work. > The good news is character generation is detailed enough to allow > modeling of any kind of action a player or GM could want. One of my peeves with most systems is that creation is limited. I think I kinda went overboard... > There are a couple of things that put me off (here's my biases coming > out). > - Large number of stats. I waver on this one. As a GM, I greatly > appreciate the flexibility this gives me but as a player I get annoyed > at the more complex calculations on skill adjustments that a large > number of stats cause. Even though I use software for character > generation and management, I prefer not to and a large number of stats > makes NPC generation slow. I too waver on this one. Simply from a management perspective I would like fewer, but whenever I talk about with the other players we can't decide which ones to get rid of. We all think there are too many, but we like having all of them. We really like the parity between physical and mental. it certainly makes spirits and non-physical encounters much more dynamic. I got tired of every spirit simply being a POW rating. But consequently we are stuck with a lot of attributes. > - Low # of advantages compared to disadvantages. I'd like to see > advantages expanded to provide more options such as ambidexterity, > uncanny direction sense, perfect balance, extra language/area > knowledge, etc. Anything that makes a character more unique and valued > without being overpowering. This is simply a time issue. I haven't spend much time at all on these and I really do need more. > Combat rules are comprehensive with enough detail to allow a great > deal of personal tactics. Combat looks to be alot of fun! > - Unarmed combat/martial arts include a number of combat styles and 2 > weapons use makes sense I stole this from Ars Magica. It works really well there. > - A downside I see is combat requires a combination of dice rolling > and chart referencing (bias, bias). This has always proven in my > campaigns to slow down play unnecessarily (again, IMO). I agree. I'd love to have a zero chart way to do it. I was thinking of doing an Elric-style with an armor randomizer. However, I like the feel of 'you disabled his arm' instead of 'his HP reach zero, he's dead.' Really most combatants are unconscious or have disabled limbs, not just dead. But I really would like to make it faster. > I found the team rules to be contra-intuitive and the implementation > to slow down play because of: > - team luck pool usage consultations among the players, and > - recalc'ing of team pool AUR upon a death. I'll need to go back and look at these. I pretty much lifted them from Shadowrun. Basically it is a team safety value. > I understand the goal of the team rules but respectfully disagree with > how "team experience" is modeled. In my mind, I see "team experience" > as the ability of long time players to seem to be able to read each > other's minds during a mission. I attribute this to the constant > intensive training the players receive in each other's presence. Each > player personally sees how the others instinctively react to various > stress situations and comes to expect those instinctive reactions. This is a good point. We generally do all this via role-play. The players often intentionally follow a certain course because they know that they're character doesn't know the other character's reactions. We've had a lot of really funny things happen because of this. However, it would be nice to parameterize this into some sort of other benefit (like you describe below). > I prefer to allocate bonuses to coordinated skill use instead. That > is, bonuses to combat skills and communication skills for those > characters who have been constantly around each other for at least a > year are trying to coordinate their efforts. Bonuses of 5-10% are > gained for six or more months of high activity (or 1 year of low > activity) or will disappear if there is a separation for three or more > months of high activity or 1 year of low activity. The longer the > length of time spent in someone' company during periods of stress, the > larger the bonus. That's interesting. It sounds reasonable, I'll need to cogitate on the impact and easy way to track it. > I really enjoy the detail of your rules, Andrew. I found them to be > extremely comprehensive (I don't need any future additions to play for > years). It's a pity the time my group and I can allocate to playing > limits us to a more streamlined rules set like BRPS. Thanks for all your feedback, I really appreciate it! It as actually been a while since I've read through them all, I'll probably be appalled at some of the things I've written. It is hard to maintain something like then when I'm such a slow writer. -Andrew From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Jul 25 21:30:50 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:30:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Review: AndrewQuest Message-ID: <13231112.1122291050034.JavaMail.root@wamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Andrew, What I do to speed up RQ combat is have the players roll attack, damage, and location simultaneously using different colored dice. It makes for some good story-telling ("oh, you just _barely_ missed taking his head off!") and does speed up combat resolution a bit. As a GM, I also generate before hand a random list of 100 d100 dice rolls, print them off, and just go down the list during play, checking off each roll as they're used. Really cuts down on my rolling. David -----Original Message----- From: "Andrew O.Mellinger" Sent: Jul 19, 2005 8:23 PM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] A Review: AndrewQuest > - A downside I see is combat requires a combination of dice rolling > and chart referencing (bias, bias). This has always proven in my > campaigns to slow down play unnecessarily (again, IMO). I agree. I'd love to have a zero chart way to do it. I was thinking of doing an Elric-style with an armor randomizer. However, I like the feel of 'you disabled his arm' instead of 'his HP reach zero, he's dead.' Really most combatants are unconscious or have disabled limbs, not just dead. But I really would like to make it faster. From jens.haeusser at ubc.ca Thu Jul 28 02:55:19 2005 From: jens.haeusser at ubc.ca (Jens Haeusser) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:55:19 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Are RuneQuest fans older In-Reply-To: <01ae01c589da$02053a20$7d42dbcd@alphamind> Message-ID: <0IKA00810PO32W@smtp.interchange.ubc.ca> I'm late coming to the thread, but as the young whippersnapper of the group (a mere 32), I thought I'd do my bit to bring down the average age. I got my first RPG on my 8th birthday in 1980- the newly released D&D Basic boxed set. I discovered Runequest Second edition at my public library in 1983, at the tender age of 10, and have been hooked ever since. I can still vividly remember cycling down to my local game store in 1984 right after the release of RQ3, plunking down all of my pocket money, tearing into the shrinkwrap, and being dismayed at seeing skills ending in percentages other than 0 or 5%. I continued to spend the rest of my pocket money over the years on the various RQ supplements. Jens Haeusser From andrew at crashbox.com Fri Jul 29 10:57:03 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O.Mellinger) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:57:03 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Prerolling Was: A Review: AndrewQuest In-Reply-To: <13231112.1122291050034.JavaMail.root@wamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <13231112.1122291050034.JavaMail.root@wamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5ecb1d473ea5e4967c40d1e55aab1a78@crashbox.com> I've done prerolling too, and one time it was horrible! AQ uses multipe rolls (open ended) so when I saw the sequence (on a d20) of 1,3,2,4,8 coming up I knew someone was in for a lot of pain. It happened to be the player! It was like watching a train wreck... But yes, that can speed stuff up quite a bit. -Andrew On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:30 AM, David Smart wrote: > Andrew, > > What I do to speed up RQ combat is have the players roll attack, > damage, and location simultaneously using different colored dice. It > makes for some good story-telling ("oh, you just _barely_ missed > taking his head off!") and does speed up combat resolution a bit. As a > GM, I also generate before hand a random list of 100 d100 dice rolls, > print them off, and just go down the list during play, checking off > each roll as they're used. Really cuts down on my rolling. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Andrew O.Mellinger" > Sent: Jul 19, 2005 8:23 PM > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] A Review: AndrewQuest