From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun May 1 00:41:55 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Swashbucling RQ In-Reply-To: <20050430100836.43105.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050430144155.66359.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> > A couple of points back: And back again > > - Acrobatics isn't in any version of RQ IV I've > ever seen published; Which does not mean it does not exist. We regularly add skills as need be. > - Splitting parries is not going to work against 5 > cardinals guards unless you've got ~ 250% parry or > dodge; No problem for Erol, his skills were probably much higher than some measly 250%. > - There sure as hell aren't skils for seduction and > romance - there are some that are close, but no > cigar; Again if you really need them add them, although Courtesan should cover most of it. > - Where are the rules to knock someone out? > Buggered > if I've seen them in 26 years of playing the game. > If > you clonk someone hard enough to knock them out, > quite > realistically most people don't get up again; There are a number of ways to do that. Reduce them to 1 or 2 genereal damage or choose to do subdual damage. > - Fast talk is making someone believe something you > say is true, it doesn't mean you can come up with > something witty or pithy. Oratory might be a better > bet; It will do what you want it to do. > I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd take > some > (quite a bit of) work. I'll hold the same position I > did before, use something like FUDGE and work from > there, rather than starting with RQ and twisting it. Everything you say is just a minor point, RQ rules are good to go if the GM is willing them to let them be played in the spirit of swashbuckling. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun May 1 00:46:51 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430144651.22067.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> > >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when > someone wants to break off and run. Most of the > time, > with two people facing off with sword and shield, > the > sort of dodging that occurs is usually in > conjunction with blocking with a shield. With katana, and other oriental weapons, most of the time it is dodge, since parrying is likely to damage the weapon. Shields are mostly used to cover locations as opposed to parrying as well. The only shield with is used primarily to parry with is the buckler. This is the one case there D&D may have actually got it better than RQ, since they treat shield as armor. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sun May 1 00:50:44 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Heroic Greek combat (was Re: Armor and dodging) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430145045.18025.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ashley Munday wrote: > You might not have to do that much. As most weapons > are impaling, they're easier to defend against. Give > a few combats a whirl and see what happens. It might > be a job making combats last long enough and seem > "epic" though. I have been using special and critical rules from RQ II, where all weapons and not just impailing once do additional damage on special and critical hits and I have no problem lasting or being "epic". The key is parrying and dodge reducing the level of attack. Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aelarsen at mac.com Sun May 1 01:01:46 2005 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:01:46 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 16, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <20050430100853.88E0E2226C9@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: John Raner > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Message-ID: <20050429180944.37243.qmail at web53705.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > --- Andrew Larsen wrote: >> Nor was battlefield plate armor ever so heavy >> that its wearer could not >> stand up or move around in it. This is essentially >> a Victorian myth, like >> chastity belts and the "right of the first night", >> that has no historical >> validity. I know one re-enactor who is extremely >> concerned with accurate >> armor (he's authored several academic monographs on >> the subject and >> publishes translations of medieval fighting manuals) >> who swears that he can >> do handstands and cartwheels in 14th and 15th >> century plate armor. > > I saw a documentary on the History channel that agreed > with this and showed a short film of a re-enactor in > 14-15th Century armour *doing* cartwheels and > handstands. > > Hmm, I didn't know the "Droit du Signeur" was a > myth..... Yup. It's a 19th century construct, essentially, recently given new life by that atrocious Scottish ----------------------------- >From: Lev Lafayette > > One thing that is not being considered, is that > every point of ENC reduces the Dodge by the same > amount. >Which is sort of maddening when you're playing a >Strength 19 character and you get the same effects as >a Strength 8 character.... >That's broken. Surely it's balanced out by the fact that the STR 19 character has STR bonuses to his Attack, Parry, Agility, and damage bonuses. > From: Gianni > What was wrong with RQII? Why were the rules modified for RQIII? Lots of small things, I think, needed changing. For example, the focused/unfocused thing in spell casting seems needlessly complicated. Shamans were deemed underpowered in comparison to priests. Real access to divine magic came very late in a campaign. There was no system for sorcery. Previous experience was poorly done, and there was no mechanism for figuring out which skills a character started with. Orate was tacked on larger as an afterthought, with no other communication skills. Of course, they added fatigue, which wasn't necessary, but overall I think the changes were improvements. > With defence, you had a means of taking dodging, feints, etc. into account > whilst still allowing the character to wear armour and to parry. In RQIII the > character'd EITHER dodge OR parry. I've never SCA'd myself, but I can't see > why > you couldn't BOTH dodge AND parry. In the SCA, at least, it tends to be a question of personal agility, weapon style, and encumbrance. It's hard to dodge when you're carrying a big shield, at least to judge from what I've seen happen (I don't do combat myself). The two guys I know who really like to dodge carry only small bucklers. But I don't want to speculate beyond that, because I'm not a fighter, and I believe there is at least one person on this list who is, or was, a distinguished SCA fighter. > From: Lev Lafayette > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Message-ID: <20050430095058.30665.qmail at web21122.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > As much as I appreciate the efforts of Discoveryt > channel in popular education their comments on > Agincourt should be tempered by criticism (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt). > > This however that does not discredit your or other > commentators on the subject about potential > maneuverability in one wearing armour. > > Basically, both claims are true. One _can_ do > cartwheels in armour, but armour is _also_ heavy. > > As common sense would dictate, armour is designed to > weight not so much that you are reduced to complete > immobility however it still affords the appropriate > protection of the vitals. Agincourt was however > special circumstances. In that particular case it was > the equivalent of trying to fight in plate mail whilst > in a swamp. Again, the reconstructions of the battle that I have seen suggest that the muddy field was much less of a factor than the fact that the French became very tightly packed by the geography and English defensive formation, which prevented them from being effective. For example, John Keegan (admittedly, not a medievalist, but a well-respected historian of war in general), in his reconstruction of the battle, makes only two casual references to the muddy field, neither of which suggest the mud made a real difference. As far as weight is concerned, I've been told that plate armor is no heavier that the modern gear that US soldiers in Iraq wear and carry. Gives a very different perspective on the issue. But no one's really responded to my issue about dodging once vs. dodging multiple times in a round. Any thoughts on this? It's the biggest issue I have about combat. Andrew E. Larsen From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun May 1 02:20:33 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:20:33 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits References: <20050429170928.5B0E02226C4@boomstick.screwheads.net><33A6C3F8-B93A-11D9-ADDF-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1114853905.42735211c5440@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <002c01c54da0$9b59b1e0$68417442@wizard> Not my decision :-). As far as I'm concerned, just let the character keep parrying and dodging. If he has to do it a lot, the probabilities will catch up to him. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." ; "Tom Cantine" Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits > Hi gang > > What was wrong with RQII? Why were the rules modified for RQIII? > > With defence, you had a means of taking dodging, feints, etc. into account > whilst still allowing the character to wear armour and to parry. In RQIII > the > character'd EITHER dodge OR parry. I've never SCA'd myself, but I can't > see why > you couldn't BOTH dodge AND parry. > > Cheers, > > Gianni > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun May 1 02:32:09 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:32:09 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge References: <20050430101313.7970.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003e01c54da2$39e9c6f0$68417442@wizard> In my SCA days, I saw several very skillful armored fighters attempt to dodge blows. Some were successful for a short period of time, but they generally reverted to parrying, or got hit. Of course, they were in full (or what passed for full at the time) armor and using shields and large weapons. For safety reasons, we've never (to my knowledge) put a swashbuckler up against a fully armored foe. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashley Munday" To: "Peter Maranci" ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when > someone wants to break off and run. Most of the time, > with two people facing off with sword and shield, the > sort of dodging that occurs is usually in conjunction > with blocking with a shield. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > *Never seen an SCA thing, but I've seen and > participated in quite a few metal weapons groups. > > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun May 1 02:34:15 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:34:15 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge References: <20050430144651.22067.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001c54da2$835825c0$68417442@wizard> Leon, You've obviously never seen an active shield user. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > >> >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when >> someone wants to break off and run. Most of the >> time, >> with two people facing off with sword and shield, >> the >> sort of dodging that occurs is usually in >> conjunction with blocking with a shield. > > With katana, and other oriental weapons, most of the > time it is dodge, since parrying is likely to damage > the weapon. > > Shields are mostly used to cover locations as opposed > to parrying as well. The only shield with is used > primarily to parry with is the buckler. This is the > one case there D&D may have actually got it better > than RQ, since they treat shield as armor. > > > > > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun May 1 02:44:32 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:44:32 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Agincourt and honor References: Message-ID: <006001c54da3$f4c4bfb0$68417442@wizard> One of the problems the French faced with the English formation was self-inflicted. The English set themselves up in wedges of archers with knights and men at arms in the intervals, sort of like Attacking French /\_/\_/\_/\ English The French knights felt there was no honor in fighting archers, so they crammed themselves into the intervals. The archers were somewhat protected by sharpened stakes, but it was by no means a continuous wall - they couldn't carry enough to do that. But they had easy attacks on the knights who were trying to ignore them for more honorable targets. So the French repeated the example of Adrianople, crammed themselves into an area they couldn't fight in, and got slaughtered. Comes from spending a couple of decades sitting in your castles and talking about honor instead of going out and fighting the war. Interesting bit of "How history is written." English descriptions of Agincourt have the English forces outnumbered. I've read a translated French arms and armor book that authoritatively states that the French were outnumbered. Steve Perrin >> >> As common sense would dictate, armour is designed to >> weight not so much that you are reduced to complete >> immobility however it still affords the appropriate >> protection of the vitals. Agincourt was however >> special circumstances. In that particular case it was >> the equivalent of trying to fight in plate mail whilst >> in a swamp. > > Again, the reconstructions of the battle that I have seen suggest that > the muddy field was much less of a factor than the fact that the French > became very tightly packed by the geography and English defensive > formation, > which prevented them from being effective. For example, John Keegan > (admittedly, not a medievalist, but a well-respected historian of war in > general), in his reconstruction of the battle, makes only two casual > references to the muddy field, neither of which suggest the mud made a > real > difference. > As far as weight is concerned, I've been told that plate armor is no > heavier that the modern gear that US soldiers in Iraq wear and carry. > Gives > a very different perspective on the issue. > But no one's really responded to my issue about dodging once vs. > dodging > multiple times in a round. Any thoughts on this? It's the biggest issue > I > have about combat. > > Andrew E. Larsen > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sun May 1 04:48:42 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 16, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050430184842.90130.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > Yup. It's a 19th century construct, > essentially, recently given new > life by that atrocious Scottish > ----------------------------- Are you talking about that novel about the poor people of Barley Cross? If so, they were Irish ;). In the case of that novel, while the Droit du Signeur may have been a myth, they believed it was real and introduced it to their society. At which point, it became a real custom (and one that was essential to their survival). Cheers, John "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." --- Ani DiFranco "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Sun May 1 07:02:35 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:02:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Swashbucling RQ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430210235.34136.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Now this interesting - you're playing RQ like HeroQuest - making up abilities, changing their meanings (or applying a meaning that the GM and player ) and allowing huge skill levels. Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > A couple of points back: > > And back again > > > > - Acrobatics isn't in any version of RQ IV I've > > ever seen published; > > Which does not mean it does not exist. We regularly > add skills as need be. > > > - Splitting parries is not going to work against > 5 > > cardinals guards unless you've got ~ 250% parry or > > dodge; > > No problem for Erol, his skills were probably much > higher than some measly 250%. > > > - There sure as hell aren't skils for seduction > and > > romance - there are some that are close, but no > > cigar; > > Again if you really need them add them, although > Courtesan should cover most of it. > > > > - Where are the rules to knock someone out? > > Buggered > > if I've seen them in 26 years of playing the game. > > If > > you clonk someone hard enough to knock them out, > > quite > > realistically most people don't get up again; > > There are a number of ways to do that. Reduce them > to > 1 or 2 genereal damage or choose to do subdual > damage. > > > - Fast talk is making someone believe something > you > > say is true, it doesn't mean you can come up with > > something witty or pithy. Oratory might be a > better > > bet; > > It will do what you want it to do. > > > I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd take > > some > > (quite a bit of) work. I'll hold the same position > I > > did before, use something like FUDGE and work from > > there, rather than starting with RQ and twisting > it. > > Everything you say is just a minor point, RQ rules > are > good to go if the GM is willing them to let them be > played in the spirit of swashbuckling. > > > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________________________ > 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Sun May 1 07:07:06 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:07:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430210706.43899.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Well, Sir's experience is obviously different to mine, so I can't really add anything here. Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs > when > > someone wants to break off and run. Most of the > > time, > > with two people facing off with sword and shield, > > the > > sort of dodging that occurs is usually in > > conjunction with blocking with a shield. > > With katana, and other oriental weapons, most of the > time it is dodge, since parrying is likely to damage > the weapon. > > Shields are mostly used to cover locations as > opposed > to parrying as well. The only shield with is used > primarily to parry with is the buckler. This is the > one case there D&D may have actually got it better > than RQ, since they treat shield as armor. > > > > > > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > __________________________________________________ > 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 michael at messiahbomb.com Sun May 1 17:13:22 2005 From: michael at messiahbomb.com (Michael Christian) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 00:13:22 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits References: <20050429170928.5B0E02226C4@boomstick.screwheads.net><33A6C3F8-B93A-11D9-ADDF-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1114853905.42735211c5440@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <006301c54e1d$42dbdb10$0500a8c0@spacelord> My two bits...It's been years since I've been involved with the SCA, but in tourney combat I don't believe that I ever saw a fully armored fighter dodge an attack rather than parry with whatever weapon was at hand. As for the weight of armor and the ability to perform tricks in it, I have seen someone do cartwheels in full plate. During an SCA war in which I was an archer (with light cloth armor) I was also at one point run down and killed by a fellow in full plate. As a side note well fitted plate armor and other hard armors will allow more mobility and be more comfortable to wear for long periods than chain armor, since the various pieces buckle on and distribute weight more evenly than chain mail where the weight rests pretty much entirely on the shoulders so it can seem heavier than it actually is. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." ; "Tom Cantine" Cc: Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits > Hi gang > > What was wrong with RQII? Why were the rules modified for RQIII? > > With defence, you had a means of taking dodging, feints, etc. into account > whilst still allowing the character to wear armour and to parry. In RQIII > the > character'd EITHER dodge OR parry. I've never SCA'd myself, but I can't > see why > you couldn't BOTH dodge AND parry. > > Cheers, > > Gianni > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From vikingjarl at gmail.com Mon May 2 02:10:56 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 09:10:56 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: <003e01c54da2$39e9c6f0$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: Steve will probably remember the SCA group I formed called the "Light Cavalry" (from the West & Caid) of experienced fighters. One of the minimum requirements to get in was that you could run a 7-minute mile or less in Transition Plate Armour (not just what passed for it in the SCA standards of the time - Steve & I both remember when the armour requirements was just a freon-can helm, period, end of sentence - no body, basketball pads, nothing else) then immediately fight & win (or put on a darn good show of skill) against one of us. You also had to do 12 fly pushups in under 4 minutes among other requirements. We all practiced dodging techniques. Admittedly, I don't just count dodging as leaping out of the way, but also techniques where you cause your armour to glance off a blow. Examples: a hip flip used to stop & deflect a low rising blow toward the ribs by shifting your tasset plates in the way. Relaxing your neck & head & dropping the far shoulder helps deflect/glance & remove the force of a flat snap to the helm. But yes, I must agree with Steve that overall the parry is more successful for the heavily armoured fighter. Being one of the fighters Steve is referring too, I can back up his statement that I primarily used a shield to parry & generally used dodging to handle the blows that got beyond the shield or that I couldn't reach in time --- They tended to send multiple opponents against me for some odd reason - still are for that matter, can't they see I'm just a tired frail old man? LOL, Sven -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Stephen Perrin Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:32 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In my SCA days, I saw several very skillful armored fighters attempt to dodge blows. Some were successful for a short period of time, but they generally reverted to parrying, or got hit. Of course, they were in full (or what passed for full at the time) armor and using shields and large weapons. For safety reasons, we've never (to my knowledge) put a swashbuckler up against a fully armored foe. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashley Munday" To: "Peter Maranci" ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when > someone wants to break off and run. Most of the time, > with two people facing off with sword and shield, the > sort of dodging that occurs is usually in conjunction > with blocking with a shield. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > *Never seen an SCA thing, but I've seen and > participated in quite a few metal weapons groups. > > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 16:35:33 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 06:35:33 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: <20050429132908.53606.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And, according to >things I saw and read about recently, at the Battle of >Agincourt, the French armor was good enough vs the >English longbows, but prooved the Frenchs undoing do >to its weight, forcing the French to become bogged >down in mud and in some cases even drown in it. > >Leon Yepp, you're right You didn't go in the first trap of Agincourt; that the french were mowed down by arrows that pierce armor (-because it don't). But you forget that people gets trampelled to death today as well, even without heavy armor, so you cannot blaim the french commanders complete lack of control over their charge on the plate armor. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 16:49:28 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 06:49:28 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: <20050430095058.30665.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >Basically, both claims are true. One _can_ do >cartwheels in armour, but armour is _also_ heavy. Yepp >Agincourt was however >special circumstances. In that particular case it was >the equivalent of trying to fight in plate mail whilst >in a swamp. It's allso worth remembering that it was not only the french that wore full plate armor. The english allso had some of them. And the reason for the french for massing togheter in the centre, was that they asumed the battle to be pro forma, and everybody wanted to engage the (fully plated) vanguard of the english king, and totally disregarded the yeowmen on the flanks that only after things had started to become quite confusing in the centre crowded inn on the french flanks, making the norwegian saying "like herring in a barrel" even more suiting. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 16:56:18 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 06:56:18 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: <20050430101548.802.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >The whole idea of armour slowing you down is daft In real life, it isn't The combat manual I've been studying for 4 years; Fior di Battaglia, by Fiore di Liberi, written around 1410 clearly shows different techniques if you're in armour contra when you're not. And not only because of level of protection; allso because of the speed you're able to do technique with when you're wearing full plate armor. >- if you're strong enough it doesn't affect you at all. RQ is a world of magic, where creatures and man can have incredible strength, so therefore, I see your point. but then weapons stated as 2h weapons should allso have minimum 1h.stat requirements listed for the same reason. (I allways fancied a great troll with 2 1h-hellebards...) _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon May 2 17:04:33 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 00:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502070433.29206.qmail@web21128.mail.yahoo.com> --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > >The whole idea of armour slowing you down is daft > In real life, it isn't The combat manual I've been > studying for 4 years; > Fior di Battaglia, by Fiore di Liberi, written > around 1410 clearly shows > different techniques if you're in armour contra when > you're not. And not > only because of level of protection; allso because > of the speed you're able > to do technique with when you're wearing full plate > armor. 'actly... One of the things that Rolemaster probably did right even if it is a bit 'crunchy' is have a skill called "maneuver in armour". > >- if you're strong enough it doesn't affect you at > all. > RQ is a world of magic, where creatures and man can > have incredible > strength, so therefore, I see your point. but then > weapons stated as 2h > weapons should allso have minimum 1h.stat > requirements listed for the same > reason. (I allways fancied a great troll with 2 > 1h-hellebards...) General rule of thumb I reckon (and I did the same thing in Rolemaster Companion VI 'cept the troll had two war mattocks) is to multiple the STR min by 1.5 All the best, 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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 17:07:53 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 07:07:53 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: <20050430144651.22067.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >Shields are mostly used to cover locations as opposed >to parrying as well. The only shield with is used >primarily to parry with is the buckler. This is the >one case there D&D may have actually got it better >than RQ, since they treat shield as armor. In the oldest martial manual from Europe (which is about sword and buckler) from around 1280, the buckler is regarded as a doubble gauntlet, and the sword as the parrying impliment. My teacher; Colin Richards that have been studying WMA for 10 years and done Re-enactment for 25 years, have successfully transferred 90% of the buckler-techniques to the viking round shield as well. The essense to learn, is that combat is more about an integrated flow between attacking and parrying, that is either "tap-tap", or "tap, tap, tap" *The "tap-tap" is where you stop/divert(-but maintain contact with) the opponents weapon with your shield and kill him with your sword, or where you stop/divert(-but maintain contact with) the opponents weapon with your sword and bang his face with the shield-boss/grapple his arms. ** The "tap-tap-tap" is where you stop/divert(-but maintain contact with) the opponents weapon with your sword, bang the buckler into the opponents swordarm (possibly allso traping his shield) and then kill him with your now free-to-use-sword. I've finally discarded both the attack and parry skill of fighting, and swopped them with the two distances Long-play and Close-play (inspired by the manual Fior di Battaglia from 1410 that cover everything from wresteling to judicial fighting with hellebards and 2h.warhammers. Now, what previously was A% and P%, is now either a resisted Long-play or Close-play roll that vagually resemble Issaries' combat-system, but retaining the d100-system. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 17:22:41 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 07:22:41 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits In-Reply-To: <006301c54e1d$42dbdb10$0500a8c0@spacelord> Message-ID: >I don't believe that I ever saw a fully armored fighter dodge an attack >rather than parry with whatever weapon was at hand. That's because we (sca and reenactment) have a tradition of pulling blows and not kill eachother. In real fighting (ie full contact -allso towards face; and face it ;) -in Fiore; 98% of the attacks is shown aiming at the face, so the ultimate thing is -like in the US andti nuclear campagins in the 50; "Duck and cover" When I spar longsword from FIor di Battaglia or sword and bucler from I-33, Parrying is OK, but it gets you nowwere unless you allso sidestep in order to get an angle of attack and to dampen the effect of the incoming thingie. Allthough most of us know that european swords werent 40lbs pieces of brittle iron, they still could break (Fiore refers to it several times, that this and that technique will make the opponents blade to break or bend), so even dividing the skills "Attack", "Parry" and "Dodge" is rather daft IMHO, as it really just is 3 aspects of the same thing. (But as I understand it; Dodge is more like "jumping out of the fray"/to do a "Cobbes traverse" -rather than refined sidesteps in order to get you into a position of a reposte? (Cobbes, btw, was a famous duellist most noted for his able to survive. He was a diecent fencer, but he allso wasn't afraid of paying for his life with a bit of honour... If he faced a tougher opponent, he threw his sword towards the face of the opponent, traversed 180* and took off; hence "Cobbs traverse". Interestingly enough; there exist a resembling history from Japan with allmost the same content: A japanese Samurai, very skilled, once learned that a mere commoner was winning several duels. So he thought that he should see this low-status-sword-master, and try to learn from him his secrets of swordplay. It took him long time to track the streetfigher up, but finally, he succeded. He then asked him: "Howcome you've survived over 40 duels?" The streetfighter replied like this: "When we fight, we cross swords. When my opponent is stronger in his blade than me, I duck under and cut him. When my opponent is weaker in his blade than me, I power through and cut him. If we're equal, I throw my sword at his face and run away!" _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 2 22:59:33 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:59:33 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bjorn Ares houserules on combat and damage In-Reply-To: <20050502070433.29206.qmail@web21128.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Inspired by the recent discussion about fighting and sorts, I've found motivation to post the rules that I use in my campagining. Allthough the following set of rules might look a lot different from the RQ d100-system, I like it very much, and think that I've incorporated most of the intent in the (RQ3) rules. FIGHTING SYSTEM; "CONTESTED ROLLS?: Attack and Parry skills exchanged with two combat skills, called ?Long play?(LP) og ?Close play?(CP) (for each type of weapons). The LP and CP skills both cover the aspects of sidestepping in order to aquire a better position, parrying and attacking. LP stands for ranges where you cannot apply grappletechniques (like the distance in RQ3-rules where the SRM1- weapon is an advantage over the SRM3-weapon). CP stands for distances where you can apply grappletechniques. All skills have a LP and a CP-variant, exept for kicking (that have no CP, and grappeling that have no LP). When fighting, the parties choose an appropriate skill (usually allways the LP-one initially) and roll his %-skill. If partie#1 rolls over his skill, his opponent might add partie#1's margin of failure to his result. If partie#2 rolls under his skill roll, he adds his margin of sucess. There can never be more than one "winner", and only one result is to be rolled. Some examples: (Both P#1 and P#2 have 50% in their skills.) Example A: P#1 rolls 50 and P#2 rolls 55: =P#1 adds 0 from his own roll, and then add 5 from the opponets margin of failure and gets a result of +5 Example B: P#1 rolls 75 and P#2 rolls 95: P#1 starts off with -25, a lousy result, but is vinicated by the opponents even worse result that he may add to his, ending up with a +20 result. Example C: P#1 rolls 45, a success, juhuu!, But P#2 rolls a 15. In this result, P#2 ends up winning, with a +30, and P#1 ends up with a negative result (-30) Example D: The diamonddwarf "Gildur" have 900% in axe-attack, vs. a broo with an axeskill of 50% The diamonddwarf will allways win, unless he rolls a fumble, or the broo rolls a critical result. If you fumble, the opponent automatically add 100 to his roll/he allways succeeds, even if you've got a skill of more than 100. If both fumble, I use the old RQ3-fumble-table. The consept of special and critical successes is contained in the system, but the actual benefits and how they work is changed quite a lot. I've allso incorporated a "team-play-skill" that makes roman legionares superior to individuals if fighting in drilled, tight formations. You have only one contested roll pr. turn, but if you face several opponents, you get a contested roll vs. all of them (but with some minus modifiers). SR still have somthing to say, as the one with the lowest SR in LP (for CP-the old RQ3-rules still apply) -gets to roll on a table (the "Active-table) that is slightly better than the "Inactive-table". If both attack with the same SR, the one with the highest DEX rolls on the "Active-table" There are several modifiers to theese rolls, just as there are modifiers in other RPG's for different situations (elevation, behind the enemy, etc) Dodge is used in a contested roll vs the opponents LP-skill in the skill he choose, if the Dodger wishes to enter into CP. (This is done automatically, without a contested roll, if the one wishing to stay on a distance is trapped so that he cannot circle/retreat.) Dodge can allso be used as in RQ3 as a defensive skill to avoid attacks. Shields were a challenge, but I've solved it, by having 2 different types of "shield saves" (one for small shields and one for big shields). A shield save is rolled after you've lost a contested roll and the opponent have inflicted damage to you. If you succeed the shield save, you subtract damage with the shield's AP's, just as in RQ3 DAMAGE I've split damage and armor, as I found the RQ3 rules for this unsatisfactory. I now have piercingdamage, cuttingdamage, bashingdamage and grappelingdamage. Allmost all weapons can do many or all of theese types of damage; a knife can do all of them (pierce with the edge, cut with the blade, bash with the shaft and grappled using grappeling). I split armor betweenn piercing, cutting and bashing. A gamberson have 4ap's vs cutting, 4 ap's vs bashing and 2 ap's vs piercing. There's no armor that helps against an arm lock (thats why you find so many grappletechniques in Fior di Battaglia). so if someone grapples you, you get no armor. Depending on wether you're in LP or CP and depending on how good your contested-roll-result was, you either ROLL or CHOOSE what type of damage you applied on your opponent. ("P#1" in example "A" would have rolled a d10 to see wether he pierced cut, grappeled or bashed his opponent if he were in CP, and would have rolled a d10 to see wether he pierced or cut if he were in LP). You apply damage in theese ways: By the damagepotential of the weapon By the damagemodifier for strength and huge size By rolling high results on the "active/inactive-table"; the higher results, the better the damagemodifier. By rolling a special or critical result. An example: A dagger does d4+2 dam (piercingdamage). When used by "Sigurd the Strong", with a wooping d6 dam.mod, the max dam. is staggering 12! If he ended up with a positive contestedroll at -say +80, he gets an additional d8 to his damage; 20. This would get him (allmost) nowere though, if his opponent wore plate-armor. Plate armor is impenetrable from piercing or cuttingdamage, so only grappeling (and to some degree; bashing) is workable versus a guy in full plate; say an english yeowman at Agincourt ;) In this example the piercingdamage is converted to bashingdamage, halving the result rolled and put up against the armourplates bashing AP-value instead. If he rolled maximum; 20, it would have been halved (10), and then would the plates bashing AP-value of 6 subtract the damage down to serious, but manageable 4. But since Sigurd the Strong rolled so high on his contested-roll (+80), he can choose to apply a grappelingtechnique instead that would be d6 for grappeling + d6 for his strength and +d8 for his efficient technique. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 3 00:07:31 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 07:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: <20050502140731.89605.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, I have, but most shield use is passive especially any shield biger than a target or a heater. The major exception, which I can think of were the Zulu, but their shields were fairly light comparing to what the standard kite in RQ is like. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Leon, > > You've obviously never seen an active shield user. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leon Kirshtein" > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:46 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > > > > > >> >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when > >> someone wants to break off and run. Most of the > >> time, > >> with two people facing off with sword and shield, > >> the > >> sort of dodging that occurs is usually in > >> conjunction with blocking with a shield. > > > > With katana, and other oriental weapons, most of the > > time it is dodge, since parrying is likely to damage > > the weapon. > > > > Shields are mostly used to cover locations as opposed > > to parrying as well. The only shield with is used > > primarily to parry with is the buckler. This is the > > one case there D&D may have actually got it better > > than RQ, since they treat shield as armor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Leon Kirshtein > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 3 00:14:01 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 07:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Swashbucling RQ Message-ID: <20050502141401.79250.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> >Now this interesting - youre playing RQ like HeroQuest - making up abilities, RQ skills are not all inclusive. If a particular skill is not discribed in the book, then we add it and its description. > changing their meanings (or applying a meaning that the GM and player) Meaning? Not really, but surely you do not hink they have been setup to take care of every situation? > and allowing huge skill levels. I have never seen I acharacter with a skill level of over 130% in my games with out major magical boosting. And besides I said Erol had those skills at that level, I did not say the players would. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Now this interesting - you're playing RQ like > HeroQuest - making up abilities, changing their > meanings (or applying a meaning that the GM and player > ) and allowing huge skill levels. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > A couple of points back: > > > > And back again > > > > > > - Acrobatics isn't in any version of RQ IV I've > > > ever seen published; > > > > Which does not mean it does not exist. We regularly > > add skills as need be. > > > > > - Splitting parries is not going to work against > > 5 > > > cardinals guards unless you've got ~ 250% parry or > > > dodge; > > > > No problem for Erol, his skills were probably much > > higher than some measly 250%. > > > > > - There sure as hell aren't skils for seduction > > and > > > romance - there are some that are close, but no > > > cigar; > > > > Again if you really need them add them, although > > Courtesan should cover most of it. > > > > > > > - Where are the rules to knock someone out? > > > Buggered > > > if I've seen them in 26 years of playing the game. > > > If > > > you clonk someone hard enough to knock them out, > > > quite > > > realistically most people don't get up again; > > > > There are a number of ways to do that. Reduce them > > to > > 1 or 2 genereal damage or choose to do subdual > > damage. > > > > > - Fast talk is making someone believe something > > you > > > say is true, it doesn't mean you can come up with > > > something witty or pithy. Oratory might be a > > better > > > bet; > > > > It will do what you want it to do. > > > > > I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd take > > > some > > > (quite a bit of) work. I'll hold the same position > > I > > > did before, use something like FUDGE and work from > > > there, rather than starting with RQ and twisting > > it. > > > > Everything you say is just a minor point, RQ rules > > are > > good to go if the GM is willing them to let them be > > played in the spirit of swashbuckling. > > > > > > > > Leon Kirshtein > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eothargoar at yahoo.com Tue May 3 03:00:25 2005 From: eothargoar at yahoo.com (Nick Tolimieri) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: armor, dodgin and multiple foes In-Reply-To: <20050502064940.73BC92226D2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050502170025.82460.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> Greetings. I stumbled across this list a while back but haven't posted yet. I have RQ2 and RQ3. A couple of points ARMOR : Full 15C plate weighed 45-60 lbs. This actually fits well with the RQ3 25 enc if 1 enc ~ 1kg. A mail shirt with short sleeves was 12-14 lbs. Full jousting plate armor could weigh 90-100lbs, but was only used in tournaments. MULTIPLE OPPONENTS: There was a comment somewhere in the last few posts re multiple parries vs. 5 opponents. THe gist was that one would need a huge parry skill to simulate the swashbuckling ability of the three musketeers. Another game I play is called "The Riddle of Steel". If you're into detailed sword play, it is worth checking out. One of the rules types it has is called "Terrain Rules". They have lots of uses but one is to simulate the movement in combat that would allow you to reduce the number of opponents you face in a single round. Thus, you might have 5 opponents, but you move around such that only 2 can attack...much easier. I'm not sure how you would implement this in RQ, (maybee some sort of opposed dodge role vs all opponents), but it would certainly add to a swashbuckling approach. PARTIAL LIMB ARMOR. The comment re heroic greek gaming got me thinking about partial limb armor. So, how do you run enc, AP and hit locations if you are trying to simulate a hoplite wearing a breast plate, helmet and greaves that protect only the knee and shins? Or, a French miles wearing a hauberk that protects his chest, abodomen,...and shoulders/upper arms and upper legs.. NT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nphillis at shaw.ca Tue May 3 03:26:50 2005 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:26:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Heroic Greek combat (was Re: Armor and dodging) References: <20050430102334.1283.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007b01c54f3c$216ab300$35334d18@wp.shawcable.net> An excellent game on the market is 'OGL Ancients' (Mongoose Publishing). Yes, it is a d20 hybrid, but has many inovations that could port well to RuneQuest. It covers active defence (dodging). It covers shield defence (parry, and a high skill allows you to parry multiple opponents/round). Even if one does not actively parry with the shield, it still may stop weapons, just like armor (for hits on the shield side). Armour absorbs and takes damage (like RuneQuest). But each armour peice has a "Coverage". If struck, the target rolls to see if the armour covered where the weapon struck. Small pieces of armor have less coverage than full suits. And, like d20, specific armors do not have a penalty to 'dodge', but actually have a dodge 'cap' (highest level of dodge a person can have given the armor they wear). Thus, a swift swashbuckler wearing a leather shirt is generally not affected. Nor is a slow man in plate armor. However, that swift swashbuckler wearing the plate will have his dodge significantly reduced. --- Nick Tolimieri wrote: So,how do you run enc, AP and hit locations if you are trying to simulate a hoplite wearing a breast plate, helmet and greaves that protect only the knee and shins? Or, a French miles wearing a hauberk that protects his chest, abodomen,...and shoulders/upper arms and upper legs. > > --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > > If we were doing a Greek Myth campaign, with much less armor than a typical RQ campaign, how would the combat system have to be changed in order to preserve the feel of the Iliad ? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Tue May 3 05:18:05 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:18:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: armor, dodgin and multiple foes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502191805.40982.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Nick wondered: "PARTIAL LIMB ARMOR. The comment re heroic greek gaming got me thinking about partial limb armor. So, how do you run enc, AP and hit locations if you are trying to simulate a hoplite wearing a breast plate, helmet and greaves that protect only the knee and shins? Or, a French miles wearing a hauberk that protects his chest, abodomen,...and shoulders/upper arms and upper legs.. " You've got three main options that I can see: 1 - split the hit location tables up a bit more; 2 - when a location is hit, assign a chance that the armour got in the way; 3 - give the armour a lower number of armour points and say that an unarmoured bit was got when a critical is scored. Personally I'd go for 3 as it doesn't require any rule changes or extra die-rolling. Cheers, Ash From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue May 3 05:47:51 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:47:51 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Message-ID: Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth setting? I've been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for Deluxe Basic Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't bad. And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with a lot of singleton worldbooks? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From grogthing at yahoo.com Tue May 3 07:33:55 2005 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502213356.77237.qmail@web41504.mail.yahoo.com> I always liked just a generic setting. Any location specific adventures marketed could have the statement that this city can be located anywhere in the gamemasters setting. Like green ronin has done with the Freeport pirate setting. I have added Freeport to my generic fantasy setting. I like modularized setting pieces like that, then I can pick and choose from from them as I want. Gregory --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth > setting? I've > been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for > Deluxe Basic > Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't > bad. > > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would > you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just > a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something > more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? > > ->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 > "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue May 3 08:40:55 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502224055.4988.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> I think you'll find that Earth and it's cultures and myths are, ahhh, GPL. For the time being anyway ;-) --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth > setting? I've > been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for > Deluxe Basic > Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't > bad. > > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would > you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just > a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something > more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? > > ->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 > 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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue May 3 08:47:37 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: armor, dodgin and multiple foes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050502224737.36986.qmail@web21124.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ashley Munday wrote: > You've got three main options that I can see: > > 1 - split the hit location tables up a bit more; > 2 - when a location is hit, assign a chance that the > armour got in the way; > 3 - give the armour a lower number of armour points > and say that an unarmoured bit was got when a > critical > is scored. > > Personally I'd go for 3 as it doesn't require any > rule > changes or extra die-rolling. > > Cheers, > > Ash I think you're right in principle, but how do you handle attacks which effect an entire location, or for that matter, an entire hex area? I'm thinking of area effect attacks, like a D&D fireball. 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 vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue May 3 08:59:47 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:59:47 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: <20050502224055.4988.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You're all a figment of my imagination anyway, LOL! -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:41 PM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? I think you'll find that Earth and it's cultures and myths are, ahhh, GPL. For the time being anyway ;-) --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth > setting? I've > been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for > Deluxe Basic > Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't > bad. > > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would > you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just > a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something > more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? > > ->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 > 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 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue May 3 10:31:45 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Can Anyone Review Arcane Lore? In-Reply-To: <20050427203426.AD24C2226C7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050503003145.10950.qmail@web31010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Has anyone seen a copy of Arcane Lore from Issaries that can review it? It's another one of their "Pre-Finished Works" and while the other books appear to have material I already have, I don't immediately recognize the provenance of most of Arcane Lore. I'm mostly interested in whether it has useful (or any) rules and frameworks for Heroquests, or whether it is mostly source material for Glorantha. Thanks! Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue May 3 06:16:16 2005 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 20:16:16 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42768A90.5070806@chromebob.com> Peter Maranci wrote: > Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth setting? I've > been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for Deluxe Basic > Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't bad. Fantasy Earth is good; there are a million people interested in roleplaying in ancient Egypt alone. Have you seen the new boxed set for d20: Egyptian Adventures Hamunaptra http://shop.rpg.net/product_info.php?products_id=36010& (Looks like Chaosium got beaten to market with this one.) I've also seen quite a lot of interest in the various classics of Western literature: Greece and Rome. Cthulhu Invictus from Chaosium does a respectable job of getting you into the Roman Republic, if you take my meaning. As for who owns Fantasy Earth, like my granddad says, "There ain't no tellin'..." I've given up trying to track stuff like that down. I figure we write stuff until someone tells us to stop (then I'm going to ask "Why?" and wait for a good answer)! > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? I think a distinctive new world (as opposed to just another re-hashing of the Cthulhu stuff) would be for the best. Bonus points if it can support things like cross-genre gaming and all these optional magic systems that will inevitably be tacked onto it. Most gamers I know write a lot of their own worlds, but really want for there to be quality scenarios they can adapt to their settings. How about a Book of Plots? Just throwing ideas about here - can't wait to hear from others about this. Oh yeah - Peter: Did you copy this to the brpsystem list (or is everyone on that list here as well)? pax -- -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / the Celestial Mechanic remember: all waves collapse. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 3 18:03:06 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:03:06 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Classics Message-ID: Rick, >Volume 4 will contain Borderlands, Plunder, Runemasters and >some additional praxian material from Nomad Gods. It will be >over 300 pages in length. Liked the Borderlands stuff a lot, so will be delighted to get that, and the rest sounds good. >Volume 5 will probably contain all of the Genertela RQ3 boxed >set, Missing Lands, stuff like the Holy Country article in the RQ >companion and other geography related items from a variety >of sources. Issaries and I are close to agreeing on the contents. >They have already OKd the book in general. This could be the >biggest book of the series. Hmm - I am bit torn about this - whilst there is much I'd like, I already have Genertela, and I've been trying to be good and reduce the duplications in my collection... But I will be intrigued to see the final TOC once it's agreed. >After that, who knows. Some people have asked me about various >things like Judges Guild RQ stuff, which is probably not going >to get reprinted by me, and Questworld, which I won't say is >impossible. Nothing definite planned beyond Volume 5. Questworld I'd be interested in: it was another RQ box that was too expensive at the time and for all the consensus seems it was flawed in execution, I'd love to have a copy but eBay prices are a bit extreme... >People have specifically mentioned the RQ companion. Most of >it will get reprinted, but it will be spread across several books, >because its contents are all over the map and don't link to a >single book topic. Makes sense. Many thanks for keeping the list informed Rick, I look forward to the publication of Volumes 4 and 5! Cheers, Nick Middleton From murfnmurf at suscom.net Tue May 3 18:40:56 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 04:40:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As far as who owns the Fantasy Earth setting (the default setting for RQ3), just how can anyone *own* ancient Earth history? Aside from the Vikings and Japan boxes, Fantasy Earth mainly consisted of a poorly drawn map. I think Fantasy Earth is easily doable,and really depends on the amount of research you're actually up to doing, and whatever your pet interest happens to be :) As for what flavor to have for Fantasy Earth, thats a bit harder. You really can't provide very deep details if you want to try to be all inclusive--you wind up with what RQ3 did--not that I'm saying its in any way a bad thing--where each culture type cited several examples from Earth history as well as fictional sources to help color the cultural types (civilized, Barbarian, etc). Now me? I think an Ancient Greece pack/book/whatever would be very cool; as would something dealing with Ancient China, and the Indiginous Peoples (what we used to call *Indians* back when I was a kid)of the Americas might be neat as well.Cults, Bestiary, etc... -Ken Murphy- From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue May 3 18:54:29 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:54:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Can Anyone Review Arcane Lore? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503085429.27794.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> There aren't any real rules in it, at least none you could use without a lot of tinkering. Most of the rulesy stuff is "stream of conciousness" notes slapped around a bit and stuck in some sort of semblance of (not very good) order. There are a fair number of detailed Gloranthan Heroquests in the book (there's too many Humakt ones for my liking, but hey, that just reflects the nature of most Gloranthan RQ campaigns), so, if that floats yer boat it's worth the cash. Cheers, Ash --- Steve Davies wrote: > Has anyone seen a copy of Arcane Lore from Issaries > that can review it? It's another one of their > "Pre-Finished Works" and while the other books > appear > to have material I already have, I don't immediately > recognize the provenance of most of Arcane Lore. > > I'm mostly interested in whether it has useful (or > any) rules and frameworks for Heroquests, or whether > it is mostly source material for Glorantha. > > Thanks! > > Steve > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 aescleal at btinternet.com Tue May 3 18:58:47 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:58:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: armor, dodgin and multiple foes In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503085847.79242.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> You could use averaged armour points for whole location or whole body attacks. For whole body you've got the option of applying so much damage to each location. Cheers, Ash --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > --- Ashley Munday wrote: > > > You've got three main options that I can see: > > > > 1 - split the hit location tables up a bit more; > > 2 - when a location is hit, assign a chance that > the > > armour got in the way; > > 3 - give the armour a lower number of armour > points > > and say that an unarmoured bit was got when a > > critical > > is scored. > > > > Personally I'd go for 3 as it doesn't require any > > rule > > changes or extra die-rolling. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > I think you're right in principle, but how do you > handle attacks which effect an entire location, or > for > that matter, an entire hex area? I'm thinking of > area > effect attacks, like a D&D fireball. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 3 20:14:19 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:14:19 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: Yip, the Zulu shields were massive items, but essentially tanned animal skin (with fir still on) stretched over a light wooden frame. So they were tall as a man, but relatively light. Something I just thought of, I wonder if having the animals fur (on the shield) facing in a certain direction would give an advantage in parrying a thrust as it may assist in sliding a blade away??? -----Original Message----- Leon Kirshtein Sent: 02 May 2005 04:08 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Yes, I have, but most shield use is passive especially any shield biger than a target or a heater. The major exception, which I can think of were the Zulu, but their shields were fairly light comparing to what the standard kite in RQ is like. Leon __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue May 3 20:19:53 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:19:53 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Message-ID: Can anyone actually own such a thing as fantasy earth? After all its common myths etc on the world we live on. So in my book, unless someone writes up an adventure or sourcebook about a specific fantasy item that doesn't sit with existing myths (thumbsuck - The trolls of Silma island, which is situated in the Med between Sicily and Malta - vis a vis a fictitious place), then reckon its public domain. -----Original Message----- f Peter Maranci Sent: 02 May 2005 09:48 To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth setting? I've been wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for Deluxe Basic Roleplaying, and as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't bad. And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with a lot of singleton worldbooks? ->Peter -- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue May 3 20:21:53 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:21:53 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP and Generic Serrings Message-ID: Hmm, some generic settings have helped me immensely over the years, the Flying Buffalo Citybooks come to mind. Hey, thinking of that, ahs anyone here heard of/read/got books by a long gone UK company called Strange acorn Games, the two I know of are Winterfarne and Wordsley. -----Original Message----- grogthing I always liked just a generic setting. Any location specific adventures marketed could have the statement that this city can be located anywhere in the gamemasters setting. Like green ronin has done with the Freeport pirate setting. I have added Freeport to my generic fantasy setting. I like modularized setting pieces like that, then I can pick and choose from from them as I want. Gregory __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 3 23:25:29 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:25:29 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Message-ID: >Can anyone actually own such a thing as fantasy earth? No... albeit it's conceivable to Trademark the term, and someone owns the copy right on the setting descriptions of fantasy earth from the RQIII rules, but unless Chaosium has removed those from the monographs as well, I'd say that was Chaosium. Question: when AH relinquished the rights to RQIII to Chaosium, did that include Vikings and Land of Ninja? > After all its common >myths etc on the world we live on. So in my book, unless someone writes up >an adventure or sourcebook about a specific fantasy item that doesn't sit >with existing myths (thumbsuck - The trolls of Silma island, which is >situated in the Med between Sicily and Malta - vis a vis a fictitious >place), then reckon its public domain. I agree in principle - but if someone with deeper pockets decided to contest this, it would be difficult to defend and bear in mind that "form of expression" is what is copyright, and tat belongs to the copyright holder (and many countries respect each other's copyright laws)... >Does anyone have any idea who owns the Fantasy Earth setting? I've been >wondering what world(s) Chaosium might use for Deluxe Basic Roleplaying, and >as I recall, Fantasy Earth wasn't bad. See my comments above: if it's still mentioned in the monographs, I'd say Chaosium, but whether they'll do anything with it unless they have Vikings and LoN I don't know - isn't the Egyptian thing they've been talking about occasionally basically a Fantasy Earth thing? >And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for DBRP, >if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or a single >multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with a lot of >singleton worldbooks? Actually, I don't want settings, if by that you mean yet another overview of someones pet fantasy/SF/Gothic/Western whatever setting with interminable invented mythology, cod-anthropology and bad pseudo-linguistics. The shelves (and indeed, my head) are teeming with such things and I really don't need any more. What I want are things that will _help_ me _play_ the game. Books that inspire my creativity, or substitute for it when I'm flagging. Something I can pull off the shelf and run from at the drop of a hat, and yet which also I can read and craft my own multi-part campaign. People, places, plots, not in the abstract but in the immediate visceral sense... Griffin Mountain, Kinunir, Companion Jorune: Ardoth, Arkham Unveiled. These are the sort of RPG books that are actually worth paying for and are, as I have said before, are the paradigm I'd like to see Chaosium adopt for BRP supplements. They have this Egypt thing which probably covers the "fantasy earth" setting. I'd like to see an SF book: a Babylon 5/DS9/Sector General type crossroads (planet, space station, moon base, whatever) were all sorts of elements of a setting would be present without dominating it, leaving GM's to take it in their preferred direction. I'd like to see a Steampunk book and I'd like to see a modern day occult/conspiracy/horror setting that is more approachable than Nephilim. Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed May 4 00:56:12 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 16:56:12 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4277910C.10805@brinkdata.se> Peter Maranci skrev: > > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? > Just as Nick I think Chaosium would be better of by producing supplements that can be inserted into many different settings, as did "Thieves World", "Karse" and "Tulan of the Isles". Fans could easily team up to write RQ/DBRP add-ons to most settings. Hyboria strikes me as almost made to use with RQ/DBRP. Plenty of free stuff on the net too, as an example I'm tinkering with some info for Hyboria (http://rollspelswiki.rollspelshornan.se/Hyboria/Hyboria). What we need (IMHO) are tools that make the life as a GM easier. Tools that can be adapted to a setting with a minimum of fuss. Cities and Towns are good examples. The copyright of "Karse" and "Tulan of the Isles" ought to belong to Chaosium, why not reprint them? /Peter Brink From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed May 4 01:04:57 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503150457.44546.qmail@web51303.mail.yahoo.com> I don't know of any advantage of the hair (plains Indian tribes' shields were similar except smaller and hairless and performed just as well), except the color patterns on them were a regimental distinction. Paul Cardwell --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Yip, the Zulu shields were massive items, but > essentially tanned animal skin > (with fir still on) stretched over a light wooden > frame. So they were tall > as a man, but relatively light. Something I just > thought of, I wonder if > having the animals fur (on the shield) facing in a > certain direction would > give an advantage in parrying a thrust as it may > assist in sliding a blade > away??? > > -----Original Message----- > Leon Kirshtein > Sent: 02 May 2005 04:08 > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > > Yes, I have, but most shield use is passive > especially any shield biger than > a target or a heater. > > The major exception, which I can think of were the > Zulu, but their shields > were fairly light comparing to what the standard > kite in RQ is like. > > Leon > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 Wed May 4 01:05:07 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:05:07 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Message-ID: For that matter, wonder who owns the rites to RQ Cities (AKA Midkemia cities). And along those lines, there are/were some nice suppliments available as scanned PDF's from Midkemia press on the net. Don't have a url, but a search should find - BlackTower.pdf and Towns.pdf I have them so can also mail if anyone wants, although they are a bit big (1.6 meg and 2.1 meg) -----Original Message----- Peter Brink Peter Maranci skrev: > > And while I'm at it...what sort of settings would you like to see for > DBRP, if/when? Would you like them to focus on just a few settings, or > a single multi/cross-genre setting, or something more GURPS-like, with > a lot of singleton worldbooks? > Just as Nick I think Chaosium would be better of by producing supplements that can be inserted into many different settings, as did "Thieves World", "Karse" and "Tulan of the Isles". Fans could easily team up to write RQ/DBRP add-ons to most settings. Hyboria strikes me as almost made to use with RQ/DBRP. Plenty of free stuff on the net too, as an example I'm tinkering with some info for Hyboria (http://rollspelswiki.rollspelshornan.se/Hyboria/Hyboria). What we need (IMHO) are tools that make the life as a GM easier. Tools that can be adapted to a setting with a minimum of fuss. Cities and Towns are good examples. The copyright of "Karse" and "Tulan of the Isles" ought to belong to Chaosium, why not reprint them? /Peter Brink __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed May 4 01:05:29 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503150529.45628.qmail@web51308.mail.yahoo.com> I don't know of any advantage of the hair (plains Indian tribes' shields were similar except smaller and hairless and performed just as well), except the color patterns on them were a regimental distinction. Paul Cardwell --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Yip, the Zulu shields were massive items, but > essentially tanned animal skin > (with fir still on) stretched over a light wooden > frame. So they were tall > as a man, but relatively light. Something I just > thought of, I wonder if > having the animals fur (on the shield) facing in a > certain direction would > give an advantage in parrying a thrust as it may > assist in sliding a blade > away??? > > -----Original Message----- > Leon Kirshtein > Sent: 02 May 2005 04:08 > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dodge > > Yes, I have, but most shield use is passive > especially any shield biger than > a target or a heater. > > The major exception, which I can think of were the > Zulu, but their shields > were fairly light comparing to what the standard > kite in RQ is like. > > Leon > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed May 4 01:12:39 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:12:39 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: Ah, widnae worry. Was justa thought, thinking how the hair is short and smooth to the point of being slippery at times, depending on the antelope it comes from. May be sumat to remember when fudigingon behalf of a soon to expire character.... -----Original Message----- Paul Cardwell I don't know of any advantage of the hair (plains Indian tribes' shields were similar except smaller and hairless and performed just as well), except the color patterns on them were a regimental distinction. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed May 4 01:32:54 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Review Arcane Lore In-Reply-To: <20050503150510.473EF2226EB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050503153254.22859.qmail@web31010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for the review! That's mostly what I expected from the monograph. I think I'll hold onto my hard-won cash. Steve > ------------------------------ > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:54:29 +0100 (BST) > From: Ashley Munday > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Can Anyone Review Arcane > Lore? > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > Message-ID: > <20050503085429.27794.qmail at web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > There aren't any real rules in it, at least none you > could use without a lot of tinkering. Most of the > rulesy stuff is "stream of conciousness" notes > slapped > around a bit and stuck in some sort of semblance of > (not very good) order. > > There are a fair number of detailed Gloranthan > Heroquests in the book (there's too many Humakt ones > for my liking, but hey, that just reflects the > nature > of most Gloranthan RQ campaigns), so, if that floats > yer boat it's worth the cash. > > Cheers, > > Ash > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed May 4 01:35:28 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050503153529.41522.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> No antelopes. They were from cattle. Paul Cardwell --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Ah, widnae worry. Was justa thought, thinking how > the hair is short and > smooth to the point of being slippery at times, > depending on the antelope it > comes from. May be sumat to remember when fudigingon > behalf of a soon to > expire character.... > > -----Original Message----- > Paul Cardwell > > I don't know of any advantage of the hair (plains > Indian tribes' shields > were similar except smaller and hairless and > performed just as well), except > the color patterns on them were a regimental > distinction. > > Paul Cardwell > > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 Wed May 4 01:37:28 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:37:28 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: Interesting, having touched and felt a few zulu shields, I have noted a few with bits of impala and springbok pelts ont hem. Then again, I suppose they were souvenier shields... -----Original Message----- Paul Cardwell No antelopes. They were from cattle. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed May 4 01:44:23 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:44:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42779C57.4000404@brinkdata.se> Den, Tony T skrev: > For that matter, wonder who owns the rites to RQ Cities (AKA Midkemia > cities). And along those lines, there are/were some nice suppliments > available as scanned PDF's from Midkemia press on the net. Don't have a url, > but a search should find - BlackTower.pdf and Towns.pdf I have them so can > also mail if anyone wants, although they are a bit big (1.6 meg and 2.1 meg) > Midkemia can be found at http://www.midkemia.com/, there's a link on the front page to a page with the two downloads Tony mentions. /Peter Brink From murfnmurf at suscom.net Wed May 4 03:11:21 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:21 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Increasingly Pesky Giant Birds In-Reply-To: <19517415.1114133945484.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <19517415.1114133945484.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi gang, I recently acquired a copy of Griffin Island (elec tronically, as it happens), and found the stats for the Giant Hawk provided interesting, but was unable to find information for actually *generating* the darned things! So I decided to check my copy of Griffin Mountain in hopes the generation information would be somewhere in the original. Turns out it just has pregenerated big birds as well. Is anyone familiar with generation stats for these things? -Ken- From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed May 4 04:03:29 2005 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Steve Lieb) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:03:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] wanted for RQ Message-ID: <56e64e7a050503110330a71470@mail.gmail.com> You know what would be more useful than even campaign supplements and scenarios (although they'd be mightily appreciated) would be a simple program to generate monsters, characters, NPCs etc. in bulk. It's something I've meant to write in visual basic or even Access Basic (etc) for years, and have never gotten going, but that ALONE would be a huge help to the harried dm who is either writing a scenario or doing some off-the-cuff dm'ing and needs 10 banditos....and not the same 10 dudes from the Monster Coliseum book every time. :) From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed May 4 04:17:41 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ Generators In-Reply-To: <20050503180351.8350E2226F7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050503181742.82230.qmail@web31014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As a development tool, you might instead check out TableSmith. There is a yahoo group for it, and the author has a website at www.mythosa.net . It's a table rolling system that uses plain-text files as input. The language is pretty rich and because the input files are text, anyone can take a base one and add/change to meet their campaign's needs, which is tougher to do with a VB application. Someone has already put together RuneQuest treasure generators (in the yahoo group files), and there are NPC generators for AD&D as a starting example. I've been using the software for a while and like it. It's shareware, with I think still a $5.00 (!)resgistration fee. The author monitors the Yahoo group and adds functionality as requested/needed. Steve > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:03:29 -0500 > From: Steve Lieb > Subject: [RQ-Rules] wanted for RQ > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Message-ID: > <56e64e7a050503110330a71470 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > You know what would be more useful than even > campaign supplements and > scenarios (although they'd be mightily appreciated) > would be a simple > program to generate monsters, characters, NPCs etc. > in bulk. > > It's something I've meant to write in visual basic > or even Access > Basic (etc) for years, and have never gotten going, > but that ALONE > would be a huge help to the harried dm who is either > writing a > scenario or doing some off-the-cuff dm'ing and needs > 10 > banditos....and not the same 10 dudes from the > Monster Coliseum book > every time. :) > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eothargoar at yahoo.com Wed May 4 09:35:46 2005 From: eothargoar at yahoo.com (Nick Tolimieri) Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Partial Limb Armor In-Reply-To: <20050503180351.8350E2226F7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050503233546.47088.qmail@web42202.mail.yahoo.com> Of those options listed, I'm inclined to go for 3 as well. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed May 4 14:20:15 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:20:15 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] wanted for RQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a050503110330a71470@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a050503110330a71470@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42784D7F.1060609@sbcglobal.net> I think that Griffin Mountain was a fantastic supplement. It provided lots and lots of plot potential in the form of interesting places, a rich background, interesting NPCs, and plot hooks galore, enough to give the referee a multitude of places to start. That's the kind of supplememnt I'd like to see. Guy (Hoyle) Steve Lieb wrote: >You know what would be more useful than even campaign supplements and >scenarios (although they'd be mightily appreciated) would be a simple >program to generate monsters, characters, NPCs etc. in bulk. > >It's something I've meant to write in visual basic or even Access >Basic (etc) for years, and have never gotten going, but that ALONE >would be a huge help to the harried dm who is either writing a >scenario or doing some off-the-cuff dm'ing and needs 10 >banditos....and not the same 10 dudes from the Monster Coliseum book >every time. :) >_______________________________________________ >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 ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed May 4 14:41:44 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:41:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: <4277910C.10805@brinkdata.se> References: <4277910C.10805@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <42785288.9040509@sbcglobal.net> I think that if I wanted to get a supplememnt for a historical fantasy, I would probably go with GURPS for the background information. They do an excellent job of covering the aspects of a period useful to gamers. Of course, one would have to convert the stats somehow, or maybe just wing it.I'm not sure Chaosium would be wise to intrude into an area so well covered by Steve Jackson Games. Guy (Hoyle) From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed May 4 14:52:23 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 06:52:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] wanted for RQ Message-ID: Kevs RQ Generator has a way of generating NPC's, but it basically means generating a whole character and exporting to HTML as an NPC. Should eb easy enough to write a program to generate monsters and NPC's, although having said that, I am way too lazy to do such (plus I would only be able to write it in turbo....) -----Original Message----- Steve Lieb You know what would be more useful than even campaign supplements and scenarios (although they'd be mightily appreciated) would be a simple program to generate monsters, characters, NPCs etc. in bulk. It's something I've meant to write in visual basic or even Access Basic (etc) for years, and have never gotten going, but that ALONE would be a huge help to the harried dm who is either writing a scenario or doing some off-the-cuff dm'ing and needs 10 banditos....and not the same 10 dudes from the Monster Coliseum book every time. :) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed May 4 18:05:50 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:05:50 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting and Generators Message-ID: >Den, Tony T skrev: >> For that matter, wonder who owns the rites to RQ Cities (AKA Midkemia >> cities). And along those lines, there are/were some nice suppliments >> available as scanned PDF's from Midkemia press on the net. Don't have a url, >> but a search should find - BlackTower.pdf and Towns.pdf I have them so can >> also mail if anyone wants, although they are a bit big (1.6 meg and 2.1 meg) >> >Midkemia can be found at http://www.midkemia.com/, there's a link on the >front page to a page with the two downloads Tony mentions. > Midkemia Press holds all the Midkemia IP and Copyright, including Carse, Tulan, Jonril, Heart of the Sunken Lands etc. The RQIII versions MIGHT be accessible to Chaosium - but they would either need a license (unlikely as IIRC there's a d20 (snore) Midkemia in the works) or to remove all the Midkemia names - not sure it's worth the effort. DBRP needs two, related, pieces of software, that do the job eTools just about manages for D&D 3e. One, it makes available via computer (and thus easily customisable) the stats for anything: eTools has the complete Monster Manual AND the NPC progressions for all PC and NPC classes from 1st to 20th level. Need an 8th level Bard? eTools can print it out as a standard "stat-block" or a full Character sheet. Need a Minotaur with three levels of barbarian? eTools can do it. Second, it is also a _fully_ functional D&D character generator, which can be patched to include all the splat book options, and allows you to fully equip and manage characters, and again out put their stats as either a standard character sheet, a stat-block or one or two other layouts. It's reliable, has a few glitches in the data sets (inevitable in as intricate a rule system as d20) and an obsolute godsend for GMing on the hop. What DBRP needs is something similar: take Kev's character generator (or Byakhee for CoC, which is also very good) and fit it to DBRP. Then add an NPC/monster generator that allows you to pull in average stats for anything from the Creature Book, customise them as little or as much as you want, design your own creatures, and print them out as either compact stat blocks or full character sheets. A tool that both allows me to create and manage full player characters, and can also allow me to whip up a bunch of monsters, a major NPC and their followers, would be a huge help. There was some talk about this back at the Tavern a while ago IIRC. Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed May 4 21:25:24 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:25:24 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting and Generators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200505041325.24640.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> onsdag 04 maj 2005 10:05 skrev Nick.Middleton at invensys.com: > > DBRP needs two, related, pieces of software, that do the job eTools just > about manages for D&D 3e. [snip] > > What DBRP needs is something similar: take Kev's character generator (or > Byakhee for CoC, which is also very good) and fit it to DBRP. Then add an > NPC/monster generator that allows you to pull in average stats for anything > from the Creature Book, customise them as little or as much as you want, > design your own creatures, and print them out as either compact stat blocks > or full character sheets. A tool that both allows me to create and manage > full player characters, and can also allow me to whip up a bunch of > monsters, a major NPC and their followers, would be a huge help. There was > some talk about this back at the Tavern a while ago IIRC. Check out UGMT (Universal Game Master Tool) at http://www.phantasia.org/miju/rpg/UGMT/ At this point all the data used by UGMT are for Columbia Games' HarnMaster rules and their Harn setting but the tool seems to be designed for use with any RPG and any setting. The software is not open source but rather something like public domain so it seems quite OK to modify UGMT for use with DBSR. The softwares copyright notice reads: "Copyright 2004 Michael Jung The author disclaims all warranties with regard to this software, including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, in no event shall the author be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this software. Any party obtaining a copy of these files is granted, free of charge, a full and unrestricted irrevocable, world-wide, paid up, royalty-free, nonexclusive right and license to deal in this software and documentation files (the "Software"), including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish and/or distribute copies of the Software, and to permit persons who receive copies from any such party to do so, with the only requirement being that this copyright notice remain intact." /Peter Brink From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu May 5 03:38:58 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:38:58 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting and Generators Message-ID: <16361135.1115228338270.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> It looks like modifying the thing would require a working knowledge of Java development. Is my perception correct? David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Brink Sent: May 4, 2005 6:25 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting and Generators Check out UGMT (Universal Game Master Tool) at http://www.phantasia.org/miju/rpg/UGMT/ At this point all the data used by UGMT are for Columbia Games' HarnMaster rules and their Harn setting but the tool seems to be designed for use with any RPG and any setting. The software is not open source but rather something like public domain so it seems quite OK to modify UGMT for use with DBSR. David From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu May 5 07:24:00 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 23:24:00 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting and Generators In-Reply-To: <16361135.1115228338270.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <16361135.1115228338270.JavaMail.root@scooter.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <42793D70.7040108@brinkdata.se> David Smart skrev: [ Regarding UGMT ] > It looks like modifying the thing would require a working knowledge of Java development. Is my perception correct? Yes, you would need skills in Java programing. Now Harnmaster is not that different from RQ/DBSR, and the application is designed to be able to be re-configured to function with other rules systems - so as far as I can tell there seems not to be no problem to adapt it to RQ. Besides it has a lot of functionality that does not need much changes at all, like the weather generator. /Peter Brink From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 5 19:13:32 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:13:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Swashbuckling RQ/Dodge/Droit de Seigneur In-Reply-To: <20050430163257.A270D2226D2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050505091332.15241.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > > A couple of points back: > > And back again > > > > - Acrobatics isn't in any version of RQ IV I've > > ever seen published; > > Which does not mean it does not exist. We regularly > add skills as need be. Yep, I add skills when I need them. The skills list is only a guide or an example of the skills out there. If you want another skill, whether it is a specialist skill or something that isn't covered then make it up and send it here. > > - Splitting parries is not going to work against 5 > > cardinals guards unless you've got ~ 250% parry or > > dodge; > > No problem for Erol, his skills were probably much > higher than some measly 250%. In the swashbuckling films, very few people managed to fight off more than 3 or 4 guards at the same time, normally the guards hang back and only a few actually fight, then the rest join in, so 250% is easily enough to fight. Actually, 250% is not that high, really, about 3 Musketeers or Dread Pirate Roberts level. > > - Where are the rules to knock someone out? > > Buggered > > if I've seen them in 26 years of playing the game. > There are a number of ways to do that. Reduce them to > 1 or 2 genereal damage or choose to do subdual damage. Knocking people out doesn't really work in RQ. We ended up matching damage done (after armour and spells) vs the location hit points to see if the damage subdued the location for 1D3 rounds. So, doing 13 damage on someone's head (5 HP) with 6 points of armour and Protection 4 results in 13 - 6 - 4 = 3 vs 5 Hp, giving a 40% chance of knocking them out. We had dead legs, numb arms and so on as well, with the effects being the equivalent of being reduced to 0 HP in the location but temporarily. > > I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd take > > some > > (quite a bit of) work. I'll hold the same position I > > did before, use something like FUDGE and work from > > there, rather than starting with RQ and twisting it. > > Everything you say is just a minor point, RQ rules are > good to go if the GM is willing them to let them be > played in the spirit of swashbuckling. You're both right. It can be done with RQ if you use the rules liberally and accept that exciting things can happen. It might be better to use other rules, perhaps HeroQuest? Leon Kirshtein: > > >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when > > someone wants to break off and run. Most of the > > time, > > with two people facing off with sword and shield, > > the > > sort of dodging that occurs is usually in > > conjunction with blocking with a shield. > > With katana, and other oriental weapons, most of the > time it is dodge, since parrying is likely to damage > the weapon. Well, that's just silly, then. What's the point in having an expensive weapon if you are scared to get it damaged? That's probably why the Japanese never had an extensive empire with medieval weapons. Andrew Larsen: > > From: John Raner > > Hmm, I didn't know the "Droit du Signeur" was a > > myth..... > > Yup. It's a 19th century construct, essentially, recently given new > life by that atrocious Scottish ----------------------------- While officially a myth, there's nothing to stop it being used in a fantasy game. It can make a good plotline if used well. Only the really anal would argue against it just because it never existed. (No offense meant to the really anal) > >From: Lev Lafayette > > > > > One thing that is not being considered, is that > > every point of ENC reduces the Dodge by the same > > amount. > > >Which is sort of maddening when you're playing a > >Strength 19 character and you get the same effects as > >a Strength 8 character.... > > >That's broken. > > Surely it's balanced out by the fact that the STR 19 character has STR > bonuses to his Attack, Parry, Agility, and damage bonuses. Also, a low STR character will have low ENC capacity, so will quickly tire and receive penalties for having negative ENC far sooner than a high STR character. > > From: Gianni > > > What was wrong with RQII? Why were the rules modified for RQIII? > > Lots of small things, I think, needed changing. For example, the > focused/unfocused thing in spell casting seems needlessly complicated. > Shamans were deemed underpowered in comparison to priests. Real access to > divine magic came very late in a campaign. There was no system for > sorcery. > Previous experience was poorly done, and there was no mechanism for > figuring > out which skills a character started with. Orate was tacked on larger as > an > afterthought, with no other communication skills. Of course, they added > fatigue, which wasn't necessary, but overall I think the changes were > improvements. Except for the trashing of many individual skills and combining them into skills such as Devise. The percentage increases instead of 5% blocks is better as is having a POWx5% chance of casting Spirit Magic, although we never used that rule. The economics for weapons is better, but not the costs of magic, best to use RQ2 Magic Costs and RQ3 Equipment costs. Opposed skills was a nice try, but never really worked properly. Letting averyone go past 100%, instead of just RuneLords, was a good move as was stacking divine magic past 4 points. Acolytes were a good introduction, as were sorcerers in general, although the sorcery rules were ropey they worked OK. Removing the 4 point POW gain bonus for priests was a bit iffy, I'd have kept it in. The spirit plane contact tables were a pretty bad idea, especially when compared to the RQ2 method. Rules for chariots and ships were useful if you used chariots or ships. Making less divine magic Common was better, although it did affect a few cults, Storm Bull didn't get Shield, for instance. Giving all wargods Berserker was a bad move, I thought. I preferred RQ2 Defense and Antiparry rules. Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 5 19:34:10 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 10:34:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Can Anyone Review Arcane Lore? In-Reply-To: <20050503080401.E54192226DB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050505093410.38521.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Steve Davies: > Has anyone seen a copy of Arcane Lore from Issaries > that can review it? It's another one of their > "Pre-Finished Works" and while the other books appear > to have material I already have, I don't immediately > recognize the provenance of most of Arcane Lore. > OK, whilst I haven't got the published version, one of the players in our group bought a pre-published version at Continuum, a couple of months before it came out. He paid way over the odds for it because we were about to do the Lightbringers' Quest and it looked the part, so he was devastated when it came out soon afterwards. We thought it was funny, though. The version we have seen has no maps or diagrams, so I can't comment on those. There is a lot of Gloranthan source material in it, but it is rules-independent, to an extent. There are a lot of HeroQuests described, split into stations with some of the detail expanded. There is also a lot of waffle about Gloranthan deities and some "stats" for the deities and cults. It gives power levels of normal people. initiates, rune levels and heroquestors, which are quite useful. > I'm mostly interested in whether it has useful (or > any) rules and frameworks for Heroquests, or whether > it is mostly source material for Glorantha. It doesn't have rules for HeroQuests, as such, nor generic frameworks, but is does detail a number of different quests and breaks them down nicely into stations and sub-stations. It covers most of the LBQ to an extent and does the Westfaring even better. I haven't bought it yet, not because I don't want to but because our local games shop doesn't stock the Pre-Finished Works and I haven't been to London recently. Also, we have the previously-mentioned version and that has been enough for us so far. It certainly helped us with the LBQ, both for me as the GM/Narrator (we did it using the HeroQuest rules) and for the players. I don't want to do a detailed review as I have not purchased it. It is probably worth buying if you are planning to run/play in some HeroQuests as it has a lot that the HeroQuest and RuneQuest rules do not have. See Ya Simon Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu May 5 20:11:56 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:11:56 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics Skill Message-ID: I have been debating introducing a tactics skill in my group for some time. At present I have cajoled/coerced them to join the legion (and sorted them with some handy training rolls as part of their basic training). I thought of a tactics skill as follows. This is my first take so will take some adjustment, just thought I would ask the list what they think: Tactics - Knowledge - zero base. Can be increased by Experience or Training, but not through research. This skill is a representation of a characters understanding/ability in the military or a similarly structured unit. At a basic level it is about obeying orders, staying in formations and keeping a cool head in a battle situation. Of course at a higher lever, it is about grasp of military strategy and planning battles etc. So, as an example, the party knows the terrain ahead and there are plenty adversaries etc. They make a plan and shoowa, can follow it easily enough, but if the plan is complex and has many if/or statements, then maybe make a tactics roll to ensure that they can indeed comprehend the plan. If everything goes pear shaped and the agreed plan is, maybe, to form a circle back to back and a player fails his tactics roll, GM could call on said player to role play why he should/should not follow plan. 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 gianni at basicrps.com Fri May 6 00:36:08 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 16:36:08 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? Message-ID: <20050505143619.42E252225A2@boomstick.screwheads.net> > I think that if I wanted to get a supplememnt for a historical fantasy, > I would probably go with GURPS for the background information. I don't know about their other settings, but GURPS China and GURPS Egypt sucked bigtime. They were worth less than an afternoon spent at the local library taking notes. G. From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri May 6 05:16:25 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:16:25 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Stupid Question: Message-ID: Time for me to ask a stupid question: Is there anyone on this list who is actually working for Chaosium *now*? Given their plans for Deluxe Basic Roleplaying, you'd think that they'd be interested in what was going on here. I'd bet that some of the list members would be interested in submitting material for DBRP (hell, I'd bet that at least *90%* of the list members would be), assuming that DBRP gets to the point where Chaosium would be soliciting freelance contributions. On top of that, this list has a lot of the top RQ/BRP webmasters - people who could certainly spread the word about DBRP. I'd think that Chaosium would want to make use of that. It's a great free resource, after all. So...is anyone from Chaosium here? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri May 6 08:51:55 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050505225155.47426.qmail@web21126.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > > I think that if I wanted to get a supplememnt for > a historical fantasy, > > I would probably go with GURPS for the background > information. > > I don't know about their other settings, but GURPS > China and GURPS Egypt > sucked bigtime. They were worth less than an > afternoon spent at the local > library taking notes. > OTOH GURPS Japan was really good. But that was written by Lee Gold and she (a) knows a lot about Japan and (b) has done of lot of game design. Personally, I think if you've haven't spent _years_ researching a region/history and don't have at least a basic grasp of the local language (yes, even if that means learning Breton or Welsh) then you shouldn't be writing a supplement about it. (Mind you, I'm writing this as a person whose RQ-derived game is based on a mythic version of early 16th century Indonesia/Malaysia, so I would say that). All the best, Lev Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri May 6 09:30:52 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Knockout (was Re: Swashbuckling RQ/Dodge/Droit de Seigneur) In-Reply-To: <20050505091332.15241.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050505233052.21766.qmail@web21128.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Leon Kirshtein: > > Knocking people out doesn't really work in RQ. We > ended up matching damage > done (after armour and spells) vs the location hit > points to see if the > damage subdued the location for 1D3 rounds. So, > doing 13 damage on someone's > head (5 HP) with 6 points of armour and Protection 4 > results in 13 - 6 - 4 = > 3 vs 5 Hp, giving a 40% chance of knocking them out. > We had dead legs, numb > arms and so on as well, with the effects being the > equivalent of being > reduced to 0 HP in the location but temporarily. Your rules seem almost exactly the same as the one's in RQ III (I do like the idea of "knocking out" limbs and so forth) Under stunning and subduing in the Combat chapter; 1) Make an aimed blow (i.e., SR 10, half chance), stating it's a knockout attempt (i.e., a bludgeoning weapon) 2) Location struck is the head. Roll damage, minus armour. 3) Compare effective damage to head hit points on the Resistance Table. If successful, opponent is knocked out and may roll CONx1 each round to recover. (Someone has also pencilled in "Occurs whenever head is struck" in one of my books. I'm don't sure this is the case as the strike for knockout does no "real" damage). All the best, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 6 18:16:36 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:16:36 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A stupid question Message-ID: >So...is anyone from Chaosium here? Pete, you do know that Chaosium is Dustin Wright, Lynn Willis, Charlie Krank and Fergie, right? I'd be _stunned_ if any of them could spare the time from running a small business in the circumstances that Chaosium (even now) finds itself to track the chatter here and at other such venues and funnel it to Jason Durall and his co-author. The archives are on the net, so why clog ones inbox? Whether Jason has joined us, I don't know - I don't recall him posting here and he _has_ posted both at RPGNet and the Tavern, and has mentioned that some form of fan input in the form of a playtest is on the horizon (see his comments in the thread at RPGNet). I would hope that when DBRP is a little closer to going "in house" at Chaosium that they would have a look here and elsewhere (and maybe contact a few webmasters such as yourself about advanced publicity of some form) - but that really depends on what resources they can afford to put behind DBRP's launch. I shall pester the Tavern contingent going to Tentacles to grill Charlie Krank about Chaosium's plans - an opportune time, since the Tavern's Gwenthia setting (in part conceived from a desire to have a setting "we" owned for DBRP and other games). Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 6 18:36:04 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:36:04 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Knockout Message-ID: >> Leon Kirshtein: >> >> Knocking people out doesn't really work in RQ. The official rules have always worked for me... >> We >> ended up matching damage >> done (after armour and spells) vs the location hit >> points to see if the >> damage subdued the location for 1D3 rounds. So, >> doing 13 damage on someone's >> head (5 HP) with 6 points of armour and Protection 4 >> results in 13 - 6 - 4 = >> 3 vs 5 Hp, giving a 40% chance of knocking them out. Err, that's pretty much the RQIII rules... >> We had dead legs, numb >> arms and so on as well, with the effects being the >> equivalent of being >> reduced to 0 HP in the location but temporarily. Nice addition, albeit I'd want some restrictions on when it happened (as in the RQIII knock-out attack, which has to be an aimed shot at the end of the round). >Your rules seem almost exactly the same as the one's >in RQ III (I do like the idea of "knocking out" limbs >and so forth) > >Under stunning and subduing in the Combat chapter; > >1) Make an aimed blow (i.e., SR 10, half chance), >stating it's a knockout attempt (i.e., a bludgeoning >weapon) > >2) Location struck is the head. Roll damage, minus >armour. > >3) Compare effective damage to head hit points on the >Resistance Table. If successful, opponent is knocked >out and may roll CONx1 each round to recover. Yeah, that's what I've always used. If the resistance table roll fails, I rule the damage is normal (as happens in the CoC/Stormbringer variant of this rule): this neatly captures the fact that, as any skull trauma specialist will tell you, there is NO safe way to strike the head - ANY impact can be lethal... >(Someone has also pencilled in "Occurs whenever head >is struck" in one of my books. I'm don't sure this is >the case as the strike for knockout does no "real" >damage). No, I wouldn't apply it all the time. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri May 6 20:43:53 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:43:53 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics Skill In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have a skill like this, that I call "Teamplay" It's a skill that you add on any given skill used while fighting in close formations (Parry/Attack) So A Sun Dome Militiaman with the skill "2h.spear+large shield" at 35% and a "teamplay"-skill at 13% could add them together, and attack at 48% >From: "Den, Tony T" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: RQ Rules List >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics Skill >Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:11:56 +0200 > >I have been debating introducing a tactics skill in my group for some time. >At present I have cajoled/coerced them to join the legion (and sorted them >with some handy training rolls as part of their basic training). I thought >of a tactics skill as follows. This is my first take so will take some >adjustment, just thought I would ask the list what they think: > >Tactics - Knowledge - zero base. >Can be increased by Experience or Training, but not through research. > >This skill is a representation of a characters understanding/ability in the >military or a similarly structured unit. At a basic level it is about >obeying orders, staying in formations and keeping a cool head in a battle >situation. Of course at a higher lever, it is about grasp of military >strategy and planning battles etc. > >So, as an example, the party knows the terrain ahead and there are plenty >adversaries etc. They make a plan and shoowa, can follow it easily enough, >but if the plan is complex and has many if/or statements, then maybe make a >tactics roll to ensure that they can indeed comprehend the plan. If >everything goes pear shaped and the agreed plan is, maybe, to form a circle >back to back and a player fails his tactics roll, GM could call on said >player to role play why he should/should not follow plan. > > > >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri May 6 21:31:07 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:31:07 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics Skill Message-ID: Thanks Bjorn, this is much the same as what my brother suggested. Will see how it pans out and advise in due course. Hmm, I must read the Granite Phalanx article in TOTRM (Issue??), I seem to remember something they used as well.. On a different subject - you submitted a Glorantha article on my site sometime back. Apart from that, my site only ahs cursory ref to glorantha. What is your take regarding Issaries web policy? As it is your article, maybe you would like to contact them for clarification? Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Bjorn Stolen Sent: 06 May 2005 12:44 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Tactics Skill I have a skill like this, that I call "Teamplay" It's a skill that you add on any given skill used while fighting in close formations (Parry/Attack) So A Sun Dome Militiaman with the skill "2h.spear+large shield" at 35% and a "teamplay"-skill at 13% could add them together, and attack at 48% __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Sat May 7 02:27:52 2005 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Steve Lieb) Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:27:52 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0505060927422daf63@mail.gmail.com> On 5/6/05, rq-rules-request at crashbox.com wrote: > 1) Make an aimed blow (i.e., SR 10, half chance), > stating it's a knockout attempt (i.e., a bludgeoning > weapon) IMG we use rolling SR's, and a 'called shot delay' of 1d6+2. If this pushes the character's SR to over 10, it rolls to the next round WHEN THEY MUST ROLL AGAIN. Essentially, you're looking for an opening and simply may not see it, especially if they get the sense that's what you're trying to do. Essentially the "average Rurik" is going to see a delay of 3-4 SR to do a called shot, which feels about right. -Steve From jdurall at austin.rr.com Sat May 7 12:37:01 2005 From: jdurall at austin.rr.com (Jason Durall) Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:37:01 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Stupid Question: In-Reply-To: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050506213121.01a9f3b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Peter, et al. - I don't know if I can be said to work for Chaosium, but I am one of the two authors of the DBRP book and have recently joined the list. I was unaware of it prior to a friendly note from a list member. I'm a member of several other BRP-related lists and frequent a site or two related to BRP issues, but mostly, I prefer bulletin boards as a form of communication rather than lists, as they're much easier to search for threads and info. Right now, due to some delays from real life, the work on DBRP is still ongoing. When there is more news, I will bang a gong and send up flares, to get a sizeable playtest/feedback/review group. Until then, though, I've been keeping a low profile, because I hate to hype stuff too far in advance, and also, because I'm not entirely sure what Chaosium's policy on 'fan' submitted material is (such as through mailings lists, etc.). - Jason Durall At 05:44 AM 5/6/2005, you wrote: >Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:16:25 -0400 >From: Peter Maranci >Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Stupid Question: >To: RuneQuest-Rules >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Time for me to ask a stupid question: > >Is there anyone on this list who is actually working for Chaosium *now*? > >Given their plans for Deluxe Basic Roleplaying, you'd think that >they'd be interested in what was going on here. I'd bet that some of >the list members would be interested in submitting material for DBRP >(hell, I'd bet that at least *90%* of the list members would be), >assuming that DBRP gets to the point where Chaosium would be >soliciting freelance contributions. > >On top of that, this list has a lot of the top RQ/BRP webmasters - >people who could certainly spread the word about DBRP. I'd think that >Chaosium would want to make use of that. It's a great free resource, >after all. > >So...is anyone from Chaosium here? > >->Peter >-- >Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com >Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 9 18:15:05 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 08:15:05 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Knockout In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As I've split between cutting, piercing and bashing-damage, I've let a special or critical bashing attack make the hit area go lame (temporarely) no matter how little damage was actually done. So an arm suffering 1 hp loss from a special attack doing bashing damage would be asumed hitting a nerve point, etc, making the arm useless for some combat rounds. The same hit to head would make the opponent go unconsious. >From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Knockout >Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:36:04 +0100 > > > >> Leon Kirshtein: > >> > >> Knocking people out doesn't really work in RQ. > >The official rules have always worked for me... > > >> We > >> ended up matching damage > >> done (after armour and spells) vs the location hit > >> points to see if the > >> damage subdued the location for 1D3 rounds. So, > >> doing 13 damage on someone's > >> head (5 HP) with 6 points of armour and Protection 4 > >> results in 13 - 6 - 4 = > >> 3 vs 5 Hp, giving a 40% chance of knocking them out. > >Err, that's pretty much the RQIII rules... > > >> We had dead legs, numb > >> arms and so on as well, with the effects being the > >> equivalent of being > >> reduced to 0 HP in the location but temporarily. > >Nice addition, albeit I'd want some restrictions on when it happened (as in >the RQIII knock-out attack, which has to be an aimed shot at the end of the >round). > > >Your rules seem almost exactly the same as the one's > >in RQ III (I do like the idea of "knocking out" limbs > >and so forth) > > > >Under stunning and subduing in the Combat chapter; > > > >1) Make an aimed blow (i.e., SR 10, half chance), > >stating it's a knockout attempt (i.e., a bludgeoning > >weapon) > > > >2) Location struck is the head. Roll damage, minus > >armour. > > > >3) Compare effective damage to head hit points on the > >Resistance Table. If successful, opponent is knocked > >out and may roll CONx1 each round to recover. > >Yeah, that's what I've always used. If the resistance table roll fails, I >rule the damage is normal (as happens in the CoC/Stormbringer variant of >this rule): this neatly captures the fact that, as any skull trauma >specialist will tell you, there is NO safe way to strike the head - ANY >impact can be lethal... > > >(Someone has also pencilled in "Occurs whenever head > >is struck" in one of my books. I'm don't sure this is > >the case as the strike for knockout does no "real" > >damage). > >No, I wouldn't apply it all the time. > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 9 23:17:33 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:17:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics Skill/DBRP setting?/Knockout In-Reply-To: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050509131734.89841.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Tony Den: > I have been debating introducing a tactics skill in my group for some time. > At present I have cajoled/coerced them to join the legion (and sorted them > with some handy training rolls as part of their basic training). I thought > of a tactics skill as follows. This is my first take so will take some > adjustment, just thought I would ask the list what they think: > > Tactics - Knowledge - zero base. > Can be increased by Experience or Training, but not through research. Well, you *can* increase Tactics by research, but the research normally involves hordes of men killing each other with you sat in an armchair at a safe distance learning from your tactical errors. (Or would that count as Experience, even if you lost again and again?) > This skill is a representation of a characters understanding/ability in the > military or a similarly structured unit. At a basic level it is about > obeying orders, staying in formations and keeping a cool head in a battle > situation. Of course at a higher lever, it is about grasp of military > strategy and planning battles etc. > > So, as an example, the party knows the terrain ahead and there are plenty > adversaries etc. They make a plan and shoowa, can follow it easily enough, > but if the plan is complex and has many if/or statements, then maybe make a > tactics roll to ensure that they can indeed comprehend the plan. If > everything goes pear shaped and the agreed plan is, maybe, to form a circle > back to back and a player fails his tactics roll, GM could call on said > player to role play why he should/should not follow plan. Ohoh, I can see the arguments brewing even as I read it. "We are a highly organised adventuring band, our tactics should be WAY better than that!" or "We've spent two days, real time, coming up with the plan and you say that my INT 18 character can't follow it because it is too complex!" or "What? I ned to make a tactics roll to see if I can remember to form up in a circle!" and so on. I'd only use Tactics or something similar if the scenario called on the PCs to use military tactics, and even then I would be loathe to bog things down. Normally, I assume that the PCs are smart enough to follow their own plan. If they have been given orders to follow that are complex or that don't match the situation, then by al means use Tactics to work out what to do. Lev Lafayette: > Personally, I think if you've haven't spent _years_ > researching a region/history and don't have at least a > basic grasp of the local language (yes, even if that > means learning Breton or Welsh) then you shouldn't be > writing a supplement about it. > > (Mind you, I'm writing this as a person whose > RQ-derived game is based on a mythic version of early > 16th century Indonesia/Malaysia, so I would say that). Any chance of posting some information on the Alternate Earth list? That sounds a really interesting setting. Lev Lafayette: > Your rules seem almost exactly the same as the one's > in RQ III (I do like the idea of "knocking out" limbs > and so forth) Are they? I must admit that I haven't read the RQ3 rules in 5 or 6 years, haven't played for 8 or 9 years and have used a bastardised RQ2/3/4-ish system for 5 years before that, so I can't remember which are RQ2, which RQ3 and which homebrew. > Under stunning and subduing in the Combat chapter; > > 1) Make an aimed blow (i.e., SR 10, half chance), > stating it's a knockout attempt (i.e., a bludgeoning > weapon) We only used aimed blows for missile combat. For melee combat, we delayed a number of SRs and allowed the PC to adjust his location roll by the number of delayed SRs. For subdual, we simply said that we were sundiung and then subdued the location hit. > 2) Location struck is the head. Roll damage, minus > armour. And spells, enchantments etc. > 3) Compare effective damage to head hit points on the > Resistance Table. If successful, opponent is knocked > out and may roll CONx1 each round to recover. We used 1D3 rounds. I suppose that extra multiples of location HPs in damage could knock you out for longer, so if I hit Muggins in the head for a critical 20 HPs and he had 5 HPs in his head, then the massive blow would knock him out for 1D3+3 rounds. We didn't use CONx1 as it involved a lot of rolling of dice. > (Someone has also pencilled in "Occurs whenever head > is struck" in one of my books. I'm don't sure this is > the case as the strike for knockout does no "real" > damage). No, I wouldn't like that idea as a roughty-toughty adventurer wouldn't let a knock on the head stop him. Nick Middleton: > Err, that's pretty much the RQIII rules... Yes, but with a few changes ... > >> We had dead legs, numb > >> arms and so on as well, with the effects being the > >> equivalent of being > >> reduced to 0 HP in the location but temporarily. > > Nice addition, albeit I'd want some restrictions on when it happened (as in > the RQIII knock-out attack, which has to be an aimed shot at the end of the > round). It had to be a subdual attack, but could happen when the PC/NPC hit. As above, we didn't use aimed shots and didn't wait until the end of the round (too artificial for our free-flowing, artistic combats). > Yeah, that's what I've always used. If the resistance table roll fails, I > rule the damage is normal (as happens in the CoC/Stormbringer variant of > this rule): this neatly captures the fact that, as any skull trauma > specialist will tell you, there is NO safe way to strike the head - ANY > impact can be lethal... We played that if it failed then tough. You were trying to knock him out safely and failed. I think we may have done 1/5 of subdual damage as actual damage, rolled down. Pah! To using skull trauma specialists in RQ, or any other game. In RQ, any blow to the head can be lethal if (in RQ2) it reduces the head's HP to -6 or (in RQ3) if it reduces total HPs to 0 or (in RQ-SOLTAKSS) if it reduces head HPs to minus their original points (e.g. reducing a 5 HP head to -5). Not quite ANY impact :-) We also played that damage-increasing spells were non-lethal for subdual attempts, so someone with a lead maul and Crush 20 Bludgeon 10, say, would not just kill someone on subdual attempts. We also played that Berserk/Fanatical/Battle-Raged people could not attempt subdual and that Berserk/Battle-Raged people were immune to subdual attempts - bang on the head, pah, I'm BERSERK!!!. Bjorn Stolen: > I have a skill like this, that I call "Teamplay" It's a skill that you add > on any given skill used while fighting in close formations (Parry/Attack) > So > A Sun Dome Militiaman with the skill "2h.spear+large shield" at 35% and a > "teamplay"-skill at 13% could add them together, and attack at 48% Ooh, ooh, Augments .... See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue May 10 00:02:38 2005 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:02:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics Skill/DBRP setting?/Knockout In-Reply-To: <20050509131734.89841.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050506104422.94DA42226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> <20050509131734.89841.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <21627.65.70.252.73.1115647358.squirrel@65.70.252.73> [snippage] original post: >> This skill is a representation of a characters understanding/ability in >> the >> military or a similarly structured unit. At a basic level it is about >> obeying orders, staying in formations and keeping a cool head in a >> battle >> situation. Of course at a higher lever, it is about grasp of military >> strategy and planning battles etc. >> [snippage] Tony's post: > Ohoh, I can see the arguments brewing even as I read it. "We are a highly > organised adventuring band, our tactics should be WAY better than that!" > or "We've spent two days, real time, coming up with the plan and you say > that my INT 18 character can't follow it because it is too complex!" or > "What? I ned to make a tactics roll to see if I can remember to form up > in a circle!" and so on. My suggestion: Use the Tactics skill as a Lore skill. A success against this skill only tells the character what their *training* would have them do in a given situation. That's what tactics training in real life does - it just tells combatants what has worked before. If the Players (and by extension, their Characters) are smarter than that, well then that's what roleplaying exceptional characters is all about. NPCs, obviously, will follow their tactics skill regardless. Incidentally, when the established tactic of the moment would lead them to certain death I'd expect the PCs to have to intervene and be heroic. [subject change] > Lev Lafayette: > >> Personally, I think if you've haven't spent _years_ >> researching a region/history and don't have at least a >> basic grasp of the local language (yes, even if that >> means learning Breton or Welsh) then you shouldn't be >> writing a supplement about it. >> >> (Mind you, I'm writing this as a person whose >> RQ-derived game is based on a mythic version of early >> 16th century Indonesia/Malaysia, so I would say that). > > Any chance of posting some information on the Alternate Earth list? That > sounds a really interesting setting. indeed - sharing your hard work will be the only way to hear people say things like, "Wow! This is terrific stuff!!" ;) -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / the Celestial Mechanic remember: all waves collapse. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue May 10 01:45:50 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:45:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Knockout Message-ID: <357944.1115653550259.JavaMail.root@bigbird.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Bjorn, Is there a formula you used to calculate the damage values for each category? -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: May 9, 2005 3:15 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Knockout As I've split between cutting, piercing and bashing-damage... David From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue May 10 12:07:07 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics Skill/DBRP setting?/Knockout In-Reply-To: <20050509131734.89841.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050510020707.34458.qmail@web21123.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: Tactics Skill: ============== I recommend making it as simple as possible. 1) It works on one-on-one to small groups with a defined leader. 2) A simple success provides a bonus of +1 to damage and +5% to all attacks and parries. 3) A critical success provides a bonus of +3 and +15%. 4) It can be challenged by an oppossing tactics roll. Although I like the augments suggestions as well... Alternate Earth =============== > > Any chance of posting some information on the > Alternate Earth list? That > sounds a really interesting setting. I had no idea said list existed. Can you point me to it? I've been running alternate earth campaigns for the better part of ten years now. It's the only thing I run actually. Aimed Shots =========== > > 3) Compare effective damage to head hit points on > the > > Resistance Table. If successful, opponent is > knocked > > out and may roll CONx1 each round to recover. > > We used 1D3 rounds. I suppose that extra multiples > of location HPs in damage > could knock you out for longer, so if I hit Muggins > in the head for a > critical 20 HPs and he had 5 HPs in his head, then > the massive blow would > knock him out for 1D3+3 rounds. > > We didn't use CONx1 as it involved a lot of rolling > of dice. True, but you've got a serious scaling issue there. I think an elephant would recover quicker than a mouse. All the best, Lev Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From gkahla at chromebob.com Tue May 10 12:26:53 2005 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:26:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] DBRP setting? In-Reply-To: <20050510020707.34458.qmail@web21123.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050509131734.89841.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> <20050510020707.34458.qmail@web21123.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <60204.208.191.93.169.1115692013.squirrel@208.191.93.169> [snippage] > Alternate Earth > =============== > >> >> Any chance of posting some information on the >> Alternate Earth list? That >> sounds a really interesting setting. > > I had no idea said list existed. Can you point me to > it? > > I've been running alternate earth campaigns for the > better part of ten years now. It's the only thing I > run actually. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/alternateearthrq/ please join! strangely, i can't think of many people on that list who aren't on this one... however, that's just my memory. there is also the possibility that there are silent members of alternateearthrq who don't talk much on either list... any pointers you care to post about developing alt-earth settings would be gladly accepted! pax -- -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / the Celestial Mechanic remember: all waves collapse. From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 10 20:37:57 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:37:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout In-Reply-To: <20050509154809.F2AFB2226EC@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050510103757.33856.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: (Reformatted) Bjorn: >> As I've split between cutting, piercing and bashing-damage... > Bjorn, > > Is there a formula you used to calculate the damage values for each > category? Although I am probably missing the point and Bjorn's system is almost certainly different to mine, I use the cutting/piercing/bashing damage from RQ2-ish. Weapon Type Special Damage Critical Damage Special Critical Damage Impaling DB + WD + MWD DB + MWD (IA) DB + MWD + MWD (IA) Slashing DB + WD + WD DB + MWD (IA) DB + MWD + MWD (IA) Crushing DB + DB + WD DB + MWD (IA) DB + DB + MWD (IA) (DB=Damage Bonus,WD=Weapon Damage,MWD=Max Weapon damage,IA=Ignores Armour) Simon ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 10 22:38:06 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:38:06 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout In-Reply-To: <20050510103757.33856.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well I say that cutting special damage = doubble damage rolled piercing special damage gets stuck, and renders the target imobilized until unstuck (but not doubbeling the damage; I merely have half the damagepotential rolled (a spear doing 1d12 dam. impaling would do 1d12 dam, then impale, and then roll 1d6 when the speartip is pulled out again.) Bashing special damage = paralyzed location hit no matter the protection and damage rolled. Critical hits is used a bit different. >From: Simon Phipp >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout >Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:37:57 +0100 (BST) > >David Smart: >(Reformatted) > >Bjorn: > >> As I've split between cutting, piercing and bashing-damage... > > > Bjorn, > > > > Is there a formula you used to calculate the damage values for each > > category? > >Although I am probably missing the point and Bjorn's system is almost >certainly different to mine, I use the cutting/piercing/bashing damage from >RQ2-ish. > >Weapon Type Special Damage Critical Damage Special Critical Damage >Impaling DB + WD + MWD DB + MWD (IA) DB + MWD + MWD (IA) >Slashing DB + WD + WD DB + MWD (IA) DB + MWD + MWD (IA) >Crushing DB + DB + WD DB + MWD (IA) DB + DB + MWD (IA) > >(DB=Damage Bonus,WD=Weapon Damage,MWD=Max Weapon damage,IA=Ignores Armour) > >Simon > > > > > > >___________________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? >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 _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed May 11 01:15:20 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:15:20 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout Message-ID: <19452982.1115738120343.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Thank you, kind sir. -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: May 10, 2005 7:38 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout Well I say that cutting special damage = doubble damage rolled piercing special damage gets stuck, and renders the target imobilized until unstuck (but not doubbeling the damage; I merely have half the damagepotential rolled (a spear doing 1d12 dam. impaling would do 1d12 dam, then impale, and then roll 1d6 when the speartip is pulled out again.) Bashing special damage = paralyzed location hit no matter the protection and damage rolled. Critical hits is used a bit different. David From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed May 11 02:57:14 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:57:14 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A Stupid Question: Message-ID: * Jason Durall (jdurall at austin.rr.com) wrote: > I don't know if I can be said to work for Chaosium... Well, I was actually wondering about the employees - the people who will make the call about the fate and future path of DBRP. Not to suggest that you're not integral to that process as well, but I was thinking more of the business end rather than the creative end. I have an overpowering urge to nag and/or advise Chaosium, depending on your perspective. I AM an old-time APA writer, after all. :D > I prefer bulletin boards as a form of communication rather than lists, as they're > much easier to search for threads and info. I understand. A good search tool for this list *would* be awfully convenient. Hmm, maybe the Google toolbar's "Search Current Site" option would work - I'll have to try that. (Two seconds later: it works, but the results aren't well organized. Oh well.) > I'm not entirely sure what Chaosium's policy on 'fan' submitted material is (such > as through mailings lists, etc.). I know - the uncertainty is driving me crazy! :D -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed May 11 03:16:07 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:16:07 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout Message-ID: Chalk me up as another person who really prefers impale/slash/crush rules. Like Simon, mine were inspired by the RQ2 rules and were very similar to his. I even used the optional critical impale rules (which were fun; the D&D 3.5 critical rules are oddly reminiscent of those rules, except that they're NOT fun). But the RQ2 rules may be too damaging when used in RQ3; I suspect that there's a balance issue. Which makes me think that it's time to refer to reality again: what *are* the advantages and effects of real-world impale/slash/crushes? Unfortunately I have no idea. I will say, though, that the automatic knockout or paralyzation effect suggested for crushes seems like a bad idea to me. I envision a SIZ 8 human paralyzing a giant's leg with a crushing club bash; sorry, but that's just not reasonable. The whole point of RQ is that it's sensible; unlike D&D, there aren't a lot of absolute rules that are subject to abuse. A stun/knockout effect calls for the resistance table, I'd say. Damage vs. location hit points, probably. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From tcantine at incentre.net Wed May 11 08:11:50 2005 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:11:50 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <20050509154809.A78D92226EB@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050509154809.A78D92226EB@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <820B6F35-C1A0-11D9-9237-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I think the problem with a generalized tactics skill is that it intrudes too much onto the scale at which player decision making takes place. RQ has rules for resolving movement and attacks and parries, leaving the decision of WHERE to move and WHOM to attack or parry to the player. Tactics skill abstracts these sorts of decisions out of the player's hands and into a dice roll, and I'm not sure that's really consistent with the game's focus. That said, I DO think there's definitely a need for some sort of skill or experience to represent the difference between, say, disciplined professional troops and angry rabble. Bjorn's Teamplay skill seems to me a good approach, but it got me thinking about enlarging it a bit, based in part on the rules for language (of all things!). Also, I think it can combine nicely with something else I'd been thinking about. First I'll give the background on the other idea, and then tie them together. Generalized Combat Experience I have never been comfortable with the fact that my character, survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well over 100% with his broadsword, is essentially no better off than an inexperienced peasant when he picks up a mace for the first time. After all, it seems to me that a good part of skill at arms is not simply the technique of one weapon, but improved balance and footwork and general tactics. Yet RQ as written does not clearly reflect that sort of general improvement. The solution I have adopted is to modify the Attack and Parry modifiers so that they act as skills in themselves, subject to improvement through experience. They start out as equal to one's Manipulation and Agility skills modifiers, but can increase on a successful check. Unlike normal skills, however, checks are only awarded on fumbles. Also, one can receive a check when one's opponent fumbles, provided one was paying attention to that opponent. (It might also be appropriate to allow a check when one is carefully observing a fighter, friend or foe or neutral, as that fighter scores a critical. If the observer is engaged in combat himself, this would only be possible if he had stated he was attacking, parrying or dodging the observed fighter that round. If he's a non-combatant standing by to study the master's technique, an INT check will be called for. I sort of like the idea of encouraging characters to watch carefully, even when they're not directly involved in a fight.) Attack and Parry modifiers will increase slowly, but they will benefit all melee attacks and parries (and dodges), reflecting a better general understanding of the dynamics of melee generally. So, my warrior with his 100% broadsword attack will also likely have improved both his A% and P% modifiers to the point that even though he has never seen a naginata before, his initial instincts upon picking up the unfamiliar weapon will be generally better than his identical twin who has never been in combat. Not as good as someone who as actually trained with the naginata, but not a complete neophyte either... Integrating with Teamplay So, how to fit this in with a Teamplay skill? Teamplay would, in my proposal, act very much like the Attack and Parry modifiers, or perhaps like the modifiers in the Attack Chance Modifiers table. But any advantage from Teamplay is limited to the lowest Teamplay skill of your teammates. (Teammates must be engaging the same foe to count as teammates.) In this sense it resembles Language skills, in that the chance for communication is twice that of the lower fluency speaker. This represents the fact that a teammate who doesn't recognize what you're doing for him isn't going to be able to take advantage of the opportunities you provide, and vice versa. Them's my thoughts. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed May 11 08:55:40 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510225540.29225.qmail@web21126.mail.yahoo.com> --- Tom Cantine wrote: (snip!) > > Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my > character, > survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well > over 100% with his > broadsword, is essentially no better off than an > inexperienced peasant > when he picks up a mace for the first time. Especially considering that they're both one-handed swinging weapons. > The solution I have adopted is to modify the Attack > and Parry > modifiers so that they act as skills in themselves, > subject to > improvement through experience. Heck, I just have "melee", for _all_ weapons as a single skill! Now, I know that some people may say "But lev, using a broadsword is not the same as a quarterstaff or a spear or a flail" - and they're right! But by the same token take a skill like Plant Lore. Knowing how to grow wheat or barley is not the same as knowing how to collect sage, or how to recognise magic mushrooms. In both cases I allow - and require to achieve high levels - optional specialisations at a reduced experience/time cost. The point is, as I see it, to be reasonably consistent across skills in the degree of abstraction. Regards, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed May 11 09:20:31 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Knockout In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050510232032.37088.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > Which makes me think that it's time to refer to > reality again: what > *are* the advantages and effects of real-world > impale/slash/crushes? Ahh, there you go Peter, on about reality again ;-P In a nutshell... a) An impale is more likely to hit vital organs, damage deep bone etc. The actual wound is small but deep. Reduced "pain" effect, high "damage" effect. b) A slashing weapon is a partially an impale (it cuts, but not as deep), and partially a crush (it stuns, but not as wide). It is likely to result in bleeding and significant pain. c) A crushing weapons is less likely to cause critical damage at a low-level of impact, but it causes extra stunning effect due to the area of effect. High levels of crushing trauma are extremely serious because of the area-effect. See the Journal of Trauma Studies (there is such a thing!) (www.jtrauma.com) > A stun/knockout effect calls for the resistance > table, I'd say. Damage > vs. location hit points, probably. Yes. Any method that incorporates a sensible scaling effect with a sound principle. Best regards, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From kaomera at gmail.com Wed May 11 11:49:12 2005 From: kaomera at gmail.com (Christopher Maikisch) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:49:12 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <820B6F35-C1A0-11D9-9237-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20050509154809.A78D92226EB@boomstick.screwheads.net> <820B6F35-C1A0-11D9-9237-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: First off, "Hi!". I've only just recently joined this mailing list, as I am intending on running a game (loosely) based on Glen Cook's "Black Company" series, and I'm leaning towards adapting RQIII / BRP rules (with GURPS as a second option). I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to actually run any RQ in over ten years, so I figure I can prolly use all the help I can get. (Actually, at the moment my biggest problem seems to be remembering which rules are as printed and which where house rules I was used to. =/ ) Right off the bat I see some interesting stuff I'd like to jump in on... On 5/10/05, Tom Cantine wrote: > I think the problem with a generalized tactics skill is that it > intrudes too much onto the scale at which player decision making takes > place. >snip< > That said, I DO think there's definitely a need for some sort of skill > or experience to represent the difference between, say, disciplined > professional troops and angry rabble. That sounds like a good idea to me, especially given the subject matter I'm going to be dealing with... Personally, I would tend to be interested in two particular areas of experience (and, hence, prolly two skills...): one would be a perception-based combat sense, the ability to quickly assess the local tactical situation and react to it on a personal level, without freezing, panicing, etc.; the other would be communication-based, the ability to work with the other members of your team / unit in combat conditions *outside* of any pre-determined tactics, etc. The first one may, in fact, be a bit too involved to work well (it almost seems like it would be a combination of normal Perception skills and a kind of combat-SAN), while the other seems much like the Teamplay skill that was suggested; however, I am personally much happier allowing advantages in terms of the ordering of the Statement of Intent phase, rather than bonuses to hit or damage. > Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my character, > survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well over 100% with his > broadsword, is essentially no better off than an inexperienced peasant > when he picks up a mace for the first time. >snip< I agree, and the idea of improving skill category modifiers intrigues me. I have previously played in a semi-hybrid game that involved some aspects of 2nd edition GURPS (mostly just in character generation) with RQ, and there where "advantages" that would increase certain skill category modifiers (either for specific skills or for an entire category), and it was interesting (partly, I guess, because of other house rules in effect...). Personally, I'm used to allowing / being allowed 1/2 of skill with any "similar" weapon. Technically it was 50% per step, but allowing use of 1/8 military flail skill with a rapier seems like it might be a bit picky & silly to me... One final thought: I do not remember the exact origin of the house rule, or even what exactly it was meant to accomplish, but I am used to keeping sepperate track of "Skill Percentiles" (any base skill level plus those % gained from background / character gen and later experience and training) and "Total Skill" (the above plus the category modifier). The effect of this difference was twofold: One, skill experience rolls where made against the skill percentiles (but still adding the category modifier to the roll). OK, that increases the benefits of natural talent with a skill and promoting slightly higher skill totals overall. Secondly, "half skill" would be based on half the skill percentiles plus the category modifier. That one, I'm not so sure if it would even make a signifigant difference, and I cannot seem to figure out how we ever kept track of it... Any comments on that idea? Is it just nuts, or what? From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed May 11 17:05:18 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:05:18 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow Message-ID: Two systems I know of have a broader approach. Top Secret uses a Basic Melee (etc) which you have to take before you can specialise in a specific melee weapon. Harnmaster (I am a bit shakey here, so bear with me) uses a basic "weapon" So you may have a sWiord Skill, which you can increase, but you may then furthe rthat Sword skill to be amore specialised in say, Longsword or Bastard Sword. I think that I may try somehing siomilar as a house rule in RQ, maybe make it : Basic Slashing, Basic Spear, Basic Crusing, Basic Polearm etc. So that if you usually use a Broadsword and pick up a Gladius, you should still be able to carry on without going down to the weaposn base. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette Sent: 11 May 2005 12:56 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow --- Tom Cantine wrote: (snip!) > > Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my character, > survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well over 100% with his > broadsword, is essentially no better off than an inexperienced peasant > when he picks up a mace for the first time. Especially considering that they're both one-handed swinging weapons. > The solution I have adopted is to modify the Attack and Parry > modifiers so that they act as skills in themselves, subject to > improvement through experience. Heck, I just have "melee", for _all_ weapons as a single skill! Now, I know that some people may say "But lev, using a broadsword is not the same as a quarterstaff or a spear or a flail" - and they're right! But by the same token take a skill like Plant Lore. Knowing how to grow wheat or barley is not the same as knowing how to collect sage, or how to recognise magic mushrooms. In both cases I allow - and require to achieve high levels - optional specialisations at a reduced experience/time cost. The point is, as I see it, to be reasonably consistent across skills in the degree of abstraction. Regards, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed May 11 19:49:08 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:49:08 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow Message-ID: Hi Christopher and welcome. I must say my brother and I were pretty inspired by Black Company, we enjoyed the gritty realism of the everyday soldiers life and have tried to portray the sessions either of us GM (our group has this whole take turns to GM, thing going). I think RQ rules work well with this concept, because firstly, in RQ your characters can die, very easily and secondly, it does allow for specialised, high sorceror/dominator/chosen types. Off the cuff I would say someone like The Limper would at least have had an immortality spell cast on himself. Anyway, before this ebcomes an essay of Glen Cook punting, good luck, hope it works out. Like your comments below as well. -----Original Message----- Christopher Maikisch First off, "Hi!". I've only just recently joined this mailing list, as I am intending on running a game (loosely) based on Glen Cook's "Black Company" series, and I'm leaning towards adapting RQIII / BRP rules (with GURPS as a second option). I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to actually run any RQ in over ten years, so I figure I can prolly use all the help I can get. (Actually, at the moment my biggest problem seems to be remembering which rules are as printed and which where house rules I was used to. =/ ) Right off the bat I see some interesting stuff I'd like to jump in on... -snip- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 grogthing at yahoo.com Thu May 12 00:18:40 2005 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 07:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050511141840.42685.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> I agrre with you, that Rq default setup in regaurds to individual skills with weapons is unnaturally confining. I have been thinking about a 2 part fix. 1st a list of general combat skils, not just attack and parry but something like: Dodge Block (a hard opposing parry) Deflect ( softer diverting parry) Thrust (a straight blow) Slash (a circular blow) Lock (an immobilizing tie up) Push I haven't got that list finalized in my mind yet, but I think you get the picture. Then the second part is that each weapon skill is a familiarty rating NOT your combat ability. So to get your actual ability you would take the average of your familiarity with your weapon and your skill with the combat maneuver. So if you had a weapon familiarity of 80% with a rapier and a 40% general combat rating in Thrust and an 100% rating in Slash you would have an actual skill of 60% in Thrust and 90% in slash. This would let you default to 1/2 of your general combat skil in any unfamiliar weapons. Gregory --- Tom Cantine wrote: > > I think the problem with a generalized tactics > skill is that it > intrudes too much onto the scale at which player > decision making takes > place. RQ has rules for resolving movement and > attacks and parries, > leaving the decision of WHERE to move and WHOM to > attack or parry to > the player. Tactics skill abstracts these sorts of > decisions out of the > player's hands and into a dice roll, and I'm not > sure that's really > consistent with the game's focus. > > That said, I DO think there's definitely a need for > some sort of skill > or experience to represent the difference between, > say, disciplined > professional troops and angry rabble. Bjorn's > Teamplay skill seems to > me a good approach, but it got me thinking about > enlarging it a bit, > based in part on the rules for language (of all > things!). Also, I think > it can combine nicely with something else I'd been > thinking about. > First I'll give the background on the other idea, > and then tie them > together. > > Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my > character, > survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well > over 100% with his > broadsword, is essentially no better off than an > inexperienced peasant > when he picks up a mace for the first time. After > all, it seems to me > that a good part of skill at arms is not simply the > technique of one > weapon, but improved balance and footwork and > general tactics. Yet RQ > as written does not clearly reflect that sort of > general improvement. > The solution I have adopted is to modify the Attack > and Parry > modifiers so that they act as skills in themselves, > subject to > improvement through experience. They start out as > equal to one's > Manipulation and Agility skills modifiers, but can > increase on a > successful check. Unlike normal skills, however, > checks are only > awarded on fumbles. Also, one can receive a check > when one's opponent > fumbles, provided one was paying attention to that > opponent. (It might > also be appropriate to allow a check when one is > carefully observing a > fighter, friend or foe or neutral, as that fighter > scores a critical. > If the observer is engaged in combat himself, this > would only be > possible if he had stated he was attacking, parrying > or dodging the > observed fighter that round. If he's a non-combatant > standing by to > study the master's technique, an INT check will be > called for. I sort > of like the idea of encouraging characters to watch > carefully, even > when they're not directly involved in a fight.) > Attack and Parry modifiers will increase slowly, > but they will benefit > all melee attacks and parries (and dodges), > reflecting a better general > understanding of the dynamics of melee generally. > So, my warrior with > his 100% broadsword attack will also likely have > improved both his A% > and P% modifiers to the point that even though he > has never seen a > naginata before, his initial instincts upon picking > up the unfamiliar > weapon will be generally better than his identical > twin who has never > been in combat. Not as good as someone who as > actually trained with the > naginata, but not a complete neophyte either... > > Integrating with Teamplay > So, how to fit this in with a Teamplay skill? > Teamplay would, in my > proposal, act very much like the Attack and Parry > modifiers, or perhaps > like the modifiers in the Attack Chance Modifiers > table. But any > advantage from Teamplay is limited to the lowest > Teamplay skill of your > teammates. (Teammates must be engaging the same foe > to count as > teammates.) In this sense it resembles Language > skills, in that the > chance for communication is twice that of the lower > fluency speaker. > This represents the fact that a teammate who doesn't > recognize what > you're doing for him isn't going to be able to take > advantage of the > opportunities you provide, and vice versa. > > Them's my thoughts. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu May 12 01:07:18 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <20050511141840.42685.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050511150718.66507.qmail@web51303.mail.yahoo.com> --- grogthing wrote: > I agrre with you, that Rq default setup in regaurds > to > individual skills with weapons is unnaturally > confining. > > I have been thinking about a 2 part fix. 1st a list > of > general combat skils, not just attack and parry but > something like: > > Dodge > Block (a hard opposing parry) > Deflect ( softer diverting parry) > Thrust (a straight blow) > Slash (a circular blow) > Lock (an immobilizing tie up) > Push > > I haven't got that list finalized in my mind yet, > but > I think you get the picture. > > Then the second part is that each weapon skill is a > familiarty rating NOT your combat ability. > > So to get your actual ability you would take the > average of your familiarity with your weapon and > your > skill with the combat maneuver. > > So if you had a weapon familiarity of 80% with a > rapier and a 40% general combat rating in Thrust and > an 100% rating in Slash you would have an actual > skill > of 60% in Thrust and 90% in slash. > > This would let you default to 1/2 of your general > combat skil in any unfamiliar weapons. > > Gregory I would argue for some standardization in terms so that particularly the beginner does not bog down in a confusion of the same term meaning too many different things. Most of the terms are useable. However, "slash" is generally reserved for cutting weapons - as in impale, slash, crush, and bind, for those deeper than long, substantially longer than they are wide, blunt weapon damage, and negligible physical damage but immobilization. Examples being spear, ax, mace, and lasso; swords being capable to some degree of the first three. Also, a rapier's slash is not much more than for scratching Zs on things, being primarily, if not totally an impaling weapon. While a character could certainly have a slash ability with the rapier, it is highly unlikely that it would exceed the impale ability - even for Zorro. I would also add throw after push, if you don't have them both a part of a combined grapple skill. I won't even get into what is entailed in capoeira! Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 12 07:52:55 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:52:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics Skill/Knockout/generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <20050510232044.5E58B2226ED@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050511215255.50692.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Lev Lafayette: > > Any chance of posting some information on the > > Alternate Earth list? That > > sounds a really interesting setting. > > I had no idea said list existed. Can you point me to > it? There was some discussion on Alterbate Earth here, but it seemed out of place. After all, this is a Rules List, not one for Glorantha, Alternate Earth or anywhere else particularly. So I set up the Alternate Earth List a couple of years ago and iot has staggered on ever since. It doesn't do a lot, though. > > We didn't use CONx1 as it involved a lot of rolling > > of dice. > > True, but you've got a serious scaling issue there. I > think an elephant would recover quicker than a mouse. I've never had to stun an elephant or a mouse, so I wouldn't know. Since a mouse would have at most 1 HP in the head, then any stunning blow will stun it for a longer period of time, if you use the multiples of HPs variant, so doing 8 HP against a mouse would result in it being stuinned for 1D3 + 7 rounds. An elephant would be stunned for 1D3 rounds. In RQ3, most things had a CON of 3D6, so an elephant and mouse would have the same average CON (I haven't got the RQ3 rules to hand, so I can't look up the ststa for an elephant or a mouse) so they would have the same recovery chance. Peter Maranci: > Chalk me up as another person who really prefers impale/slash/crush rules. > > Like Simon, mine were inspired by the RQ2 rules and were very similar > to his. I even used the optional critical impale rules (which were > fun; the D&D 3.5 critical rules are oddly reminiscent of those rules, > except that they're NOT fun). > > But the RQ2 rules may be too damaging when used in RQ3; I suspect that > there's a balance issue. Actually, RQ3 can take a lot more damage than RQ2 ever could, so crushes/slashes/impales are even more necessary in RQ3 to speed up combat. RQ3 is more damage-resistant than RQ2 because: 1. RQ3 has Strengthening Enchantments that can increease location and general HPs. 2. RQ3 locations are disabled when reduced to minus their normal positive HPs, not to -6 as in RQ2. So things with a lot of HPs can soak up more damage than in RQ2. 3. In RQ2, going to -6 in a vital location killed you, not in RQ3 where you only die if HPs are reduced to 0. 4. In RQ3, you do not die until the end of the round (after SR 10) so you can be healed to stop you dying. This makes Rune Levels extremely hard to kill as they have allied spirits or magic spirits capable of healing them. 5. In RQ2, CON was reduced to species max (21 for most things). RQ3 limits CON to 1.5xoriginl CON, or Maximum of (CON,STR,SIZ). So, someone with a high original CON can increase it to a higher amount. Normally, this is limited by SIZ, but for big critters like Trolls or Centaurs, being born with CON 18 and a much higher SIZ (OK, they are not born at SIZ 28, but you know what I mean) means they can train their CON to 27, say. This gives them 9 HPs in the head. 4. In RQ3, Vigour is variable and can increase CON indefinitely. It works out that each point of Vigour increases General HPs by 1, so a Vigour 10 adds 10 HPs, on average. I know that in RQ2, Vigour multiplied CON by 1.5 with a max of species max (21 normally), but with a CON of 16, Vigour only gives + 5 HPs. 5. In RQ3, Spirit Magic is variable to no limit and Divine Magic is stackable to no limit, so someone could walk around with Shield 10, Protection 10, for instance, and have 30 points of magical protection. This makes damage even more important. 6. RQ3 has Armouring Enchantment which can be used to strengthen skin armour, normal armour or weapon/shield APs and make it harder for damage to get through. 7. RQ2 had Antiparry, which meant that someone with a high skill could get around a parry and get effective free hits against someone not as skillful. RQ3 does not have antiparry and combat can go on for a boringly long time. Now, I admiot that many of these effects are only visible at the high end of the market, but that is where I like to play, so it does affect me. Many people will say they don't have POW to burn in enchantments or divine magic, or their skills are not that high, or they can't get Protection 10 or they are not trolls or centaurs so they wouldn't get high CONs, but the rules allow for these situations and they must be taken into account. Therefore, not only should Crushes/Slashes/Impales be used, they should be embraced as a leveller between the defensive brick shit-houses that are PCs and the puny attacks of NPCs. Seriously, though, put a party of PCs against something big with high CON, some enchantments and a wedge of divine and Spirit magic and you will see how difficult they are to actually kill. > I will say, though, that the automatic knockout or paralyzation effect > suggested for crushes seems like a bad idea to me. I envision a SIZ 8 > human paralyzing a giant's leg with a crushing club bash; sorry, but > that's just not reasonable. The whole point of RQ is that it's > sensible; unlike D&D, there aren't a lot of absolute rules that are > subject to abuse. Automatic knockback was always a bad idea. Knockback based on damage exceeding SIZ is OK as it must be fairly high to have an effect. A SIZ 8 person using a club against a giant isn't going to mount enough damage to exceed the giant's SIZ so no knockback will occur. Trying to give a giant a dead leg, or a dead ankle in this case, is more realistic, but the attacker has to be very lucky as he has to get through armour and then roll against the giant's HP, which will be large, probably over 10, on the Resistance Table. This makes it highly unlikely, especially as said giant is probably trying to drive the little chappie into the ground. Anyone remember the "Spike" manouver in Xanth? Very satisfying for giants, too. Tom Cantine: > Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my character, > survivor of scores of brutal fights and now well over 100% with his > broadsword, is essentially no better off than an inexperienced peasant > when he picks up a mace for the first time. After all, it seems to me > that a good part of skill at arms is not simply the technique of one > weapon, but improved balance and footwork and general tactics. Yet RQ > as written does not clearly reflect that sort of general improvement. One easy way around this is to extend the idea of similar weapons. In RQ2, if you had a Broadsword Attack then you could use Bastard Sword at half chance and any axe attack at half chance since Broadsword and Bastard Sword were in the same Weapons Category (1H Sowrds) and Axes were in the same meta-category (1H Slashing weapons). In RQ3, I believe, although we never played this, you had a skill in 1H Sword and could use this with Braodsword or Bastard Sword and with any 1H Axe at half chance. You could extend this to other weapon categories. So, weapons in the same category could be at half (or three-quarter if you are generous) chance, weapons in the same meta-category would be at half chance, weapons in the same super-category would be at one quarter chance and so on. So, you would have Weapon Categories such as 1H Swords, 1H Axes, 1H Clubs, 1H Spears, 2H Axes, 2H Swords, 2H Spears, 2H Clubs and so on. These would be in meta-categories of 1H swinging weapons, 1H stabbing weapons, 2H swining weapons, 2H stabbing weapons and super-categories of 1H weapons and 2H weapons. Axes, Clubs and Swords are in the Swinging Weapons category, although some stabbing swords are in the Stabbing weapons category. I would actually favour someone using a Bastard Sword at three-quarter their Broadsword chance, a Battle Axe at half chance, a mace at half chance, a spear at a quarter chance. Having a generalised Attack and Parry bonus is all very well, except when it gets very high. Then the PC can use any weapon very well which could be a problem. Having said that, the PCs in my campaign generally could use most weapons very well, so it wouldn't have been that great a problem after all. You never know, it just might work. I'd make it hard to increase though, but I've deleted the text so I can't tell how you would have increrased the skill :-( Lev Lafayette: > > Which makes me think that it's time to refer to > > reality again: what > > *are* the advantages and effects of real-world > > impale/slash/crushes? > > Ahh, there you go Peter, on about reality again ;-P > > In a nutshell... > See the Journal of Trauma Studies (there is such a > thing!) (www.jtrauma.com) I knew that Nick' Trauma Specialists were a BAD idea. We;'ll have pages of discussions of how wounds are caused and heal before we know it. (Like the Glorantha Digest). RuneQuest has a certain amount of realism and a certain amount of abstraction, which is how I like it. Wounds bleed and then they can be healded. If you take a lot of damage you will die. Armour absorbs damage. Big things do more damage than little things. All realistic and abstract. Anything more and my head starts spinning, and not in a good way. See Ya Simon Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 12 08:30:00 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:30:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <20050511215316.53AAB2226EF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050511223000.82827.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Christopher Maikisch: > First off, "Hi!". I've only just recently joined this mailing list, as > I am intending on running a game (loosely) based on Glen Cook's "Black > Company" series, and I'm leaning towards adapting RQIII / BRP rules > (with GURPS as a second option). I have to admit that I haven't had a > chance to actually run any RQ in over ten years, so I figure I can > prolly use all the help I can get. (Actually, at the moment my biggest > problem seems to be remembering which rules are as printed and which > where house rules I was used to. =/ ) Right off the bat I see some > interesting stuff I'd like to jump in on... It's good to see someone starting RQ again. Don't worry about official rules vs house rules, everyone has the same problem. > Personally, I'm used to allowing / being allowed 1/2 of skill with any > "similar" weapon. Technically it was 50% per step, but allowing use of > 1/8 military flail skill with a rapier seems like it might be a bit > picky & silly to me... Yes, but it gives someone with 80% Rapier 20% Military Flail, or, to illustrate it better, 160% Rapier gives 20% Military Flail, so it's not a problem. It might be worth giving it just for a laugh. > One final thought: I do not remember the exact origin of the house > rule, or even what exactly it was meant to accomplish, but I am used > to keeping sepperate track of "Skill Percentiles" (any base skill > level plus those % gained from background / character gen and later > experience and training) and "Total Skill" (the above plus the > category modifier). The effect of this difference was twofold: One, > skill experience rolls where made against the skill percentiles (but > still adding the category modifier to the roll). OK, that increases > the benefits of natural talent with a skill and promoting slightly > higher skill totals overall. Secondly, "half skill" would be based on > half the skill percentiles plus the category modifier. That one, I'm > not so sure if it would even make a signifigant difference, and I > cannot seem to figure out how we ever kept track of it... Any comments > on that idea? Is it just nuts, or what? I've seen this idea several times before and the only thing I think of is - these people must really like book-keeping. It's far too complex for quick play, in my opinion, and involves either keeping track of two versions iof the same skill on the character sheet (tyricky and prone to misreading the skills) or it requires the addition of the two in combat, which normally involves working out attack and parry chances, so two extra calculations. Some people say that some spells only affect the skill part not the skill + bonus part, but that starts my head spioning again. We used to use calculators to play RQ, so anything which speeds it up is good and anything which slows it down is bad. Gregory (grogthing): > I agrre with you, that Rq default setup in regaurds to > individual skills with weapons is unnaturally > confining. > > I have been thinking about a 2 part fix. 1st a list of > general combat skils, not just attack and parry but > something like: > > Dodge > Block (a hard opposing parry) > Deflect ( softer diverting parry) > Thrust (a straight blow) > Slash (a circular blow) > Lock (an immobilizing tie up) > Push > > I haven't got that list finalized in my mind yet, but > I think you get the picture. Yes, from what I remember when I did some Kung Fu, many years ago, RQ combat does not really work when that kind of combat is used. However, I think that trying to emulate the likes of Kung Fu, Ju-Jitsu, even Karate, is going to be a lot of work for a little gain. It also makes combat longer and more detailed with no real benefits. One of our RQ group carried on with the Kung Fu and went into a numvber of different styles as well as some Indonesian stuff and we tried to use it to make some RQ-style rules, but it didn't really work. For instance, you can counter a punch with a dodge, block, deflect, but what about a sweep? Can you block it or deflect it, bearing in mind that a sweep will probably knock over someone blocking it? Do you dodge it or perhaps grab it? What about grabs or locks, which are differnet? How do you escape a Lock once it is in place? You can strike somewhere else, if possible, break the lock, wriggle out of it, try a throw and so on. It gets far too complicated and messy with all the moves and countermoves. > Then the second part is that each weapon skill is a > familiarty rating NOT your combat ability. > > So to get your actual ability you would take the > average of your familiarity with your weapon and your > skill with the combat maneuver. And add the number you thought of and a 1 if it is a Monday or Tuesday .... > So if you had a weapon familiarity of 80% with a > rapier and a 40% general combat rating in Thrust and > an 100% rating in Slash you would have an actual skill > of 60% in Thrust and 90% in slash. > > This would let you default to 1/2 of your general > combat skil in any unfamiliar weapons. Aaah, it's going round and round and round .... Paul Cardwell: > I would also add throw after push, if you don't have > them both a part of a combined grapple skill. You could also add sweep, grab, break nnd pull, for a start, that's without all the exotic/magical effects of nerve strikes, dleayed action strikes, hand of death and other silly stuff. (The bloke who taught uis was taught by anm elderly, bald, tubby chinese master who once asked him to stand in front of him, reached out and pressed a nerve point. As he doubled up and fell to the floor, he heard the master say "You'll remember that". Perhaps they are not that silly, after all. > I won't even get into what is entailed in capoeira! That's another problem, someone proficient in another martial art, for instance capoeira or judo, will have another set of moves that are essential. Well, that's about it for tonight. You can tellmy wife's gone to bed with a headache and I've nothing better to do than read my emails. See Ya Simon Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk Thu May 12 08:55:22 2005 From: nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk (Nick Middleton) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:55:22 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 17, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <20050511215316.CD2ED2226F0@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050511215316.CD2ED2226F0@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <42828D5A.2000906@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> >>Ahh, there you go Peter, on about reality again ;-P >> >>In a nutshell... >>See the Journal of Trauma Studies (there is such a >>thing!) (www.jtrauma.com) >> >> > >I knew that Nick' Trauma Specialists were a BAD idea. We;'ll have pages of >discussions of how wounds are caused and heal before we know it. (Like the >Glorantha Digest). > > > >RuneQuest has a certain amount of realism and a certain amount of >abstraction, which is how I like it. Wounds bleed and then they can be >healded. If you take a lot of damage you will die. Armour absorbs damage. Big >things do more damage than little things. All realistic and abstract. >Anything more and my head starts spinning, and not in a good way. > > > The suggestion that smacking someone round the head with a blunt object does anything other than potentially lethal damage breaks my suspension of disbelief: and, I'd argue, pushes RQ away from the gritty, 'grounded in real experience' feel it originally conveyed. Hence my orriginal comment: having once tried to play Phoenix Command, I have zero interest in turning RQ in to something similar, but equally I like RQ's baseline approximations of real experience and see little need to tamper. As with the Dodge issue, others may feel differently. Cheers, Nick Middleton. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10/05/2005 From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu May 12 22:21:01 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:21:01 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <820B6F35-C1A0-11D9-9237-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: > I think the problem with a generalized tactics skill is that it intrudes >too much onto the scale at which player decision making takes place. RQ has >rules for resolving movement and attacks and parries, leaving the decision >of WHERE to move and WHOM to attack or parry to the player. Tactics skill >abstracts these sorts of decisions out of the player's hands and into a >dice roll, and I'm not sure that's really consistent with the game's focus. Well, that's not p problem to me, as the players only have to consider wether they'll try to close their opponent or stay on some distance. How they actually manuvre during 10 seconds of fighting is to complicated to make workable rules for anyway IMHO > > That said, I DO think there's definitely a need for some sort of skill or >experience to represent the difference between, say, disciplined >professional troops and angry rabble. Bjorn's Teamplay skill seems to me a >good approach, but it got me thinking about enlarging it a bit, based in >part on the rules for language (of all things!). Also, I think it can >combine nicely with something else I'd been thinking about. First I'll give >the background on the other idea, and then tie them together. Good thinking! > >Generalized Combat Experience > I have never been comfortable with the fact that my character, survivor of >scores of brutal fights and now well over 100% with his broadsword, is >essentially no better off than an inexperienced peasant when he picks up a >mace for the first time. After all, it seems to me that a good part of >skill at arms is not simply the technique of one weapon, but improved >balance and footwork and general tactics. Yet RQ as written does not >clearly reflect that sort of general improvement. I solve this by letting the MA-skill counting for all fighting (not just hollywood/hong kong kung fu-skills, but I'm not going to work my self up on that one.....) If you have 40 % in MA, you're going to start off any weapon with 40% I allso make a big table that I call the associated weapons table, that states how much you're gonna start of with as a base relatively to weaponskills you allready have. (A closely realted weapon (like a gladius vs. a broadsword give you 2/3 of the skill, a more distant cousin broadsword compared to 1h. mace; perhaps only 10%) _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From kaomera at gmail.com Fri May 13 00:00:37 2005 From: kaomera at gmail.com (Christopher Maikisch) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 07:00:37 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: References: <820B6F35-C1A0-11D9-9237-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: On 5/12/05, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Well, that's not p problem to me, as the players only have to consider > wether they'll try to close their opponent or stay on some distance. How > they actually manuvre during 10 seconds of fighting is to complicated to > make workable rules for anyway IMHO Personally, one of the reasons I like RQ is the semi-staged movement inherent in "one step per strike-rank". And I find that players who want their characters to come out of a fight in one piece avoid fights in open areas like the plague. Suddenly you have to worry about maneuvering around / through cover and terrain, usually while trying to keep coordinated with the rest of the group... How about using a battle-mat and figures? Personally I would prefer not to use a tactical map, as I feel it presents information in such a drastically different way than the characters would actually experience it that you tend to lose a lot of the drama of the game... (Especially in that suddenly every PC knows exactly where every other PC is and what they're doing...) But, unfortunately, most fights aren't as much about drama as rolling dice, anyway; and if you're going to involve any large number of combatants and/or tactical maneuvering the battle-mat solves a lot of problems, IMHO. This is why I want skills to cover group communications and personal "combat experience" in terms of awareness vs. panic.(I'm currently working on this problem... Mostly worried at the moment about cluttering the combat sequence.) -- "Freeze! I'm Bored-Flack, the bolt lobber, mighty wizard, and I seldom miss at this range!" ~ Bored-Flack, from Finieous Fingers From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri May 13 01:53:15 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow Message-ID: <20050512155315.33371.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com> One of the reason I dislike d20 system is that the combat is optimized for battle mats. The entire concept of attacks of opportunity and threat range, as well as feats, which are specifically designed to take advantage of this turn me off. I do use a Tactics skill in my game. I have it as a Craft Tactics and it is used mostly by leaders of small groups of combatants to properly position the members of a group for the fight, or to realize an immediate advantage or a disadvantage in combat. The skill really helps out with players who are playing warrior type characters, but them selves have no understanding small group combat. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > On 5/12/05, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > Well, that's not p problem to me, as the players only have to consider > > wether they'll try to close their opponent or stay on some distance. How > > they actually manuvre during 10 seconds of fighting is to complicated to > > make workable rules for anyway IMHO > > Personally, one of the reasons I like RQ is the semi-staged movement > inherent in "one step per strike-rank". And I find that players who > want their characters to come out of a fight in one piece avoid fights > in open areas like the plague. Suddenly you have to worry about > maneuvering around / through cover and terrain, usually while trying > to keep coordinated with the rest of the group... > > How about using a battle-mat and figures? Personally I would prefer > not to use a tactical map, as I feel it presents information in such a > drastically different way than the characters would actually > experience it that you tend to lose a lot of the drama of the game... > (Especially in that suddenly every PC knows exactly where every other > PC is and what they're doing...) But, unfortunately, most fights > aren't as much about drama as rolling dice, anyway; and if you're > going to involve any large number of combatants and/or tactical > maneuvering the battle-mat solves a lot of problems, IMHO. > > This is why I want skills to cover group communications and personal > "combat experience" in terms of awareness vs. panic.(I'm currently > working on this problem... Mostly worried at the moment about > cluttering the combat sequence.) > > -- > "Freeze! I'm Bored-Flack, the bolt lobber, mighty wizard, and I seldom > miss at this range!" ~ Bored-Flack, from Finieous Fingers > _______________________________________________ > 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! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html From eothargoar at yahoo.com Fri May 13 01:54:51 2005 From: eothargoar at yahoo.com (Nick Tolimieri) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Basic Weapon skills and 'tactics' In-Reply-To: <20050511215316.53AAB2226EF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050512155451.73183.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com> BASIC WEAPON SKILLS: Another game that I've been into recently is "The Riddle of Steel". It uses a system of weapon defaults and proficiencies. So if your main weapon skill is sword&shield you default to mass weapon (mace or axe) at -1. So as you get better in one weapon, you get better in all fighting...to a point. Defaults are capped, so no matter how good you get with a sword you won't get any better with an axe until you actually train or use it. In a RQ way you might have sword 85 and default to axe at -10% or 75%, but never go above 75% without actual experience with the axe (or what ever actual default you chose). Harnmaster is pretty handy too. There are specialties within general skills, as some one else noted. But more importantly after one weapon skill rises above 70% (I think), the character is considered a vetran and gains a bonus to all other skills. I'm not sure what the bonus would be in RQ though. TACTICS: Pendragon, another Greg Stafford game, has a 'battle' skill and a mass combat system. It works pretty well. You might look into that. It also gives different troops different values. So trained infantry are more effective than untrained infantry. Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri May 13 06:19:33 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:19:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow Message-ID: <14025072.1115929173809.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Christopher, There is a RQ website that has some great material on Kralorela and various martial arts styles. Take a look at http://manzato.club.fr/pagepersocm/runequest/rqmain.html and click the "Kralorela Material" link at the time. David David From gkahla at chromebob.com Fri May 13 06:29:43 2005 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:29:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <14025072.1115929173809.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <14025072.1115929173809.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <63956.208.191.93.169.1115929783.squirrel@208.191.93.169> On Thu, May 12, 2005 3:19 pm, David Smart said: > Christopher, > > There is a RQ website that has some great material on Kralorela and > various martial arts styles. Take a look at > http://manzato.club.fr/pagepersocm/runequest/rqmain.html and click the > "Kralorela Material" link at the time. this is a great link! the site looks like it's got lots of cool info. thanks for the URL -- -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / the Celestial Mechanic remember: all waves collapse. From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Fri May 13 06:49:22 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Traking Components of Skills In-Reply-To: <20050512203002.0A1882226EF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050512204922.63740.qmail@web31003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> One thing D20 does well is having the character sheet help players. I have a complicated system in which skill categories go up based on increases in the component skills. So the Category bonus lists Base (from characteristics) + Advancement (increments from underlying skills) = Bonus In the same way, each skill lists base (what the character has advanced to) + Bonus = Skill What this does is: * There is no doubt what the current skill is * I've divided it up so everything (with the exception of tracking every skill advancement) can be recalculated if necessary. And the skill advancement is exposed so if there is a problem it's visible. Steve ----------------------------------------------- Christopher Maikisch: > ... I cannot seem to figure out how we ever kept > track of it... Any comments > on that idea? Is it just nuts, or what? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kaomera at gmail.com Fri May 13 13:16:13 2005 From: kaomera at gmail.com (Christopher Maikisch) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:16:13 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Basic Weapon skills and 'tactics' In-Reply-To: <20050512155451.73183.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050511215316.53AAB2226EF@boomstick.screwheads.net> <20050512155451.73183.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/12/05, Nick Tolimieri wrote: > TACTICS: Pendragon, another Greg Stafford game, has a > 'battle' skill and a mass combat system. It works > pretty well. You might look into that. It also gives > different troops different values. So trained > infantry are more effective than untrained infantry. Thanx, I'm still putting ideas together concerning mass combat; I'll add Pendragon to my list of references. I am also working on this from another angle, with the following in mind: * I want a system within the rules that will differentiate between characters' combat experience, from "green" to "battle-hardened". * Combat skills already cover this to a great extent, but I'm more interested in the psychological aspects; the ability to quickly and appropriately reacting to the chaos of battle without panicking. * I'm interested in rules that can be applied to PCs in a way that makes the game more enjoyable. Having a rule that could force PCs to panic or flee would not be fun. Something that might provide them with some kind of a bonus would probably be better, if it could be kept balanced within reason. * I do not wish to bog down combat, and would drop the whole idea if that would be the result. Something that would work as an option in combat would be good, but if it simply provides a bonus there's no reason for the players to ever forgo it. If there was a possible penalty for failure, that might be good. * I would prefer to avoid "concrete" bonuses like skill or damage bonuses; I don't think that matches the feel I'm going for. * I am mainly interested in influencing the "feel" of the game. I want something that will make the distinction between raw recruits (even well-trained ones) and veterans seem important in a meaningful way to the players. * I am looking to encourage and reward tactical thinking, outside of simple die rolling. I want the players to come up with plans before combat, and maybe even work up some general combat tactics that can be applied without a specific plan (such as what to do if ambushed). I want them to do this as their characters would, that is elaborate planning should happen *before* things get messy and a fight starts, not during. I do not want to penalize or restrict their ability to pull off plans they have worked up, but keep in mind the old saying: "No plan, however great, long survives contact with the enemy". * The best place to achieve these goals would seem to me to be the Statement Of Intent phase (SOI). Allowing more experienced characters to declare their actions last, after having seen what the opposition will do, should not be an overwhelming advantage in and of itself, but it should improve the effect of good tactics (IMHO). A Perception-based "Combat Sense" skill could be used to represent acclimation to the stress of combat; a check could be made to alleviate or disregard the effects of a surprise or ambush. This could possibly be somewhat overly potent, but I plan on running a game where dirty tricks are the name of the game and having a mechanism where characters can survive to be betrayed and ambushed again does not seem too bad an idea. This skill would be in addition to Listen and Scan, these might prevent someone from sneaking up on you, or allow you to notice a supposed ally drawing a dagger, but I feel that Combat Sense would be more thematically appropriate for the split-second awareness once a surprise or ambush is initiated. Base skill would be 0%. Experience would only be gained for surviving serious fights. Training up to a low level (say 30%) would be possible. A success indicates that you may make a parry (or dodge) against a surprise or ambush attack that you could sense coming. A special success would also allow any other action you might want to take instead of a parry or dodge (including striking back immediately or protecting someone else). A critical would allow the character to notice something that gives away the attacker... If you could sense the attacker, then you do so and may take this SR's action before him, if not then some sixth sense allows you to make a parry or dodge regardless. A fumble causes you to freeze in surprise, allowing the attacker the benefit of choosing his hit location (as if the attack had been an aimed blow). [As a definition, I am using "surprise" as in the RQIII rules, while an "ambush" allows the attackers to get in a full round of attacks before the ambushed party has a chance to react (in game terms, wait in concealment {or otherwise where you could gain surprise} and delay your action until SR 10 {or at least until your targets have all taken their movement and actions for the round} ). ] A Communication-based "Unit Awareness" skill would cover the ability of an experienced unit to work together as "more than the sum of it's parts", including knowing what other members of the unit will (or at least are expected to) do in a given situation, and the benefits of trusting the other members of the unit to the point that you can concentrate more fully on your own job. Base skill would be 0%, and the full skill percentage can only be used in a situation where you are used to working with and trust the rest of the unit. If you are fighting alongside new recruits or someone you just recently met, then the skill is halved before any other modifiers. (It should usually take a minimum of one week of working / training together to gain enough familiarity to make full use of the skill; getting through a tough fight together might be enough at the GM's discretion.) If there is distrust within the group, the skill would likewise be halved. Experience would be gained for surviving / winning fights through teamwork or for long periods of living and working together (say 1 month under normal conditions or 2 weeks under tense and/or hazardous conditions). Training up to a low level (say 30%) would be possible (and this is what most basic military training would focus on). The leader (as previously designated or else the character with the highest POW) may make a skill roll at the beginning of the round, using the average of his skill % and the lowest skill % in the group. Any success allows the entire group to declare actions later in the order during the SOI, fumbles require them to declare first. After fumbles declare normal declarations are dealt with, then those of groups with a success, then specials, then crits. (I personally always follow an "NPCs then PCs" rule with declarations, to keep things simple.) Thoughts, comments? (Thanx in advance.) -- "Freeze! I'm Bored-Flack, the bolt lobber, mighty wizard, and I seldom miss at this range!" ~ Bored-Flack, from Finieous Fingers From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri May 13 19:15:12 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:15:12 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: <20050511223000.82827.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > Personally, I'm used to allowing / being allowed 1/2 of skill with any > > "similar" weapon. Technically it was 50% per step, but allowing use of > > 1/8 military flail skill with a rapier seems like it might be a bit > > picky & silly to me... I don't think so. It's "realistic"that a diamonddwarf with 800% in military flail have reached a level in his general understanding of fighting that should be capable to pick up a rapier and have more than 20% in it... >Yes, from what I remember when I did some Kung Fu, many years ago, RQ >combat >does not really work when that kind of combat is used. However, I think >that >trying to emulate the likes of Kung Fu, Ju-Jitsu, even Karate, is going to >be >a lot of work for a little gain. It also makes combat longer and more >detailed with no real benefits. One of our RQ group carried on with the >Kung >Fu and went into a numvber of different styles as well as some Indonesian >stuff and we tried to use it to make some RQ-style rules, but it didn't >really work. For instance, you can counter a punch with a dodge, block, >deflect, but what about a sweep? Can you block it or deflect it, bearing in >mind that a sweep will probably knock over someone blocking it? Do you >dodge >it or perhaps grab it? What about grabs or locks, which are differnet? How >do >you escape a Lock once it is in place? You can strike somewhere else, if >possible, break the lock, wriggle out of it, try a throw and so on. It gets >far too complicated and messy with all the moves and countermoves. >Paul Cardwell: > > I would also add throw after push, if you don't have > > them both a part of a combined grapple skill. > >You could also add sweep, grab, break nnd pull, for a start, that's without >all the exotic/magical effects of nerve strikes, dleayed action strikes, >hand >of death and other silly stuff. (The bloke who taught uis was taught by anm >elderly, bald, tubby chinese master who once asked him to stand in front of >him, reached out and pressed a nerve point. As he doubled up and fell to >the >floor, he heard the master say "You'll remember that". Perhaps they are not >that silly, after all. > > > I won't even get into what is entailed in capoeira! > >That's another problem, someone proficient in another martial art, for >instance capoeira or judo, will have another set of moves that are >essential. > >Well, that's about it for tonight. You can tellmy wife's gone to bed with a >headache and I've nothing better to do than read my emails. > >See Ya > >Simon Well I think that I've solved this problem you describe! If you want a combat system where you let one combat round be like 1 -3 second(s), like Fading Suns /Shadowrun, you could start looking at speciffic moves, holds and grips. When I decided to swap the RQ3-rules for combat with somthing else, I was temted to go from 10 seconds-turn to 1 second turns. But then I realized that by retaining the 10 second-turn, you don't need to become so detailed; you simply state what you intend to achieve during those 10 seconds. So I decided to drop attack, parry dodge all together, and just make a resistance-roll out of it. That way, the GM can describe what happens during 10 seconds of combat as descriptive and exciting as he wish (especially if he rolls all the dices, so that the players really don't know how things are going!) So in my campagin, the players state what they want to do, I collect all the nessecary info (skills and strike ranks, armour points, hit locations, etc. and roll the dices. Then I find out what the rule-technical result was, and then I paint it all out to the best of my abilities (This one's from last monday's session where a Mostali is having a little disagreement with some nomads: "You run all you can, hearing the nomads closing fast from behind. Then as you expect a javelin to embed itself into your neck, you swirve around with your axe and hit the horseleg on the horse to the left of you just beneath the knee! The leg comes clean off, and the horse cartwheels forward, as you feel the impact of a javelin denting your plate armoured back." _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From eothargoar at yahoo.com Sat May 14 01:27:25 2005 From: eothargoar at yahoo.com (Nick Tolimieri) Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Tactics Skill In-Reply-To: <20050512203002.0A1882226EF@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050513152725.55107.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com> I was just thinking/remembering...Traveler 4ed has a tactics skill. I don't remember exactly how it works, but basically you use the "leader's" skill and this adds to the skill of the other combatants. Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed May 18 17:33:54 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:33:54 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >However, I know that a lot of the people I will be playing this with >like games in general. They like learning / knowing how the combat >mechanics of an RPG work and they like using the effectively. I theese peoples right to play RQ like this, but it doesn't appeal to me. To me, the key to be able to enjoy it is when things are realistic. I have a fencing instructor that says that he's won several WMA-fencing-contests with everything from sabres and Katanas to twohandswords and rapiers. He allso sais that the reason he win so often is that he allways let the security-rules decide how he should fight in any given tournament; if it's forbidden to strike hands and face, he have hand and face precented to the enemy, so that they might hit it unintentionally -and loose... He tells about this to stress that people you meet on tournament and who boast about how good they are doesn't nessecarily last very long if it was a real fencing duel, and obviously; you'd die pretty fast if you wiggeled your hands and nose in front of protruding rapierblades in a real situation ;-) I don't like to winn because I knew the rules the best. I want to win because my character pulled through and was spared by O fortuna (and because I made some sound statements -but in a setting where sound statements actually is rewarded, and not the opposite). If you want to make rules that should cover wether stepping to the right or left in a given situation is the best, then the one making the rules and modifiers actually have to know theese things, or else, the rules might become plain unrealistic, pushing gamers into evolving rule-adapted strategies instead of realistic strategies,as my fencing instructor do when he joins WMA-tournaments. >You stated that you use WHAB for dealing with large-scale >combat, so let's take that for an example. WHAB (and the other GW >table-top games) tries to incorporate a lot of real-world tactics at >least to some extent, but abstractions have to be made in the name of >fun. Despite this, there is a certain skill to playing the game well. Well.. you have a point, and you're not gonna trick me into saying that WHAB is the "fasit". But the reason I like WHAB-rules, is that they corespond with my impression on how large scale engagements work. If you take another boardgame; Battletech; the tactics and general layout of the rules in that game is so unrealistic that I don't find it fun to play; either if I win or loose. The reason why I like the Warhammer Ancient-battle, is that it doesn't cover individual or triangular personal small-scale combat (where we don't know that much, as there are so little sources from earlier history (a handfull of manuals from the dark ages/renissanse + pictures and sculptures from the antic) What Warhammer Ancient battles do cover is larg scale tactics, that is better described, thanks to the fact that the sages of kings and emperors payed more attention on saving recordings and analysises of this kind of tactics rather than the individual basic-training of the ones acrually doing the killing. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From kaomera at gmail.com Thu May 19 12:22:58 2005 From: kaomera at gmail.com (Christopher Maikisch) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:22:58 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tactics skill and generalized fighting knowhow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/18/05, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I theese peoples right to play RQ like this, but it doesn't appeal to me. To > me, the key to be able to enjoy it is when things are realistic. I understand where you are coming from (or at least I think I do), and thank you for bringing it up. I do not personally find any RPG I have played or run to be overwhelmingly realistic; certainly, however, there are those that have more realism than others. As a result, I can be kind of blind to potential breaches of the "suspension of disbelief". I have learned to look for warning signs and try to heed them... It seems I may well need to back up a bit and reevaluate my decisions here. > Well.. you have a point, and you're not gonna trick me into saying that WHAB > is the "fasit". I certainly didn't mean to trick you at all, and I apologize for the impression. -- "Freeze! I'm Bored-Flack, the bolt lobber, mighty wizard, and I seldom miss at this range!" ~ Bored-Flack, from Finieous Fingers