From darthvogel at hotmail.com Mon May 1 03:53:03 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange In-Reply-To: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE6046C0494@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Message-ID: I've lost track of this thread over time. However, I am a big advocate of the GM is the God of his gaming world. Consistency is important but not 100% of the time. There are exceptions. The bottom line is this. Do you want to play a game with a member with a dismembered leg or not? Will your player still have fun playing or not? This is more important than the game mechanics of the moment. If your PC is a role player who will find this a challenge, then great guns. If he is just gonna look for a way to get killed in a hurry to replace his character so he can get a new one, the find an out for him, and next time decide that if your pc is going to be this way, cut to the chase and let him bleed out. Fred >From: "Hibbs, Phil" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange >Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:38:49 +0100 > > >Simon Phipp: > > The same principle should apply to Divine Magic > >In general terms I disagree. Sorcery tend to be more simple and literal >than >divine magic, which gets all kinds of package deals that sorcerors have to >jump through hoops to emulate. I would, however, say that a Trickster spell >"Become Trollkin" would retain deformities because it is funny. > >Phil Hibbs. >-- > >This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential >and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the >person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you >are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, >or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in >error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this >message. > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Sun May 7 02:04:56 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:04:56 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats Message-ID: <0F565027-8BC4-4C8E-AF4F-EFC13C5FEE7B@crashbox.com> Everyone, I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that has them? I don't need the profession tables, just the basic STR, DEX, etc. rolls. Thanks! -Andrew From gianni at basicrps.com Sun May 7 02:21:38 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 18:21:38 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats Message-ID: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Andrew, > I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and > Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email > me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that > has them? According to Rick Meints' site [http://www.glorantha.info/creatures/creatures.html], the newtling is described in both the Gloranthan Bestiary and the RQ2 Rulebook. Gianni From andrew at crashbox.com Sun May 7 02:53:04 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:53:04 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats In-Reply-To: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4EC62FA9-4C47-44CD-A580-A3822CEDE3F7@crashbox.com> Well, I'll be, there they are! I haven't pulled this book out in ages. Thanks for the tip! -Andrew On May 6, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Gianni wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and >> Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email >> me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that >> has them? > > According to Rick Meints' site > [http://www.glorantha.info/creatures/creatures.html], the newtling is > described in both the Gloranthan Bestiary and the RQ2 Rulebook. > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon May 8 19:23:53 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 04:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 8 20:35:04 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Good post! The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the field's fertility, etc.) One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. >From: Guy Hoyle >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 04:23:53 -0500 > >It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit >magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that >non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of >the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be >used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill >household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a >variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr >smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting >spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches >spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) >skills of its merchants and traders? > >Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, >too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? > >-- >--Guy Hoyle > >"Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns >people you bite into zombies." >The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 8 20:47:04 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:47:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange/Newtling Stats In-Reply-To: <20060506162204.EEF896DF738@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508104704.45130.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Greg: >> I am the rules of nature, I can >>decree that magic stops working one day. What an >>interesting adventure as your magic using characters >>go into panic! > > I'm afraid my reaction to that would be "Oh no not again, I wonder what we > have to do this time?" Not becoming jaded by any chance, are we? Personally, I get the same feeling every time I play an "Initiation Quest" scenario at Continuum/Convulsions/Conjunction as THEY ARE ALL THE BLOODY SAME!!!! Fred Vogel: > I've lost track of this thread over time. However, I am a big advocate of > the GM is the God of his gaming world. Consistency is important but not > 100% of the time. There are exceptions. The bottom line is this. Do you > want to play a game with a member with a dismembered leg or not? Will your > player still have fun playing or not? This is more important than the game > mechanics of the moment. Make them suffer for a bit - don't give them the leg back straight away, but give them an INT roll or something to let them "remember" about someone from a neighbouring clan/town who had a similar problem and got it cured. That way, they can go and do a scenario or series of scenarios to get the leg back. > If your PC is a role player who will find this a challenge, then great guns. > If he is just gonna look for a way to get killed in a hurry to replace his > character so he can get a new one, the find an out for him, and next time > decide that if your pc is going to be this way, cut to the chase and let him > bleed out. If someone throws a tantrum just because they lost a leg, then give them hell. My second RQ character had his tongue cut out by a fellow PC and spent the rest of the campaign as a mute. It didn't stop him much, as he bought Mindspeech and was just as annoying :-) (Yeah, I know, you have to subvocalise, but we played it as telepathy) From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" > I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and > Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email > me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that > has them? I don't need the profession tables, just the basic STR, > DEX, etc. rolls. I hope this doesn't take a month to arrive. From RQ2: STR 3D6, CON 3D6, SIZ 2D6, POW 3D6, DEX 2D6+6, CHA 3D6 Move 6, Hit Points Average 9-10, Treasure Factor 5, Defense 5% Trident SR 5 (1D6+1) 30% / 30% (12) Sling SR 2 (1D8) 25% Small Shield Parry 25% (8) Armour: leather Body and Limbs (2 points), cap helm (2 points) Other Skills: Swimming 80%, Tracking 50%, Spot Traps 40%, Hide in Cover 50% See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/fe377aca/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon May 8 20:50:20 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:50:20 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: I concur. I have been trying to invest the concept of enchanting metal implements by singing etc while smithing (which could basically be like invoking spirits into the artefact) alla Michael Scott Rowan's books with my players but so far nowt has really come of it. Off the top of my head: -A mason would look for some sort of stone or holding spirit to ensure that blocks stay together, or cement binds better (H,,, old style cement was mostly limestone, which is to a large extent made up of bone/shell, so maybe the spirits of the long dead limestone donor). - A brewer would call on spirits to stop his ale spoiling, or maybe enhance its POT. - A fetcher maybe call on the spirit of the bird who donated its feathers to make the arrow fly true. - And so on Hmm, My brother recently played a primitive who ended up in a civilised army. He made a bit of a killing hand carving javelin shafts and flogging them off to the soldiers as magically enhanced to fly true etc. Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Guy Hoyle Sent: 08 May 2006 11:24 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42*04 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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 Mon May 8 21:38:21 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:38:21 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: Ah botany. Now there is something I agree is way overlooked. It can really spice (doh!) up your campaign, but the main caution is to be like an accountant - consistant. So if a herb is decided does X in the game and then someone finds out that it actually has a different effect (Y) - player terms, not game tesrm, remain consistent, keep its effects as X , don't change it or the players mty get confused etc. There are plenty normal earth herb/botany etc books and, depending onteh group, onc could vary from their mudane earth name, to their scientific latinm name to a new name made up for your reality. -----Original Message----- Bjorn Stolen Good post! The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the field's fertility, etc.) One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 8 22:16:46 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:16:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508113835.E97FA6EE2F8@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Guy Hoyle: > It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit > magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that > non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of > the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be > used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill > household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a > variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr > smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting > spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches > spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) > skills of its merchants and traders? Well, when I did some conversions of HW cults, I had to make up far too many skills/spells. Some of them can boost craft skills. The list is at http://www.soltakss.com/hwconv04.html The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your campaign, you wouldn't want to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point writing up speciality spells for all the different crafts. Bjorn Stolen: > The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing > frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells > and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. > I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! And post it somewhere so that other people can use it. > Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some > focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the > field's fertility, etc.) Minor magic items are very useful for this sort of thing and there should be a lot more of them. > One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with > a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making > a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by > the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article > I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. In RQ2, Healers had Find Healing Plants, a skill that has been subsumed into Plant Lore. This allowed you to find healing plants (surprisingly enough) with bonuses depending in the season and locality. They also had Preserve Herbs and Refine Medicine, two spells useful to botanists. Have you finished the compendium? Is there an on-line version for us to use and be impressed by? Den, Tony T: > I concur. I have been trying to invest the concept of enchanting metal > implements by singing etc while smithing (which could basically be like > invoking spirits into the artefact) alla Michael Scott Rowan's books > with my players but so far nowt has really come of it. Enchanting Spirits into items to give them special abilities is an interesting idea. Of course, you need special classes of spirits but that's always a good idea. From my spell list comes Imbue Sword With Magic. You could use it as a divine spell as written or change it to be a Spirit Magic spell or even a Shamanic Ability, whatever takes your fancy. Imbue Sword With Magic (1 point, non-stackable, one-use, permanent) This spell must be cast when a weapon is forged. If the smith succeeds in his Craft (Weaponmaking) then the smith can add one special power to the sword, a special success allows two extra powers, a critical three extra powers. A fumble or failure means the weapon has shattered. Each extra power may cost the smith POW or Divine Magic as appropriate. So, Halban the Smith casts Imbue Sword With Magic on a Bastard Sword and gets a critical roll, he knows he can put three powers into the sword, and decides on Sharpen Weapon, Strengthen Weapon and Swift Weapon, a power he has gained on a HeroQuest. He rolls his Craft (Swordmaking) three times and gets a normal, a critical and a special, so the sword does 1D10 + 2 damage, has an extra 3D3 HPs and attacks with -2 SR. It is a sword fit for a Hero and he takes it to the local Orlanth Temple as an offering. > Off the top of my head: > -A mason would look for some sort of stone or holding spirit to ensure > that blocks stay together, or cement binds better (H,,, old style cement > was mostly limestone, which is to a large extent made up of bone/shell, > so maybe the spirits of the long dead limestone donor). Well, we have Glue, Support and Mould Rock (From Flintnail). In the new Glorantha, Flintnail would have Sorcery spells (pah!) and other masons would have spirits or daimones. In RQ terms, they would have spirits to hold things together, to hold things up and so on. Even sacrificing someone nd burying them beneath the foundations would be a good idea. > - A brewer would call on spirits to stop his ale spoiling, or maybe > enhance its POT. Or to give it special abilities, making it a magical brew. > Hmm, My brother recently played a primitive who ended up in a civilised > army. He made a bit of a killing hand carving javelin shafts and > flogging them off to the soldiers as magically enhanced to fly true etc. Until the priests come around and burn him for witchcraft or perverting the good people of the army with his mumbo-jumbo. > Ah botany. Now there is something I agree is way overlooked. It can > really spice (doh!) up your campaign, but the main caution is to be like > an accountant - consistant. So if a herb is decided does X in the game > and then someone finds out that it actually has a different effect (Y) > - player terms, not game tesrm, remain consistent, keep its effects as X > , don't change it or the players mty get confused etc. There are > plenty normal earth herb/botany etc books and, depending onteh group, > onc could vary from their mudane earth name, to their scientific latinm > name to a new name made up for your reality. It depends how detailed you want to be. If you want to mimic real world botany, then you can either say "your character knows that so-and-so plant is good for such-and-such" or you could have a document with all the plants and what effects they have on various ailments. I would prefer the first as it is quicker and easier. I don't care that hemlock is good for heart ailments, I would only care that the healer knows a plant that is good for heart ailments. Of course, it could do X and Y, depending on whether it was boiled and drank or steeped in wine and used as an enema, or whatever. Of course, if someone else came up with such a document and made it available, I would probably use it. I just wouldn't attempt it myself. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/a472779d/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 8 22:34:35 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:34:35 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >writing up speciality >spells for all the different crafts. This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write up a warrior cult." The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more importaint" than other fields. I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other factors, like setting, the anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by the GM to have more influence of the focus of the game than the (focus on combat in the) rules, but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity of having special-rule upon special-rule when it comes to solving combat-situations. From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 9 00:25:59 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060508142559.93342.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have always had spirit spells which affect induvidual skills. Basically, the spell will add either +10% or +5%/+1, if applicable, per point (they are all variable) to some skill. I did not bother listing them all in my database since there are too many skills. I have had characters in my game take the following spells amongs others: Cover (adds to Hide) Draw Poison (adds to Treat Poison) Glib Tongue (adds to Fast Talk) Deal (adds to Bargain) Copy (added +5% to Write and +5% to Forgery) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > > The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your > >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a > >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >writing up speciality > >spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. > > I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other factors, like setting, the > anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by the GM to have more > influence of the focus of the game than the (focus on combat in the) rules, > but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity of having special-rule > upon special-rule when it comes to solving combat-situations. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue May 9 00:34:33 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:34:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060508143433.78563.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Watcha, You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a non-combat emphasis then there are probably better games to use than RQ? Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when it's used, let the player call it whatever they want and leave it at that. Cheers, Ash --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > The trouble with this idea is that unless you > have a potter in your > >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter > cult. So, unless you've a > >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point > >writing up speciality > >spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some > Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you > wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to > make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) > should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards > other fields in life. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing > between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that > indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. > > I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other > factors, like setting, the > anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by > the GM to have more > influence of the focus of the game than the (focus > on combat in the) rules, > but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity > of having special-rule > upon special-rule when it comes to solving > combat-situations. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 9 00:41:31 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:41:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> References: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605080741h248fe6b2tcc7533a11c3ce465@mail.gmail.com> A sorcerer in my current campaign often uses a spell called "Clean Clothes". While snickered out for being a bit fastidious, his spell has had some surprising uses in non-laundry day situations. And there are a number of divine spells used by Mostali, according to the RQ3 publications on Gloranthan gods by Avalon Hill. Herders can use the Beast Speech and Call [Animal] spells. Farmers and ranchers can use the Bless Earth, Bless Animals, and Bless Crops spells while midwives could use the Comfort Song spell. And the Trickster offers the Clever Tongue spell to help his followers with get out of tight situations (or cause one) , which in its turn can be counteracted by the Detect Truth spell offered by either Lhankor My or Humakt (I forget which). For spirit magic, try *COMPREHENSION Variable, Touch, Temporal, Passive* This spell increases the target's mental capacity, though his INT remains constant. Each point of *Comprehension* adds 5% to all his Knowledge skills while under the spell's influence. David On 5/8/06, Guy Hoyle wrote: But where are the Craft-enhancing spells for smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/f1a9a6a0/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 9 01:19:52 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:19:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508144145.AEBA56EFB8A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508151953.42491.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> So, CTRL-W closes the current window. That's interesting and extremely annoying when you've almost finished your email :-( Bjorn Stolen: >> The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your >>campaign, you wouldn't want >>to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a >>lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >>writing up speciality >>spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." Well, yes I would. I wouldn't write up yet another warrior cult for the sake of writing a warrior cult up, unless someone wanted to play a warrior from that cult and the cult had an established mythos. When I wrote up some cults for Alternate Earth Arthurian Britain, I was struck by the enormous number of Celtic (and Saxon) gods of "Warrior With a Spear and Shield", all essentially the same. Why write up loads of variants? It doesn't achieve anything. I don't have a lot of spare time and what time I have has to be focussed on writing things up that I am interested in. If one of my players wanted to play a potter then I would develop the potter cult. Otherwise I won't. > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. Well, Rq has non-combat spells and skills. Land of Ninja has Ki/Chi abilities for crafts such as calligraphy. If I wanted to run a Bushido/Nippon game then I would expand these, I don't so I won't. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. There are too many combat rules in RQ, and much too many in more recent versions of RQ, which are getting a bit silly in the number of extra combat rules. However, it depends on the amount of abstraction you want in a game. I know almost nothing about Farming and all I need to play a farmer is Animal Lore, Plant Lore, Craft farming, Craft Herding and Craft Animal Husbandry. Everything else works off bonuses and penalties. Of course, I have spells such as Sunripen, Bless Crops, Bless Beasts or whatever that will help me. I could also have special magic that increases my skills or magical items such as a plough that ploughs any sized field in a day, a black bull that always sires twins, a bucket that doubles the yield of cows milked into it and so on. These would help me, but there will always be a level of abstraction that I am not interested in going past. Other people might want a more detailed model and name all the animals. In the Irish Legends, they list the acceptable crafts that a village/clan should have and there are loads of them. One Hero tries to get into the Clan Hearth, but is denied. He says he is a smith, but they have a smith, he is a farmer but they have a farmer and so on. He lists all the crafts and each position is filled, then he asks if they have anyone who can do all those things. Of course, they don't and he is let in. His cult has spells to enhance craft skills and gain mastery in various crafts. Do we need more of these? Almost certainly. Am I going to do it? Almost certainly not. Would I use the spells if someone else did them? Almost certainly. Leon Kirshtein: > I have always had spirit spells which affect > induvidual skills. Basically, the spell will add > either +10% or +5%/+1, if applicable, per point (they > are all variable) to some skill. I did not bother > listing them all in my database since there are too > many skills. They could be listed as a single generic spell - Enhance (Skill) or whatever. That's a bit generic for my tastes as they should live in a cult, but it is a way around the problem. Ashley Munday: > You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a > non-combat emphasis then there are probably better > games to use than RQ? Well, RQ can be used for loads of settings, so it is valid. > Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells > and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit > magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when > it's used, let the player call it whatever they want > and leave it at that. Yes, that's the easy way. But then there are divine spells that are more complex. David Smart: > And there are a number of divine spells used by Mostali, according to the > RQ3 publications on Gloranthan gods by Avalon Hill. Herders can use the > Beast Speech and Call [Animal] spells. Farmers and ranchers can use the > Bless Earth, Bless Animals, and Bless Crops spells while midwives could use > the Comfort Song spell. And the Trickster offers the Clever Tongue spell to > help his followers with get out of tight situations (or cause one) , which > in its turn can be counteracted by the Detect Truth spell offered by either > Lhankor My or Humakt (I forget which). Yes, there are loads of craft-enhancing spells, if you go and look for them. If you can't find them, write some up and put them on the web. Got to go and play RQ tonight. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/2bf0ff31/attachment.html From pmj at comhem.se Tue May 9 06:40:40 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:40:40 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> References: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <445FACC8.2040203@comhem.se> A lot of things have already been said about this subject so I'll keep it short. I seem to remember that in Borderlands there is a rope that works as a matrix for Climbing. Spend the MP and you get 5% extra in climb per point spent for 2 minutes or so (i.e. ordinary battle magic a la RQ2). And if there is a matrix, there should be a spell. Perhaps some kind of cult secret though considering the rarity of the item. So it is not unheard of, just very seldom used I guess for reasons mentioned in other mails (combat driven game etc...). Cheers, /Peter J Guy Hoyle wrote: > It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit > magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that > non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of > the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be > used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill > household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a > variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr > smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting > spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches > spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) > skills of its merchants and traders? > > Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, > too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? > From pmj at comhem.se Tue May 9 06:48:50 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:48:50 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445FAEB2.4060802@comhem.se> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" > proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and > others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) > abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in > one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the > reaching Moon"-magazine. Have you published this somewhere for downloading or is it possible to get a copy of this sent via e-mail? I would really appreciate it, since I've been to lazy to work on one myself. Even if it is in Norwegian, it is not a huge problem. ;-) /Peter J From pmj at comhem.se Tue May 9 06:51:47 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:51:47 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <445FAF63.7020800@comhem.se> This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? /Peter J Simon Phipp wrote: > From my spell list comes Imbue Sword With Magic. You could use it as a > divine spell as written or change it to be a Spirit Magic spell or > even a Shamanic Ability, whatever takes your fancy. > > *Imbue Sword With Magic* (1 point, non-stackable, one-use, permanent) > > This spell must be cast when a weapon is forged. If the smith succeeds > in his Craft (Weaponmaking) then the smith can add one special power > to the sword, a special success allows two extra powers, a critical > three extra powers. A fumble or failure means the weapon has > shattered. Each extra power may cost the smith POW or Divine Magic as > appropriate. So, Halban the Smith casts Imbue Sword With Magic on a > Bastard Sword and gets a critical roll, he knows he can put three > powers into the sword, and decides on Sharpen Weapon, Strengthen > Weapon and Swift Weapon, a power he has gained on a HeroQuest. He > rolls his Craft (Swordmaking) three times and gets a normal, a > critical and a special, so the sword does 1D10 + 2 damage, has an > extra 3D3 HPs and attacks with -2 SR. It is a sword fit for a Hero and > he takes it to the local Orlanth Temple as an offering. From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 9 09:47:37 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445FAF63.7020800@comhem.se> Message-ID: <20060508234737.58010.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > This looks like a really useful spell. My players > have always complained > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I > haven't really dealt with > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? > > /Peter J I take a bit different approach in creating magical items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional spells, and pay addtional POW www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp BTW, this is the spirit I use for all none combat skills: Name: Improve [Skill] Resistence Roll: No Casting Cost: Variable Duration: Temporal Combat Description: Miscellaneous Range: Touch Rarity: Common Descripion This is a wide collection of spells that improve specific skills. Skills are granted a +10% for pure skill enhancement. No skill may be improved beyond twice the base skill. Several examples follow with common names for the individual spells: Improve (Ride): Suremount. Improve (Dodge): Suppleness. Improve (Fast Talk): Eurmals Tongue. Improve (Orate): Yelm's Voice. Improve (Bargain): Silvervoice. Improve (Craft Masonary): Dress Stone Improve (Evaluate): Weights and Measures Improve (Craft Gardening): Greenthumb Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 9 23:10:07 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:10:07 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508143433.78563.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a >non-combat emphasis then there are probably better >games to use than RQ? This was just a little rezyme from the Norwegian discussion that started because some fealt that most RPG's were combat-driven, rather than story/conflict/intrigue-driven, and that others didn't agree with the first party. I think RQ have a good emphasis on non-combat, and I don't agree with the first party in that the rules holds such a big influence over the focus of the game. >Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells >and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit >magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when >it's used, let the player call it whatever they want >and leave it at that. This was allso the conclution of the "anti combat-driven"-party. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 9 23:17:50 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:17:50 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445FAEB2.4060802@comhem.se> Message-ID: I might have gone out a little high on this one; I started writing it, but I didn't bother following it up. I have resorted to improvising plants and their effects on the go (writing them down, thus including them in my personlal botany of Glorantha for later play). Currently no of my players are interrested in botany, so it haven't been done for a while. I've basically invented names of plants, that enhances some ability, or who can exorsise certain desease-spirits. I just remembered that in the Dorastor-campagin there are some nice rules on farming, how to calculate outcome. >From: Peter Johansson >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:48:50 +0200 > >Bjorn Stolen wrote: > >>One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession >>with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been >>making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was >>inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements >>+ an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. > >Have you published this somewhere for downloading or is it possible to get >a copy of this sent via e-mail? I would really appreciate it, since I've >been to lazy to work on one myself. Even if it is in Norwegian, it is not a >huge problem. ;-) > > /Peter J >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 9 23:20:46 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060509132046.22224.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Let one point of spirit magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when its used I would say it has to be +10% to maintain parrity with combat spells like Bladesharp or Parry which add +5% and +1 Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > >You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a > >non-combat emphasis then there are probably better > >games to use than RQ? > > This was just a little rezyme from the Norwegian discussion that started > because some fealt that most RPG's were combat-driven, rather than > story/conflict/intrigue-driven, and that others didn't agree with the first > party. I think RQ have a good emphasis on non-combat, and I don't agree with > the first party in that the rules holds such a big influence over the focus > of the game. > > > >Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells > >and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit > >magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when > >it's used, let the player call it whatever they want > >and leave it at that. > > This was allso the conclution of the "anti combat-driven"-party. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed May 10 19:33:32 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:33:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060509131019.0661E6F8E19@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060510093332.4100.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Johansson: [Imbue Sword With Magic] > This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? Well, the "standard" price for magic items and enchantments is raw item cost + 1000L per point of POW spent in making the item, including one-use divine magic. So, the example had 3 powers, so cost 3 POW to create but he didn't have to use any other one-use magic except the Imbue Sword With Magic spell, so it would cost 4000L + cost of the sword. If you thought that was too cheap then you could say that the Strengthen Weapon cost 3 POW and the Swift Weapon cost 2 POW, so the total cost is 6 POW + 1 spell, so sword cost + 7000L. That's probably better. Of course, you can put extra enchantments into the sword at any time, including when the sword was created. Leon Kirshtein: > I take a bit different approach in creating magical > items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, > all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant > Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional > spells, and pay addtional POW > www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp That keeps things nice and generic, so any smith can make pretty much any type of enchanted sword, as long as he has Enchant Bronze. Do you restrict the powers, or is it purely dependent on the smith's imagination and available POW? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060510/d6bf5d03/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed May 10 23:48:07 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 06:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060510134807.46974.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The other powers of the weapon are determined by what other spells are cast at the same time. In a way the system is similar to the one used in D&D3. The cost for additional powers are 1 POW per point of spirit or sorcery magic and/or 5 POW for divine spells. So for example if one want to have a +5 Holy sword which would work as a Turn Undead with each strike, it would cost 16 pts of POW. 1 for the Enchant bronze + 5 for Bladesharp 5 + 10 for Strike Undead (2pt divine spell) Granted this is too much for one person to do make at one time, but there are provisions for multiple people participating and certain things can be made in steps. For example this same sword could originally be enchanted to +5 for 6 POW and then at a later stage have the Undead slaying ability added for another 11 POW. Enchant Bronze would have to be cast both times. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Peter Johansson: > > [Imbue Sword With Magic] > > This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained > > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with > > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? > > Well, the "standard" price for magic items and enchantments is raw item cost + 1000L per point of POW spent in making the item, including one-use divine magic. So, the example had 3 powers, so cost 3 POW to create but he didn't have to use any other one-use magic except the Imbue Sword With Magic spell, so it would cost 4000L + cost of the sword. If you thought that was too cheap then you could say that the Strengthen Weapon cost 3 POW and the Swift Weapon cost 2 POW, so the total cost is 6 POW + 1 spell, so sword cost + 7000L. That's probably better. > > Of course, you can put extra enchantments into the sword at any time, including when the sword was created. > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > I take a bit different approach in creating magical > > items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, > > all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant > > Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional > > spells, and pay addtional POW > > www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp > > That keeps things nice and generic, so any smith can make pretty much any type of enchanted sword, as long as he has Enchant Bronze. Do you restrict the powers, or is it purely dependent on the smith's imagination and available POW? > > See Ya > > Simon > > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Tue May 16 11:21:18 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:21:18 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ II and III for many years) and have seen no traffic as yet... Is anyone else here? Is there a way of accessing the archives? Cheers Rusty From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 16 11:27:40 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: <20060516012740.20428.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a topic we can discuss. Leon --- "Hoyle, Russell" wrote: > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > II and III for many years) and have seen no traffic > as yet... > > Is anyone else here? > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > Cheers > Rusty > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ 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 16 11:33:11 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <20060516012740.20428.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516013311.56423.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Attempted Topic: Seeming that the MRQ list is in the inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this list who has used or is using the rules? All the best, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a > topic we can discuss. > > Leon > > --- "Hoyle, Russell" > > wrote: > > > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by > the > > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > > II and III for many years) and have seen no > traffic > > as yet... > > > > Is anyone else here? > > > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > > > Cheers > > Rusty > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Tue May 16 13:13:11 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:13:11 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FD1@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> You mean playtesters, right, because it hasn't actually been released yet, has it? Rusty -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2006 09:33 To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Attempted Topic: Seeming that the MRQ list is in the inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this list who has used or is using the rules? All the best, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a > topic we can discuss. > > Leon > > --- "Hoyle, Russell" > > wrote: > > > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by > the > > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > > II and III for many years) and have seen no > traffic > > as yet... > > > > Is anyone else here? > > > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > > > Cheers > > Rusty > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 16 17:21:46 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:21:46 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FD1@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: Lev said: >>Seeming that the MRQ list is in the >>inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this >>list who has used or is using the rules? Rusty said: >You mean playtesters, right, because it hasn't actually been released yet, has it? Well yes - Mongoose yanked the open playtest group (without a word to the group), and whilst I'm pretty sure that a couple at least of the regulars here are in the "closed" playtest, there really is naff-all to talk about until something more substantive is made public. There has been some discussion on this list ( http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules should help you find the portion of the archive that's currently online) of MRQ, but until Mongoose actually produce the long promised preview (or the actual books, or some definitions and solid terms to back up the empty marketing puff about "a truly open game") the only thing served by speculation is Mongoose's marketing - and personally (after the shoddy way the open playtest group, which had included substantive constructive contributions from people like Steve Perrin, was treated) I don't think they deserve any more freebies... Alternatively, I may have taken too many grumpy pills this morning... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Tue May 16 18:01:49 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:01:49 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FDA@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> >There has been some discussion on this list ( >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules should help you find the Thanks Nick, for the link and the goss! Rusty From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 16 20:20:45 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:20:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060516031349.9E38E730F79@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Lev Lafayette: > Attempted Topic: > > Seeming that the MRQ list is in the > inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this > list who has used or is using the rules? Well, I started off my current RQ campaign using the MRQ V1.4 rules with every intention of working the rules to the death and getting the bugs out. I think we used the full rules for two sessions, then dropped half of the rules in favour of RQ3, then dropped another quarter or so. We are currently using RQ3 with some things from MRQ. We use the new experience rules, heavily adapted Spirit Magic/Runes and combat options. I'm not particularly impressed with combat options, but my players like them. All in all, the last version of MRQ I saw was held together with bubblegum and wasn't really playable. I hope it has improved as I intend to buy it when it comes out and I don't really want to be wasting my pennies. Had the rules been playable, we would have stuck with them, but I had several player revolts against them. I won't go into specifics, as the old version is now obselete and it would be worthless to complain about it. Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like a hot knife through butter. In older versions of RQ, giving something a lot of armour seemed to work when you wanted to give the PCs a challenge or slow them down a bit, now that doesn't happen. Maybe I'll get some NPCs to ignore the PCs' armour and show them what it is like. Experience works very well, a lot better than in RQ2 or RQ3, although we haven't reached post-100% skills yet. We combined Hero Points and Experience Points rather than having two sets of points and never looked back. Hero Points also work very well, with players using them to: 1. Reroll failed attacks/parries or NPCs' criticals 2. Reroll low damage rolls or NPCs' high damage rolls 3. Reroll failed experience rolls, especially POW gain rolls 4. Automatically succeed in a skill that only just failed (within 10% of the skill) They haven't used Hero Points to alter plot points or make things happen, yet, but they will. It brings some of the flexibility of HeroQuest to RQ and makes it a far more flexible and dynamic game. Apparently, they want something similar in DBRP but it doesn't work the same way and doesn't look half as useful. As for magic, we are using Divine Magic pretty much from RQ3, but we do have a pool or Presence, the concept taken from MRQ but used differently. So, someone with Shield 3 and Orlanth Presence 10 could cast Shield 3 but use Presence instead, thus being able to cast Shield 3 a number of times. We are using the idea of Runes based loosely on MRQ, but made to work. You can collect Runes, attuning a Rune costs 1 POW (no roll), this gives you a Runecasting Skill for that Rune that is used to cast Spirit Magic belonging to that Rune. There are no variable spells, all spells take 1 INT to store and can be manipulated using the Runecasting skill and the number of Runes of that type possessed by the PC. So, you could cast Bladesharp 10 if you had a high enough Runecasting or enough Death Runes, for instance. Spirit Magic spells are tied to Runes, but I am being flexible, so Disruption could be tied to Death, Air, Fire or whatever. Sorcery uses a similar mechanism to Spirit Magic, but is not Runic, relying on Arts instead, but nobody in the campaign uses sorcery so it hasn't come up. The players seem to prefer this approach as they can cast more powerful spells without spending fortunes on buying the spells. It is a heavy drain on Magic Points, though, and they are spending a lot of POW on runes, although I give them a POW Tick if they attune a rune. They are routinely casting Spirit Shield 6, Disruption 6 and Bladesharp 4-6 and the trainee shaman has even made a Spirit Shield 4 matrix herself. Of course, they moan about having to pay 1000L for a Rune and 2000L for a spell, but they moan about everything. So, MRQ was unplayable, but some parts of it were useful. Hopefully, the new version will be both playable and useful. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060516/8bec41f8/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue May 16 23:41:17 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:41:17 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. > > We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat > than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another > is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I > prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore > armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of > 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, > just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos > (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like > a hot knife through butter. I would argue that aiming around the armor wouldn't work on natural skin armor... and would have penalties depending on how dense the coverage of the armor. One nation in my game world has armor with extremely elaborate designs but where it protects it is very good nigh magical Folks would be better off to do the aim for chinks in the armor trick against them but it wouldn't be effective at all against the giant wolves. I like the ideas of these combat options, sounds like some interesting stuff which could be fine tuned... Stormbringers random die roll for armor I considered elaborating on... so that you had a different die roll depending on the design of the armor then allow this strategy to affect it. Shrug... Armor made of the same substance might be... 6 points skin like coverage d2 + 4 full dense coverage impairs agility and other factors d3 + 3 less agility impairment but d4 + 2 d6 very patchy but no impairment to abilities. Trading sr in trying to aim past the armor could then be used to penalize the armor roll. possibly just by changing a d4+2 into a d6... or a d3+3 into a d4+2. From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 17 00:03:12 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> References: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Simon Phipp wrote: >> Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. >> >> We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat >> than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another >> is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I >> prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore >> armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of >> 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, >> just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos >> (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like >> a hot knife through butter. > I would argue that aiming around the armor wouldn't work on natural > skin armor... and would have penalties depending on how dense the > coverage of the armor. I haven't had an opportunity to follow MRQ rules at all, but my first reaction is that NOT allowing aiming around natural armor is a Bad Idea. Natural armor must be more flexible in certain areas (armpits, for example) that allows movement. So to say that it is uniform is unrealistic. Without knowing the exact rules I can't provide a numeric suggestion. However, doing something based on 'armor density' sounds like something that should be investigated. Maybe require different modifiers for different densities when trying to aim around, or something like that. -Andrew From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed May 17 00:50:27 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:50:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: Well, finally Mongoose have started to release some information: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1232&qsSeries=RuneQuest# http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1180&qsSeries=RuneQuest# For those of you who can't access the site: "RuneQuest - Main Rulebook Series: RuneQuest Price: $19.95 Format: Hardback (100 pages) Distributor on sale date: 10th July 2006 Designed to bring the original RuneQuest up to the 21st Century, this main rulebook contains all you need to explore the many fantasy worlds possible with RuneQuest. Attention has been applied to keep this main rulebook down to a sensible (and easy on the wallet!) 100 pages, while layout has been refined to make the book easy to read and fast to pick up, allowing players to comprehend sections of the rules with a mere glance - meaning less time flicking through the book and more time playing! As well as character creation, the RuneQuest main rulebook provides full rules for skills, cults/guilds, combat, adventuring, monsters and Rune Magic, the first magic system introduced for the latest edition of RuneQuest. Eminently expandable to any fantasy setting, RuneQuest is supported in 2006 by Mongoose Publishing with the Glorantha and Lankhmar worlds, while other publishers are free to introduce their own settings, due to the Open Content licence available for the game. RuneQuest has come of age. Go adventuring with one of the most powerful and flexible rules systems available." Leaving aside the arrogant vacuous marketing speak, it's pretty much s expected: $19.95 for 100 page core book, competent but uninspiring cover art. The idea of Mongoose "refining layout" is quite alarming (to say the least...), but we shall see. The interesting bit is that the OTHER license is Lankhmar - if ever there was a setting NOT suited to the usual RPG company approach to licensed settings#, it's Leiber's Nehwon, but equally it's always seemed a natural fit for BRP / RQ to me - so I am genuinely intrigued to see what Mongoose do with Lankhmar. Cheers, Nick Middleton # The last thing Lankhmar / Nehwon needs is papering over with second rate RPG writers ideas about what Leiber might have done if it been writing an RPG supplement. One could cover the entire setting in single book - the key thing is to capture and instruct the GM/Players in Leiber's sense of inventiveness, sly wit and ironic plotting. Interminable setting books ("This month, the secrets of Quarmall, with complete floor plans, four new character backgrounds and an entire new Quarmallian magic system!") would not so much miss the charm of the setting as to trample all over it in size 12 hob-nail boots. From viktor.haag at gmail.com Wed May 17 01:00:22 2006 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (Viktor Haag) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:00:22 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: References: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <1786319f0605160800m59e2ce8cqdb213a983c752251@mail.gmail.com> On 16/05/06, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Leaving aside the arrogant vacuous marketing speak, it's pretty much s > expected: $19.95 for 100 page core book, competent but uninspiring cover > art. The idea of Mongoose "refining layout" is quite alarming (to say the > least...), but we shall see. Indeed. I've generally liked the /content/ of the Mongoose things I've picked up (Slaine, and Conan), but as for their layout skills... err.... > The interesting bit is that the OTHER license is Lankhmar - if ever there > was a setting NOT suited to the usual RPG company approach to licensed > settings#, it's Leiber's Nehwon, but equally it's always seemed a natural > fit for BRP / RQ to me - so I am genuinely intrigued to see what Mongoose > do with Lankhmar. In an interesting, but perhaps related, note: I've heard that Dark Horse have secured rights to Lankhmar letting them publish a comic series for Lankhmar a la their series for Conan. They've apparently also secured the rights to reprint Mignola's Fafhrd and Mouser comics (originally publishd by Marvel/Epic). And rumblings of film rights owned by Dark Horse have also been heard. I wonder if this confluence of Conan+Lankhmar at Dark Horse have anything at all to do with Conan+Lankhmar at Mongoose? For example, did the Conan properties guys acquire Lankhmar rights from Leiber's estate, and since they'd already had deals in place with both Dark Horse and Mongoose, they had an edge up in expanding their license to also include the Lankhmar stuff? At any rate, I think this is wonderful news, and am eagerly looking forward to MRQ. Knowing that Ken Hite's name was associated with the final revision of the book makes me feel positive. And knowning the guy who was tapped to right the Glorantha sourcebook also leads me to feel positively about the whole thing... -- v. From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed May 17 02:18:41 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:18:41 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> References: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: <5857FE79-9BB5-48D9-B1F5-7AA84C9B1AFE@zunder.org.uk> When Mongoose RuneQuest (MRQ) hits the shelves there will a deluge of mail. Flamewars will erupt as to the relative heresy of the new edition. I have been part of the playtest so I will say no more.. This isn't dead, just a bit quiet. On 16 May 2006, at 02:21, Hoyle, Russell wrote: > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the upcoming > Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ II and III for many > years) and have seen no traffic as yet... > > Is anyone else here? > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > Cheers > Rusty > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 07:23:37 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:23:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MRQ Product Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <20060516145111.345B27352DE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060516212337.83243.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> I saw that Mongoose put up marketing information about MRQ over the weekend, but the previous copy implied that Steve Perrin had a significant contribution to the new version. Given the history of this edition, I thought THAT was creative marketing. It's nice to see that the copy has toned down and is more accurate. I'll have to ask my FLGS to order me a copy. Now if DBRP would just come out, it will be a banner summer. Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed May 17 10:25:57 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (MALCOLM WICKENS) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:25:57 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell Message-ID: <000601c67948$7978e490$50628456@sickboy> Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's somewhat predictable counterpart :-) ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) Ranged, passive This spell is cast upon objects forged of Bronze and temporarily allows them to acquire the magical properties of the named rune metal. Intensity must equal the ENC of the object to be affected. The object is not transformed into the rune metal named, but simply acquires it's magical properties. Thus a Bronze sword with Assume virtue of iron cast upon it would not register on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive increased armour points. A family of closely related spells exist each specific to an individual rune metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, Assume virtue of Iron etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060517/3b732f3a/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed May 17 14:57:33 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell In-Reply-To: <000601c67948$7978e490$50628456@sickboy> Message-ID: <20060517045733.3127.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can see this as a Divine spell rather than a sorcery spell. To be a sorcery spell, it should have some sort of progression based on Intensity. Leon --- MALCOLM WICKENS wrote: > Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery > spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's > somewhat predictable counterpart :-) > > ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) > > Ranged, passive > > This spell is cast upon objects forged of > Bronze and temporarily allows them to > acquire the magical properties of the > named rune metal. Intensity must equal > the ENC of the object to be affected. > The object is not transformed into > the rune metal named, but simply > acquires it's magical properties. Thus > a Bronze sword with Assume virtue > of iron cast upon it would not register > on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive > increased armour points. > > A family of closely related spells exist > each specific to an individual rune > metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, > Assume virtue of Iron etc> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed May 17 16:14:38 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:14:38 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell References: <20060517045733.3127.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004c01c67979$2d7f50c0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Look again, its Intensity must match the ENC of the object. Steve Perrin, entirely too sensitive to how Intensity can be used in spells...:) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell >I can see this as a Divine spell rather than a sorcery > spell. To be a sorcery spell, it should have some sort > of progression based on Intensity. > > Leon > > --- MALCOLM WICKENS > wrote: > >> Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery >> spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's >> somewhat predictable counterpart :-) >> >> ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) >> >> Ranged, passive >> >> This spell is cast upon objects forged of >> Bronze and temporarily allows them to >> acquire the magical properties of the >> named rune metal. Intensity must equal >> the ENC of the object to be affected. >> The object is not transformed into >> the rune metal named, but simply >> acquires it's magical properties. Thus >> a Bronze sword with Assume virtue >> of iron cast upon it would not register >> on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive >> increased armour points. >> >> A family of closely related spells exist >> each specific to an individual rune >> metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, >> Assume virtue of Iron etc> > _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > __________________________________________________ > 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From gianni at basicrps.com Thu May 18 02:10:56 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:10:56 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: <20060517161106.6F2B373EDCD@mini.thinbits.net> Simon, I feel version 1.5 of the playtest rules tackled combat way better than 1.4. On the other hand, the Rune magic rules didn't convince me yet, so I'll keep your post and re-use it in July in case the Rune magic rules of the published version of MRQ still suck :-) (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Cheers Gianni From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 18 19:20:49 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:20:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Runemetal ENC In-Reply-To: <20060516031349.9E38E730F79@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060518092049.12168.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Laura Kneedler sent me an email asking me a question I couldn't answer. I know that you lot will have the sources to hand and can show off your knowledge :-) How much do rune metals (e.g., iron, silver, etc.) weigh, and how much do they cost per ENC? I know the info is in Elder Secrets (RQ3) and, maybe, Wyrms Footnotes/Footprints (RQ2). If anyone has the cources, prehaps they could look it up? I thought that Iron had the same ENC as bronze in RQ3 but was one ENC lighter in RQ2, Copper was ENC / 2, Gold and Lead was ENCx2, but I remember lead as being odd and Aluminium Tin and Silver were normal ENC. As for costs, I seem to recall that Iron was 5xcost and the others were 3xcost. But, I am hazy. Thanks Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/0d2c94ed/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 18 21:08:27 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:08:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518092150.B8B277456A2@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Gianni: > I feel version 1.5 of the playtest rules tackled combat way better than 1.4. > On the other hand, the Rune magic rules didn't convince me yet, so I'll keep > your post and re-use it in July in case the Rune magic rules of the published > version of MRQ still suck :-) Let's hope they don't. By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. My version simply takes the parts that I liked (Runes, scaleability of Spirit Magic) and turned them around to mimic what we used to have in RQ2/3, making them spell-centered rather than specifically Rune-centered. Does that make sense? If so then I'm a monkey's uncle. > (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Not at all. I see these as being house rules independent of the unpublished game, sort of a halfway house between RQ3 and RQM. Of course, when RQM comes out, these can fly as fully-fledged House Rules. Anyway, I'm going to buy the new version of RQm at Continuum, so I hope I get value for money. As I've already bought Mythic Russia and DBRP is due to come out around then, I can see that I won't be able to afford to eat for the first half of August. By the way, is anyone else going to Continuum this year? I know Ashley is, and I hope he runs some RQ (NOT ANOTHER INITIATION QUEST, PLEEEEASE!), but I'm too lazy to check the members list. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/3d737147/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu May 18 21:39:16 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:39:16 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that >I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. >Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I totally agree with you that wether you are pompous or not is irellevant. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. I diagree with your wiew, but I'll defend your right to write any roleplay-rule you like! (I like the consept that the runes were there even before the gods, like the remainings of a system from an agelost in time; allmost inconprehensible to even the gods. Perhaps the God Learners were the ones closest to understanding it. So (In my game) -when Orlanth is a god of wind, it's because he's aquired the wind-rune. From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 21:48:22 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:22 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c67a70$f7a10a90$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> _____ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipp Sent: 18 May 2006 12:08 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I hope this isn't going to turn into a flame war? So I ask all (and this isn't aimed at you Simon or anybody on the list in particular so forgive me for stating the obvious) to respect that you all have opinions and it's healthy to debate. :-) I've purposely stayed out of this debate - so far - because I'm one of the moderators of this list. :-) I was on the first phase of MRQ playtests - up to v1.4 - but I am staying on the fence. And I'm also on the DBRP playtest so I should to stay on the fence. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. My version simply takes the parts that I liked (Runes, scaleability of Spirit Magic) and turned them around to mimic what we used to have in RQ2/3, making them spell-centered rather than specifically Rune-centered. Does that make sense? If so then I'm a monkey's uncle. I can see your point about runic associations - if you associated the Air rune with Storm. People forget that the runes are really the basic association. So the swirly celtic (Isle of man like) pattern is really 'Air' - this allows for the greatest flexibility when combined with other runes. To assume that Air is just Storm is a narrow view. So if you play it that that rune is Air you can see that Air plus Harmony would have a different magical effect to Air plus Death, for instance. A rune on it's own is powerless - only when combined with another can you have an effect - that's my opinion anyway. This would allow you to use a system similar to Egyptian Talismanic magic where you could call upon the power of runes (and thus a god perhaps - if you assumed combined runes to be an expression of a god) to do what you want. Of course - RQ2 diverged from that a lot - with Storm Bull and Orlanth all using Air in a storm fashion. I always felt how the runes were combined for gods in Gloranthan RQ were never looked at with clarity enough to make it a working system. Instead, the runes just became labels instead of a possible way to construct magic. > (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Not at all. I see these as being house rules independent of the unpublished game, sort of a halfway house between RQ3 and RQM. Of course, when RQM comes out, these can fly as fully-fledged House Rules. Anyway, I'm going to buy the new version of RQm at Continuum, so I hope I get value for money. I'll wait for the reviews and a playtest before I hand over my hard earned cash. I've already got so many BRP rules to use that I don't need to really buy another one. And nearly all my games are being rationalized and some sold off because of lack of space. However, I got the impression that the MRQ rules were aimed at a new generation of RPGers - not diehards like us, but perhaps the new D20ers (and I don't mean the Heroquesters! :-) ) who might be interested in moving on from D&D, at least that was the impression I read from Matt Sprange's mails on the MRQ playtest group. That's how I began back in 1980 - with AD&D and when I came across RQ2 it just seemed natural to move on. I'm interested to see what develops - we might end up with a whole new generation of BRPers joining the throng who will be surprised to see that other BRP material has been around for decades - people who already buy stuff from Mongoose. I could be wrong but I don't feel that BRP has the size of community that D20 has. It would be good to entice some of those players over to another way of gaming. Lankhmar sounds interesting - it could be used with any BRP game. In fact all the MRQ source books could be used as just that - source books for BRP rules. As I've already bought Mythic Russia and DBRP is due to come out around then, I can see that I won't be able to afford to eat for the first half of August. By the way, is anyone else going to Continuum this year? I know Ashley is, and I hope he runs some RQ (NOT ANOTHER INITIATION QUEST, PLEEEEASE!), but I'm too lazy to check the members list. I'll be at Continuum - I'm helping the committee and part of the Gwenthian world building Design Mechanism - and I'll be running a Gwenthian game using either RQ3 or Elric! Still yet to finish playtesting the scenario with my own game group - and write up the player hand outs. See Ya Simon See ya too. Gordy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/91641f63/attachment.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 21:51:24 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:51:24 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004701c67a71$640685c0$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Bjorn Stolen Sent: 18 May 2006 12:39 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules (I like the consept that the runes were there even before the gods, like the remainings of a system from an agelost in time; allmost inconprehensible to even the gods. Perhaps the God Learners were the ones closest to understanding it. DG> it's worth reading the excellent essay in Cults of Terror which details the runes and the court that existed before Orlanth and many gods appeared on Glorantha. You see the runes beginning to be almost like gods in their own right but it's only when they associate with other runic gods that they begin to create effects in Glorantha. So (In my game) -when Orlanth is a god of wind, it's because he's aquired the wind-rune. DG> Yeah - my kind of idea too. DG> Gordy From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu May 18 21:56:59 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:56:59 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: I can neither give you any numbers as I don't run the MRQ-system. I can only blurb in general terms: Aiming is a pain in the certain spot in most RPG-systems, as the ones that masters it become invincible. I happen to fence from a historical Martial Manual, and have some reflections as a result of that. The easies thing to do is to drop any aiming-special-rules. This can be done easily, as when people fence, they allways seek out theese weak-spots in the first place! -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked club can do piercing/bashing, etc. If people insist on having aimingrules, I suggest they do somthing about the use of armor. Nobody wear only full plate armor, for instance. If you find a weak-spot in a fully plated 15th century knight, he'll often have other protection beneath; for instance textile-armor or chainmail. So by letting NPC's and PC's using armor the way it was actually used in real life, you can limit the extraordinarily bonus of hitting an "unprotected" area. An other thing is the fact that in order to hit an armpit, or a groin, you cannot commit "full force" to a blow, it have to be a fast, timed hit. (If you have pinned the opponent, so that he cannot defend himself, it's another matter, but in those cases, I don't roll any dice for hitting/damage.) From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 22:11:47 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:11:47 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <003c01c67a70$f7a10a90$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> Message-ID: <004b01c67a74$3d772010$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> Doh! My brain is frazzled of late. I'm a moderator of the BRPsystem list NOT this list. That'll teach me to have the same mails filter to the same folder! So ignore my out of place mail below. Doh! Mea culpa! _____ I hope this isn't going to turn into a flame war? So I ask all (and this isn't aimed at you Simon or anybody on the list in particular so forgive me for stating the obvious) to respect that you all have opinions and it's healthy to debate. :-) I've purposely stayed out of this debate - so far - because I'm one of the moderators of this list. :-) I was on the first phase of MRQ playtests - up to v1.4 - but I am staying on the fence. And I'm also on the DBRP playtest so I should to stay on the fence. See ya too. Gordy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/3d8e6b4a/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu May 18 23:49:00 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:49:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518134900.44192.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi Simon, I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a twist, however crap) at a convention. You just happened to play in it... I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I doubt it'll be Runequest though. Cheers, Ash From devinc at aol.com Fri May 19 07:22:27 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:22:27 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C848D84C1D9C8D-1228-2FEA@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have all the same runes. As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/86565c83/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Fri May 19 07:26:47 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:26:47 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C848D8E775524D-1228-3033@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:56:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules I can neither give you any numbers as I don't run the MRQ-system. I can only blurb in general terms: Aiming is a pain in the certain spot in most RPG-systems, as the ones that masters it become invincible. I happen to fence from a historical Martial Manual, and have some reflections as a result of that. The easies thing to do is to drop any aiming-special-rules. This can be done easily, as when people fence, they allways seek out theese weak-spots in the first place! -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked club can do piercing/bashing, etc. If people insist on having aimingrules, I suggest they do somthing about the use of armor. Nobody wear only full plate armor, for instance. If you find a weak-spot in a fully plated 15th century knight, he'll often have other protection beneath; for instance textile-armor or chainmail. So by letting NPC's and PC's using armor the way it was actually used in real life, you can limit the extraordinarily bonus of hitting an "unprotected" area. An other thing is the fact that in order to hit an armpit, or a groin, you cannot commit "full force" to a blow, it have to be a fast, timed hit. (If you have pinned the opponent, so that he cannot defend himself, it's another matter, but in those cases, I don't roll any dice for hitting/damage.) _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/dae36c06/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri May 19 08:14:35 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <8C848D84C1D9C8D-1228-2FEA@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060518221435.28042.qmail@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- devinc at aol.com wrote: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same > magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have > the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are > synergies developed between the runes. By that I > mean powers for Orlanthi magic derive not so much > from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of > his Storm Rune with the other runes he has. This > makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm > deity unless they happen to have all the same runes. > That was my first thought on the matter as well. Both Orlanth and Ygg would have *some* magical *effects* that were similar, but the implementation and variety of spells would be different. So, mark me up as another Godlearner heretic who thinks the Runes have precedence and power over the Gods. Regards, Lev > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would > probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" > rune as a base for powers and then modifies them > based on the god's other runic ties. > > Devin > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri May 19 19:26:06 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:26:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518212704.1873B74AB07@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn Stolen: > -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. > the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do > damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary > circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical > hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a > weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a > sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked > club can do piercing/bashing, etc. In past games, people have overcome high armour by using a lot of magic or getting lucky and getting a good hit in. In RQ terms, that means using Bladesharp, Truesword, Slash, other weapon-enhancing spells or increasing damage bonus via Strength or similar spells and/or rolling a special or critical hit. Specials can do more damage if you use the RQ2 specials, critical hits ignore armour entirely. So, GMs could put a massively armoured but not particularly dangeous foe against PCs and hope it hurts them before being worn down. Now, that option isn't there as the PCs do an aimed blow to ignore armour, at half chance, and hit 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 times. As PCs normally gang up on such opponents, on average a hit ignoring armour happens every round, at least. Devin: > Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was > immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. Well, RQ3 ramped up the cost of armour quite considerably, but it also made spells ridiculously cheap. I use RQ2 prices for spells, when I use RQ2/3 style Spirit Magic, and RQ3 prices for armour. They work best when you are not in a big city, in Pavis for instance, then armour is rtuly expensive. > In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. Yes, but a little bit later you had the armies of Harold and William I routinely wearing chainmail and earlier the Roman Legionaries had a healthy scale mail suit. I think it's more to do with the surrounding technological level rather than status. In the Dark Ages, they had good metal working skills and made swords, axes and spears, but didn't have the capability to mass-produce metal armour. Later on, they had more armour around, I think. > I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Ashley Munday: > I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a > twist, however crap) at a convention. You just > happened to play in it... I know, I'm sorry, I was having a very bad day .... It's just that I had played a couple of games, HQ and RQ, at a couple of conventions and they were ALL Initiations. I also played in a few outside conventions as people think they are really good intorductions, so I have reached Initiation Quest Overload. > I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and > another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I > doubt it'll be Runequest though. That's a shame. I've heard that Dogs in the Vineyard is very good, so depending when you run it, I might be interested. The idea of Mormon gunslingers appeals to me. Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. By the way, any ideas about the Runemetals Question (ENC/Cost)? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060519/4e57e933/attachment.html From ted.strand at spegel.nu Fri May 19 19:45:55 2006 From: ted.strand at spegel.nu (Ted @ Spegel) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001601c67b29$08465360$1600a8c0@hader> Hello. My first posting ever, after a long period of just reading. Concerning aiming: I use a simplified version of aiming (modified RQ2/3), for the price of an additional 4 SR on the attack, the character (or critter) gets to roll either a d10 or a d10+10 for the hit-location, i.e. aiming either high or low. It works well for my players and for myself. For instance, if you want to slow someone down with missile fire, you aim low, having a decent chance of achieving that by either hitting legs or abdomen. I dislike the ability to continously perform "heads-off" attacks. As far as I'm concerned, its "unrealistic" to aim at a specific vulnerable point all the time in combat, your opponent will notice this and start to protect that specific area. In my view, combat is a series of flowing movements, where the respective opponents move to gain a tactical advantage, to find the opening in which to press home either a decisive attack or a crippling one, followed by another crippling one and another... etc. Aiming high or low has the advantage for my game that it is a) quick and easy, not much explaining needed b) reasonably "realistic" c) doesn't wreck my game balance, it works both ways, critters use it too. And, criticals/specials still apply, of course :-). So, anyway, my first posting. Hope its not too shabby. Cheers, Ted. ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Phipp To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules Bjorn Stolen: > -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. > the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do > damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary > circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical > hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a > weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a > sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked > club can do piercing/bashing, etc. In past games, people have overcome high armour by using a lot of magic or getting lucky and getting a good hit in. In RQ terms, that means using Bladesharp, Truesword, Slash, other weapon-enhancing spells or increasing damage bonus via Strength or similar spells and/or rolling a special or critical hit. Specials can do more damage if you use the RQ2 specials, critical hits ignore armour entirely. So, GMs could put a massively armoured but not particularly dangeous foe against PCs and hope it hurts them before being worn down. Now, that option isn't there as the PCs do an aimed blow to ignore armour, at half chance, and hit 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 times. As PCs normally gang up on such opponents, on average a hit ignoring armour happens every round, at least. Devin: > Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was > immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. Well, RQ3 ramped up the cost of armour quite considerably, but it also made spells ridiculously cheap. I use RQ2 prices for spells, when I use RQ2/3 style Spirit Magic, and RQ3 prices for armour. They work best when you are not in a big city, in Pavis for instance, then armour is rtuly expensive. > In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. Yes, but a little bit later you had the armies of Harold and William I routinely wearing chainmail and earlier the Roman Legionaries had a healthy scale mail suit. I think it's more to do with the surrounding technological level rather than status. In the Dark Ages, they had good metal working skills and made swords, axes and spears, but didn't have the capability to mass-produce metal armour. Later on, they had more armour around, I think. > I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Ashley Munday: > I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a > twist, however crap) at a convention. You just > happened to play in it... I know, I'm sorry, I was having a very bad day .... It's just that I had played a couple of games, HQ and RQ, at a couple of conventions and they were ALL Initiations. I also played in a few outside conventions as people think they are really good intorductions, so I have reached Initiation Quest Overload. > I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and > another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I > doubt it'll be Runequest though. That's a shame. I've heard that Dogs in the Vineyard is very good, so depending when you run it, I might be interested. The idea of Mormon gunslingers appeals to me. Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. By the way, any ideas about the Runemetals Question (ENC/Cost)? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060519/4282210d/attachment.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Fri May 19 20:09:13 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:09:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002e01c67b2c$47df45b0$3a789109@2373993GCH7> Simon - my comments in the body of your mail after DG> ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Phipp To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. DG> Yes - but that doesn't mean that we can't retro-engineer the cults so that a runic system should work? As I was hinting in my mail - the runic system wasn't expanded to maturity during RQ2 and 3 as it should have been. The runic associations seemed to have been assigned to gods without a consistant framework. If somebody wanted a runic system where Air is NOT Storm but just Air, then you could start to look at how spells work and you could begin to provide a Godlearner construction kit to making magic or using the powers of gods. How else could the Godlearners have managed to do what they did? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060519/8bd53740/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun May 21 05:30:42 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 20:30:42 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rune metal prices for Simon + questions Message-ID: <000601c67c43$e4651280$fbeb8c56@sickboy> >From RQ3 secrets book: prices per ENC aluminium 40 bronze 7 copper 5 gold 600 iron 700 lead 1 quicksilver 40 silver 50 tin 15 I don'tknow which RQ2 supplement the prices were in.... Sort of related to this the RQ3 rules give us Enchant ( metal ) can anybody think of a reason why other substances can't be treated the same way. That is using Bronze as the standard 'toughness' you could enchant other substances to make them stronger eg: Enchant ( wood ) - handy for elves, forest deities, druids etc Enchant ( stone/bone/tusk/ivory ) - handy for low tech/primitive peoples ( shamanic ritual enchant maybe ) Enchant ( glass ) - I'm thinking sorcerous alchemists with hardened glass daggers and swords here :-) Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune spell: PIN VAMPIRE 2pts, ranged, nonstackable, reusable The caster must overcome the vampire in a MPvsMP roll, if successful then for the duration of the spell the vampire is unable to transform into any of the alternative shapes available to it eg: bat, rat, wolf, cloud of mist etc If already in one of these forms it is unable to return to humanoid form. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060520/99377e8e/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun May 21 06:30:18 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 21:30:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question Message-ID: <000601c67c4c$37a22610$fbeb8c56@sickboy> On the subject of Divine Magic, it seems that 3pts is about top whack for non ritual magic. Is this just an arbitary figure , ie 4 or 5 pt spells ( or more ) are possible or would such spells be sufficiently powerful that they would need special ie ritual forms to cast ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060520/22c7241f/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun May 21 08:58:12 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:58:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question References: <000601c67c4c$37a22610$fbeb8c56@sickboy> Message-ID: <005401c67c60$df26e290$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Originally, three (3) points were the max for Divine spells because a priest had to maintain a POW of 18 and the most (due to racial limitations) a priest could have was 21. So the Rune Priest desperately tried to get to 21 in order to sacrifice 3 of those points to get a 3 point Rune Magic. These days, the various limits are a lot less strict, so depending on the campaign higher point value Divine magic would be possible, I suppose. I think it makes a good limit, myself. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Clive Wickens To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:30 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question On the subject of Divine Magic, it seems that 3pts is about top whack for non ritual magic. Is this just an arbitary figure , ie 4 or 5 pt spells ( or more ) are possible or would such spells be sufficiently powerful that they would need special ie ritual forms to cast ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060520/c005c990/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun May 21 17:17:26 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:17:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Weights of rune metals for Simon Message-ID: <000601c67ca6$9e732740$14638a56@sickboy> Simon, Posted the prices...completely forgot the weights Copper = same as bronze Gold = twice the ENC of Bronze Iron = same as Bronze Lead = 50% heavier than Bronze Quicksilver/Aluminium = same as Bronze Silver and Tin = doesn't say All from RQ3 secrets book -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/a46e5796/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Sun May 21 22:35:01 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:35:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Clive's Questions Message-ID: <1148214901.702620bf1b32e@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> > Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune spell: > > PIN VAMPIRE > > 2pts, ranged, nonstackable, reusable > > The caster must overcome the vampire in a MPvsMP roll, if > successful then for the duration of the spell the vampire > is unable to transform into any of the alternative shapes available to it eg: > bat, rat, wolf, cloud of mist etc > > If already in one of these forms it is unable to return to humanoid form. Nice spell. I'd say one point, not two or three. My thinking is this; a sever spirit is a three point spell that kills anything (except, notably, vampires and undead, but that's by the by). So a spell that kills a single specie (such as Kill Horse) should weigh in at two points. This spell doesn't achieve that, it affects only one type of creature, and doesn't kill them, it only stops them from using one of their many innate magical powers. Sure, Pinning the vampire would prevent him from turning to mist, meaning that he could be killed in corporeal form with less hassle than normal BUT you'd still have to (a) _do_ that, killing vampires is a hard, hard business and (b) presumably the vampire would know it had been Pinned, and so will try and do a runner. So Pinning it will be a minor inconvenience unless you're pretty hard and have cornered the bastard so it can't do a runner. I'm taking it that the spell comes from a new subcult or hero cult or something, so won't be vastly easily to get hold of; so I'd say one point sounds about right. Most rune spells should be one point IMHO. I reckon you could have spells worth more than three; but by Orlanth they'd better be powerful and difficult to get hold of. Nikk From Ludowick at aol.com Sun May 21 22:58:01 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick at aol.com) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:58:01 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Gods 'n' Runes Message-ID: <302.59a8e95.31a1bdd9@aol.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist > simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. Maybe a link to a rune provides many magics, and that each god/hero only gets a subset of them. So, Harry Hailstone and Larry Lightning will get different spells when each forges a link to the Storm Rune. From a rules standpoint, what are the skills, passions and personality traits of the mythological being or hero- quester: these will determine what magics they get. Also, what acts do they do to forge a link to a rune? These will also influence what spells are available to a cult, or what boons are granted to a heroquester. Disclaimer: Just my 2 clacks -- I've never gamed in the Gloranthan setting. P.S. Very cool website, Mr. Phipp. Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/582c95d2/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon May 22 02:39:18 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 17:39:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Nikks comments on Pin Vampire Message-ID: <000801c67cf5$1ab10b80$e4658456@sickboy> Nikk said "I'm taking it that the spell comes from a new subcult or hero cult or something, so won't be vastly easily to get hold of; so I'd say one point sounds about right." Yup, I figured this to be available from a hero cult. I thought 3pts was way too much, but one seemed too little. Otherwise every bugger would be using it. But as you say a localised or minor hero cult will severely limit how available it is anyway so 1pt would be ok. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/ffb30e86/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 22 02:47:37 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives Message-ID: Everyone, I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so long. We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? -Andrew From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 22 02:50:04 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6E1F3AEB-AD36-4237-87BA-2D6865BA6149@crashbox.com> Or maybe quarterly? -Andrew On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Andrew O. Mellinger wrote: > Everyone, > > I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so > long. We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. > > Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should > switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon May 22 03:34:16 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:34:16 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls Message-ID: <000801c67cfc$c8ce6490$e4658456@sickboy> My vote goes for quarterly archiving Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin in human blood....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/5bd1336b/attachment.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Mon May 22 05:51:25 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:51:25 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls In-Reply-To: <000801c67cfc$c8ce6490$e4658456@sickboy> Message-ID: <006501c67d0f$f250c980$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> :-) what a great thought - in fact, it would mean they would never eat humans - or they'd have to exsanguinate humans first before eating them! Troll Kosher meat. _____ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Clive Wickens Sent: 21 May 2006 18:34 To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls My vote goes for quarterly archiving Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin in human blood....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/f9a829fb/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon May 22 07:13:23 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 22:13:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls In-Reply-To: <000801c67cfc$c8ce6490$e4658456@sickboy> Message-ID: <20060521211323.44365.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Official Response by Erectus Perfectus, Chief Priest of Intellectual Occupation, Jonstown 1622: Iron in people's blood? What a daft idea! The only things with Iron in are made by Dwarfs and I wasn't made by some tiny runt with a beard. Scorius' dad mind you was a bit short... no that's a disgusting thought. Shoo damn you, you'll be saying that Glorantha's a sphere because of the horizon and other weird things next. --- Clive Wickens wrote: > My vote goes for quarterly archiving > > Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get > belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous > to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin > in human blood.......> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon May 22 09:13:30 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Clive's Questions In-Reply-To: <1148214901.702620bf1b32e@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20060521231330.37717.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Nikk Effingham wrote: > > Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune > spell: > > > > PIN VAMPIRE > > > > 2pts, ranged, nonstackable, reusable > > > > The caster must overcome the vampire in a MPvsMP > roll, if > > successful then for the duration of the spell the > vampire > > is unable to transform into any of the alternative > shapes available to it eg: > > bat, rat, wolf, cloud of mist etc > > > > If already in one of these forms it is unable to > return to humanoid form. > > Nice spell. I'd say one point, not two or three. I am thinking 1 point as well. And, I am thinking making it Stackable, with each addtional point adding +25% to your chance of success, similar to the Blinding spell. My thinking is that vampires are likely to have a huge amount of MPs so overcoming one with just ones POW will be very unlikely. Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon May 22 18:33:02 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:33:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives In-Reply-To: <6E1F3AEB-AD36-4237-87BA-2D6865BA6149@crashbox.com> Message-ID: >> Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should >> switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? >Or maybe quarterly? Assuming it's easy to switch back to monthly if traffic spikes, which with MRQ and Chaosium's new BRP imminent it might (if only in flames ;-> ), then I'd also favour quarterly. > I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so > long. We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. Huzzah! Many thanks for all your efforts Andrew. Cheers, Nick From russell.hoyle at bigpond.com Mon May 22 18:57:56 2006 From: russell.hoyle at bigpond.com (Russell Hoyle) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:57:56 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives Message-ID: <20060522085753.HYEN17135.omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@Inbox> How does one access said archives? Rusty -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: 22/05/06 16:33 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Updated archives >> Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should >> switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? >Or maybe quarterly? Assuming it's easy to switch back to monthly if traffic spikes, which with MRQ and Chaosium's new BRP imminent it might (if only in flames ;-> ), then I'd also favour quarterly. > I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so > long. We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. Huzzah! Many thanks for all your efforts Andrew. Cheers, Nick _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon May 22 19:04:45 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:04:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives In-Reply-To: <20060522085753.HYEN17135.omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@Inbox> Message-ID: >How does one access said archives? http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/ Although I really should be concentrating on work... :-) Nick From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 22 21:38:25 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:38:25 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Swapping armor isn't as easy as some might think (I have worn mail-shirts that do not fit, and it's NOT comfortable....... Wearing platearmor that doesn't fit is impossible Even textile armor is very little flexible when it comes to swapping. Everybody should have the rule that in order to swap armor (yes-even helmets) one should have to have an exaxt match, and if (for some reason) some want to use armor in the wrong size , one should doubble/tripple the enc-cost. Changing the size of mail is a dedious task, and (unless you are a blacksmith, will weaken the rings, as 50% are stanced out and the rest are welded/riveted together. (Some mail exist that was only butted, but they are not as solid; that could be used as the difference between the "Ringmail" and the "Chainamil" in the RQ3-armour-list. Changing the size of textile armorur is easier, but takes at least doubble the time of altering the size of civil clothes. Changing the size of plate is a job for a blacksmith. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 22 21:47:41 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:47:41 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <001601c67b29$08465360$1600a8c0@hader> Message-ID: >So, anyway, my first posting. Hope its not too shabby. -Far better than my first post :-) >Concerning aiming: I use a simplified version of aiming (modified RQ2/3), >for the price of an additional 4 SR on the attack, the character (or >critter) >gets to roll either a d10 or a d10+10 for the hit-location, i.e. aiming >either >high or low. It works well for my players and for myself. For instance, if >you want to slow someone down with missile fire, you aim low, having >a decent chance of achieving that by either hitting legs or abdomen. Aiming high/low is not as "bad" or unrealistic as aiming for "left nostril". I concur totally with your wiew of how fighting works, and people that waits for an opening or only aim for certain areas will make himself predictable. The best is not to go there, making the rules to detailed. I've allways thought it easier to let the base skill work out the results, then leave it to the GM to tell the tale. The manual I-33 (12th century sword and buckler sparring) allmost only aim for the head/throat-section + the arms, that beeing the ultimate area to hit. Therefore that's allso logically why those locations are best protected in the defencive part of the manual. It's still easy to defend leg-hits, belly hits, etc, reflecting someone flopping his defencive posture. This is all best solved by lieving it to the basic rules (roll to hit, then roll hit location, leaving it to the GM to tell the tale). To aim for a location is more about NOT AIMING at certain other locations. I think the best rule would be to state where you aim, then roll hit-location. If you roll a location you did not want to hit, you missed your attemt to aim ;-) From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 22 21:59:23 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:59:23 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, every email that goes out has a link to the list information page at the bottom. A link to the archives is found there. Re: Quarerly: I can switch back and forth, however *all* the archives will basically be the same. The is one monolithic mbox file that gets processed into the archives. If I set it to quarterly and rebuild all will be quarterly. We don't have the option of some parts being quarterly and some not. I'll switch to quarterly for now on and we'll see how it goes. -Andrew On May 22, 2006, at 5:04 AM, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> How does one access said archives? > > http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/ > > Although I really should be concentrating on work... :-) > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 22 22:08:59 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:08:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules/Rune metals In-Reply-To: <20060521123535.C278A761A83@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060522120859.75799.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> David Gordon: DG> Yes - but that doesn't mean that we can't retro-engineer the cults so that a runic system should work? As I was hinting in my mail - the runic system wasn't expanded to maturity during RQ2 and 3 as it should have been. The runic associations seemed to have been assigned to gods without a consistant framework. If somebody wanted a runic system where Air is NOT Storm but just Air, then you could start to look at how spells work and you could begin to provide a Godlearner construction kit to making magic or using the powers of gods. How else could the Godlearners have managed to do what they did? If we are looking at the basic rune set then we would need to make further changes, especially for Alternate Earth or non-Gloranthan deities. For example, Fire/Sky is a single Rune in Glorantha, but would be better split as a Fire Elemental Rune and Sky Form Rune for other worlds. So, Zeus (Sky/Air/Mastery) is an atmospheric god with both Sky and Air powers, Prometheus (Fire/Man/Mastery) is a Fire god with no connection to Sky, the Night Sky would have the Sky Rune but no Fire Rune and so on. You could split Air/Storm into Air (Form) and Storm (Elemental) but I think that Air and Storm are interchangeable terms and treat both the same. There are other changes that could be made, depending on the world concerned. So, the runes themselves would change which then changes the runic powers. Clive Wickens: > prices per ENC Many thanks. > Posted the prices...completely forgot the weights > All from RQ3 secrets book Hopefully Elder Secrets, if they were in the Gloranthan RQ3 Book then I'll be really annoyed, as I have that one. > Sort of related to this the RQ3 rules give us Enchant > ( metal ) can anybody think of a reason why other substances can't be treated the same way. No reason at all. I've not really used them but I have Enchant (Wood), Enchant (Bone), Enchant (Obsidian), Enchant (Ice) and so on as spells using the same mechanics as Enchant (Metal). > Enchant ( wood ) - handy for elves, forest deities, druids etc > Enchant ( stone/bone/tusk/ivory ) - handy for low tech/primitive peoples ( shamanic ritual enchant maybe ) > Enchant ( glass ) - I'm thinking sorcerous alchemists with hardened glass daggers and swords here :-) I use Enchant (Obsidian) for some trolls from the Shadow Plateau to much the same effect. Assassins could also use enchanted glass daggers that break off and deliver poison. > Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune spell: It's a nice spell, better than Turn Undead and Sever Spirit as it gives you the opportunity to capture the vampire or to kill it. It's not as strong as Sever Spirit but is as powerful as Turn Undead, but doesn't kill the vampire, so I would say 1 or 2 points. Nikk says 1 point so that's fine by me as he is usually right. > On the subject of Divine Magic, it seems that 3pts is about top whack for non ritual magic. Is this just an > arbitary figure , ie 4 or 5 pt spells ( or more ) are possible or would such spells be sufficiently powerful that they > would need special ie ritual forms to cast ? The Summon Founder spell in RQ3 is more than 3 points. Is the Fang of Wachaze a 4 point spell or 3 points? I can't remember. The Saintly Powers are also often more than 3 points, but those aren't divine spells, so they don't count. As a rule of thumb, I try to match spells with similar spells and match the pointage. If a Sever Spirit is 3 points, does my new spell do more than that? If so, make it a 4+ point spell. If it is a restricted Sever Spirit, make it a 2 or 3 point spell and so on. Steve Perrin: > Originally, three (3) points were the max for Divine spells because a priest had to maintain a POW of 18 and > the most (due to racial limitations) a priest could have was 21. So the Rune Priest desperately tried to get to 21 > in order to sacrifice 3 of those points to get a 3 point Rune Magic. I remember it well. One of the high points of Soltak's career was increasing his Species Max POW so that he could get more POW to spend on runemagic. Of course, he then spent less time as a Priest as he had to DI down to below 18 POW. The joys of being a Priest-Lord in RQ2. > These days, the various limits are a lot less strict, so depending on the campaign higher point value Divine > magic would be possible, I suppose. I think it makes a good limit, myself. For normal spells, yes. Oh, by the way, I totally messed up the Runic Associations for cults in my last post, so ignore what I was saying about spells from similar runed cults. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/ae386993/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 22 22:15:20 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:15:20 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65D92F06-FB1A-4FBE-804F-9EBC235A4A7E@crashbox.com> > To aim for a location is more about NOT AIMING at certain other > locations. I think the best rule would be to state where you aim, > then roll hit-location. If you roll a location you did not want to > hit, you missed your attemt to aim ;-) NOTE: These comments are based on standard RQ strikeranks and rounds. If MRQ using something different, discard this. My take on RPG combat has always been a little different. In a 10-12 second combat round a *lot* can occur. From my martial arts sparring here's what I've experienced. The opponents are constantly moving around throwing punches and kicks. They frequently block. Most attacks are not expected to hit. You are seeing how fast the defender is, how good his coverage is, etc. Periodically during the exchange you try to create an opening with a feint, or a combination attack. Or even you see your opponent block poorly and try to follow through with a combo. My point is that there is a *lot* going on. Not every swing is parameterized, but the skill level reflects the chance to land a real blow during that looooong 12 second period. A guy with a better skill will be more effective at creating that opening (forcing the defender to over extend) or seeing weaknesses sooner, etc. So in my games a person can 'aim' for any area, and hit. They are choosing during the flurry of blows to try to get the person to expose that particular part. They take a penalty on their to hit, because they are forcing a particular exposure not finding the easiest. This above combat philosophy doesn't work with strike ranks however. In my experience to say that a person is going to swing their sword at a *precise* and repeatable time during a round is ridiculous. If I was sparring someone in 10 second 'rounds' and I knew he was going to only be able to swing his fist on the 6th second, I could just stand there and not do anything for the first 5, then block on the 6th. I also find it unreasonable because what else is the person doing during that time? Give me a bokken and I can swing a lot faster than once in 10 seconds. Most however, are just going to be 'noise' and I will probably only get a 'real' attack once during that time. But when it occurs is not regular, but varies depending on how well I am doing. Just my two cents on RQ combat. -Andrew From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 22 22:21:06 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:21:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Gods 'n' Runes/Updated archives In-Reply-To: <20060521231354.E8A71768BD7@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060522122106.58847.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Michael: >> Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist >> simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. > Maybe a link to a rune provides many magics, and that each god/hero only gets > a subset of them. So, Harry Hailstone and Larry Lightning will get > different spells > when each forges a link to the Storm Rune. From a rules standpoint, what are > the skills, passions and personality traits of the mythological being or > hero- > quester: these will determine what magics they get. Also, what acts do they > do to forge a link to a rune? These will also influence what spells are > available > to a cult, or what boons are granted to a heroquester. Yes, that's how I would use it. But then you are getting away from the Runic Basis of the magic. Instead you are getting magic based on what the Hero/Deity did and how he behaves rather than on which Runes he possesses. Which, in my opinion, is how it should work. But that gets to the core of the problem again. > Disclaimer: Just my 2 clacks -- I've never gamed in the Gloranthan setting. > P.S. Very cool website, Mr. Phipp. Why thank you very much, kind sir. But what are you doing looking at a Gloranthan website if you don't game in Glorantha? Shame on you. :-) Go to the Alternate Earth website straight away instead. Andrew O. Mellinger: > I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so long. > We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. We've got archives? Cool. > Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should > switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? Yearly would be fine by me. I always scroll down archives to find what I want, anyway. Is there a search option or do we have to use Google et al? Clive Wickens: > Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get > belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous > to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin > in human blood....... There's no iron in my blood, there's just .... blood. As far as I know, trolls are burned by Runic Iron, as soon as you mess about with it by creating alloys or different compounds then it is no longer runic iron. Also, I don't use RW chemistry in Glorantha or RQ as I tend to keep alchemy as a separate idea. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/fcba4051/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 22 22:27:32 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:27:32 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Updated archives In-Reply-To: <20060522122106.58847.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060522122106.58847.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <57DC8B73-F5BE-4727-A9FE-AC449FFF12B3@crashbox.com> The archives are built with four 'indexes'. They are thread, subject, author and date. They are currently public which makes them searchable via google. As long as the google indexing doesn't get too expensive (walking all the archives) we should be okay. Mailman is a real nice package for all the automatic archiving stuff. We've got them and I encourage people to use them. -Andrew On May 22, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > Andrew O. Mellinger: > > I've brought back in the old archives. Sorry it took me so long. > > We have archives back to Nov 2001, when I took over the list. > > We've got archives? Cool. > > > Since we don't have that much traffic, I'm thinking would should > > switch to a yearly instead of monthly archive? Thoughts? > > Yearly would be fine by me. I always scroll down archives to find > what I want, anyway. Is there a search option or do we have to use > Google et al? From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 22 22:28:39 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:28:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <20060522120915.2C8A176D57B@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060522122839.83954.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton: > Assuming it's easy to switch back to monthly if traffic spikes, which with > MRQ and Chaosium's new BRP imminent it might (if only in flames ;-> ), then > I'd also favour quarterly. Flames for MRQ and DBRP? Surely not. I've already got the petrol can ready :-) Bjorn Stolen: >>Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can >>collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. >>Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent >>on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from >>his armoury. > > Swapping armor isn't as easy as some might think (I have worn mail-shirts > that do not fit, and it's NOT comfortable....... > > Wearing platearmor that doesn't fit is impossible > > Even textile armor is very little flexible when it comes to swapping. A bit too much realism for my tases. > Everybody should have the rule that in order to swap armor (yes-even > helmets) one should have to have an exaxt match, and if (for some reason) > some want to use armor in the wrong size , one should doubble/tripple the > enc-cost. Where's the fun in that, though? If I kill someone who's about the same size as me, then I would strip them and make off with their armour. It's traditional battlefield practice. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/89ffc112/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon May 22 22:44:39 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:44:39 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: Good point and something I am ashamed to admit I have let slide both as a GM and player. Even something relatively soft will take a specific persons body shape (I(ride motorbikes and have full leathers). Although it is a good way to ensure a bit of party balance - have a character who is an armourer, or maybe bring one along as a hireling and have to pay/feed/protect him. -----Original Message----- Behalf Of Bjorn Stolen Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Swapping armor isn't as easy as some might think (I have worn mail-shirts that do not fit, and it's NOT comfortable....... Wearing platearmor that doesn't fit is impossible Even textile armor is very little flexible when it comes to swapping. Everybody should have the rule that in order to swap armor (yes-even helmets) one should have to have an exaxt match, and if (for some reason) some want to use armor in the wrong size , one should doubble/tripple the enc-cost. Changing the size of mail is a dedious task, and (unless you are a blacksmith, will weaken the rings, as 50% are stanced out and the rest are welded/riveted together. (Some mail exist that was only butted, but they are not as solid; that could be used as the difference between the "Ringmail" and the "Chainamil" in the RQ3-armour-list. Changing the size of textile armorur is easier, but takes at least doubble the time of altering the size of civil clothes. Changing the size of plate is a job for a blacksmith. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 22 22:47:16 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:47:16 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <20060522122839.83954.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Where's the fun in that, though? If I kill someone who's about the same >size as me, then I would strip them and make off with their armour. It's >traditional battlefield practice. Yes you would, but if the armor didn't fit you, you would sell it, not wear it. But nobody should let realizm come in the way of fun! When we can let horses fly, why not letting there be "one size fits all-plate-armor"? From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon May 22 22:48:55 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:48:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <20060522122839.83954.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >Nick Middleton: >> Assuming it's easy to switch back to monthly if traffic spikes, which with >> MRQ and Chaosium's new BRP imminent it might (if only in flames ;-> ), then >> I'd also favour quarterly. > >Flames for MRQ and DBRP? Surely not. I've already got the petrol can ready :-) :-> >>Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can >>collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. >>Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent >>on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from >>his armoury. > > Swapping armor isn't as easy as some might think (I have worn mail-shirts > that do not fit, and it's NOT comfortable....... > > Wearing platearmor that doesn't fit is impossible Really? So all those medieval accounts of looting armour from the dead are made up then? And the regular loaning a accurately made reproduction plate that goes in various Steel weapon re-enactment groups was purely a figment of my imagination? Funny, could have sworn I regular borrowed reproduction harness (described by a curator at the Royal Armouries as the most accurate he'd ever seen) repeatedly with out any problems... Sorry, but wearing plate armour made for someone else is NOT impossible, and provided they are reasonably close in build it's not even particularly uncomfortable. Provided key measurements are similar (limb and torso length, girth of limbs and torso allowing for the padding and tightness of strapping) wearing someone else armour is perfectly feasible and the minor degree of inconvenience is not worth capturing in game terms. >> Even textile armour is very little flexible when it comes to swapping. >A bit too much realism for my tastes. I'd argue even this is overstated - padded jacks were the staple armour type in the Wars of the Roses steel weapons groups I re-enacted with and again, armour was regularly loaned between people. It did require fairly similar body types, and exceptionally ill fitting armour can be a real liability (mail that's too large can be lethal, and too small it just can't be worn I agree), but all the evidence I can think of suggests that scavenging armour from people within a few SIZ (say +/- 2 SIZ) is entirely feasible and realistic. >> Everybody should have the rule that in order to swap armour (yes-even >> helmets) one should have to have an exact match, and if (for some reason) >> some want to use armor in the wrong size , one should doubble/tripple the >> enc-cost. > >Where's the fun in that, though? If I kill someone who's about the same size as me, then I would strip them and make >off with their armour. It's traditional battlefield practice. It's also well documented historical battlefield practice IIRC. Now, the D&D tendency to treat armour as like modern designer clothes is unacceptable I agree, but scavenging part armours of the dead is entirely fine IMO. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 22 23:04:38 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:04:38 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <65D92F06-FB1A-4FBE-804F-9EBC235A4A7E@crashbox.com> Message-ID: I agree with your impression of what combat is. I think that this flow of exchanged blows are best covered by the to hit-roll, and I feel that it is the hit-locations that makes things tricky, not the strike ranks. A strike-rank is only a technicality to determine who has the first chanse of finding that opening you write about. Roleplaygames (like RQ3) that operates with hit-locations are worse, as you no longer can let it be up to the damage rolled and the GM to rule where you hit. If we take WOD as an example of a RPG that do not hav hit-locations: You state you want to cut the opponent with your sword. You roll to hit and damage. If you roll little damage, the GM can state that you hit on the opponents gauntlat, that soaked most of the damage. If you roll lot of damage, the GM can state that you hit in the armpit... With hit-locations, you roll damage, then hit-location, making the urge to add "aiming-rules". What I've done in my Houserules conserning aiming, is this: I've expended the "hit-location-roll" from a d20 roll to a d100-roll, having 28 hit locations in stead of 7. The locations that are often hit during sparring (hands/head/thighs) have a relatively large percentage, small areas have small percentages. If someone wish to aim (i.e excluding other locations), you add the percentage in the location(s) the player deems acceptable location(s) to the player's character's A%, then subtract 100. The remaining number is what he must roll under on the to hit-roll. If this number is lower than your POW x 1, you use POW x 1 instead (the character's luck). Excample: Beowulf have 100% in sword attack, and a POW of 15. He fights a german 15th century knight, that is fully covered in plate, only the eyes are exposed. Beowulf aims for the eyes only (any other sword-hit will not harm the knight anyway). In my houserules the eyes are 1% on the d100 hit-location-roll, so Beowulf takes his 100%, adds 1%, then subtracts 100%, makin his chanse for hit a mere 1%. This is lower than his POW, so he use that instead. Loderick have 90% in sword attack, and a POW of 12. He fights a foot-soldier with a brest plate, a gamberson and gauntlets. Loderick realizes that his sword won't do him any good against a breast-plate, so he states that he'll only aim low (legs, totally roughly 50% of the d100 hit-location table). He then takes 90% + 50% - 100% = 40%, higher than his POW, so he use the 40% option. > My point is that there is a *lot* going on. Not every swing is >parameterized, but the skill level reflects the chance to land a real blow >during that looooong 12 second period. A guy with a better skill will be >more effective at creating that opening (forcing the defender to over >extend) or seeing weaknesses sooner, etc. > > So in my games a person can 'aim' for any area, and hit. They are >choosing during the flurry of blows to try to get the person to expose >that particular part. They take a penalty on their to hit, because they >are forcing a particular exposure not finding the easiest. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 22 23:09:16 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:09:16 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I'd argue even this is overstated - padded jacks were the staple armour >type in the Wars of the Roses steel weapons groups I re-enacted with and >again, armour was regularly loaned between people. It did require fairly >similar body types, and exceptionally ill fitting armour can be a real >liability (mail that's too large can be lethal, and too small it just can't >be worn I agree), but all the evidence I can think of suggests that >scavenging armour from people within a few SIZ (say +/- 2 SIZ) is entirely >feasible and realistic. We are not that far apart in our understanding of reality, then; I can agree that a +/- 2 size is doable. I do allso do re-enactment, and I would not joust with a helmet that doesn't fit me, sorry. Ground-fighting is another matter; a padded coat could be a padded long jacket for a tall slim dude, etc. But Gauntlets, boots, helemets do NOT (IMHO) have much slack when it comes to fitting. A helmet that is too big could be mended by wearing several filt hats, etc. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon May 22 23:34:05 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:34:05 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>I'd argue even this is overstated - padded jacks were the staple armour >>type in the Wars of the Roses steel weapons groups I re-enacted with and >>again, armour was regularly loaned between people. It did require fairly >>similar body types, and exceptionally ill fitting armour can be a real >>liability (mail that's too large can be lethal, and too small it just can't >>be worn I agree), but all the evidence I can think of suggests that >>scavenging armour from people within a few SIZ (say +/- 2 SIZ) is entirely >>feasible and realistic. > >We are not that far apart in our understanding of reality, then; I can agree >that a +/- 2 size is doable. I do allso do re-enactment, and I would not >joust with a helmet that doesn't fit me, sorry. My experience is entirely from foot combat, and mostly Wars of the Roses-era stuff at that. Armour that was "roomy" (and so one could use padding to compensate easily) was quite common, but everyone loathed the idea of getting the munition helm made for the midget - because the only way to wear it was to skimp on padding, and THAT's just plain dangerous... >Ground-fighting is another matter; a padded coat could be a padded long >jacket for a tall slim dude, etc. But Gauntlets, boots, helmets do NOT >(IMHO) have much slack when it comes to fitting. A helmet that is too big >could be mended by wearing several filt hats, etc. Actually, make that -1 SIZ to +3 SIZ - if the person the armour was made for was a bit bigger padding can compensate - but as Bjorn says, a gauntlet or helm that's too small just won't fit without a smiths assistance. Cheers, Nick Middleton From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue May 23 01:49:57 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls In-Reply-To: <000801c67cfc$c8ce6490$e4658456@sickboy> Message-ID: <20060522154957.39571.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Clive Wickens wrote: > Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get > belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous > to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin > in human blood.......> Yes, but have you ever looked at the hemoglobin molecule? Over a thousand atoms each of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, carrying only one atom of iron, which does all the work! Pure food laws permit more poisons than that. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Tue May 23 04:04:41 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:04:41 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> The more I think about this, along with my own experience in fencing, the more I am inclined to drop aiming rules for melee combat. It seems to me that if I'm trying to hit my opponent in a spot I perceive as especially vulnerable or tactically useful, one of the things I will be doing to enhance my likelihood of hitting there is trying to get him to defend somewhere else, and that means actively going after those other spots. Now, suppose I'm going after another spot, like the legs or maybe the weapon arm, simply because I want to subdue my opponent with minimal risk of accidentally killing him. In this case, it isn't so much that I want to hit the targeted area as that I want NOT to hit the vitals. So I wonder if it might help things if we change the sequence of the dice rolls a bit. Remember that, as Bjorn pointed out, strike ranks are not so much a temporal sequence as they are a mechanism for determining priority; all other things being equal, a guy who attacks on SR 6 is just likelier to prevail against a guy who attacks on SR 7; it does not mean that he swings 1.2 seconds before the other guy. Here's my suggestion, then: If I want to target a location, roll the hit location BEFORE finishing the statement of intent. That way, if I'm up against someone with an unarmoured head, and I see from his stance that his armoured left arm is exposed, I can state Parry and Dodge. Actually, since I can in principle declare a variety of different attacks (slash, stab, punch, kick, headbutt, grapple, shield bash...), we could be perverse and roll a different location for each potential attack, and then decide what intent to declare. (Incidentally, it also could influence defensive tactics; if I realize my shielded left arm is exposed to the guy with the bastardsword on my left, while my unarmoured abdomen is vulnerable to the one on my right, I might choose to parry differently.) Obviously, the excess dice rolling is a pain, and probably not worth it most of the time. But it DOES provide a nice way to mix up combat a bit; I've often observed that there's rarely any reason to resort to other forms of attack besides one's primary weapon, when a satisfyingly bloody battle will involve all sorts of cinematic maneuvers. In RQ, it's almost never worthwhile to sword parry and shield bash, for example, but with my proposal here it could be. From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 23 04:48:48 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605221148wc0a5c35rad7be62eca50ba5a@mail.gmail.com> And then there's those who essentially wait and attack whatever an attacker chooses to attack with. I've been thinking of allowing a To Hit bonus = (the waiting character's melee SR minus the attacker's melee SR) * 10%. The bonus improves either the waiting character's Parry or Attack percentage or can be split between both but this kind of attack uses up both a Parry and Attack action and uses a single die roll that must be equal to or under the Parry/Attack skills to be successful. If successful, the limb the attacker is using in his attack is struck. Armor still protects though so this may not be as useful as it sounds (assuming it sounds useful) and I haven't tested this so it may be more trouble than it's worth. I just like giving PCs and NPCs tactical options in combat. David On 5/22/06, Tom Cantine wrote: > > The more I think about this, along with my own experience in fencing, > the more I am inclined to drop aiming rules for melee combat. It seems > to me that if I'm trying to hit my opponent in a spot I perceive as > especially vulnerable or tactically useful, one of the things I will be > doing to enhance my likelihood of hitting there is trying to get him to > defend somewhere else, and that means actively going after those other > spots. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/6be86fc2/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue May 23 06:02:35 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:02:35 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] another metal based sorcery spell Message-ID: <000b01c67dda$ab13c560$6dbb8956@sickboy> DISGUISE ( METAL ) Ranged, Passive Allows the caster to conceal the presence of a metal. For the spell to be effective intensity must equal the ENC of the metal to be disguised. If the spell is effective the metal will register as another type of metal ( caster's choice ) on any detection, sense or locate spells. I'm considering making this an active spell, if someone is, well.... actively seeking something then perhaps you actively need to be concealing it....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/22467717/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 23 07:08:55 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Gods 'n' Runes/Updated archives In-Reply-To: <20060522122106.58847.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060521231354.E8A71768BD7@mini.thinbits.net> <20060522122106.58847.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605221408lce0cb7am4af097c4032cbb82@mail.gmail.com> > > Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls get > > belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous > > to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of haemoglobin > > in human blood....... Naw. It just acts like a strong jalapeno salsa. Trolls do love their mock pork tamales. (grin, duck, run) David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/179e95df/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue May 23 07:30:22 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:30:22 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] trolls Message-ID: <000601c67de6$f04c4c40$20648456@sickboy> Ah well, there you go then. Jalapenos always give me a burning sensation on the lips, how much worse is it going to be for a race subject to Iron burn :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/d65dce5f/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 23 07:48:00 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:48:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] trolls In-Reply-To: <000601c67de6$f04c4c40$20648456@sickboy> References: <000601c67de6$f04c4c40$20648456@sickboy> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605221448x7138e180q59ff1b03686301c0@mail.gmail.com> LOL. David On 5/22/06, Clive Wickens wrote: > > Ah well, there you go then. Jalapenos always give > me a burning sensation on the lips, how much worse > is it going to be for a race subject to Iron burn :-) > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/80da3fdf/attachment.html From darthvogel at hotmail.com Tue May 23 13:01:36 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:01:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runemetal ENC In-Reply-To: <20060518092049.12168.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Simon, I didnt really see an answer to your question about the ENC part, just the price. I'll be honest, I have a hard time keeping which version of runequest i have straight because for me there has only been one; but it is RQ FRPG Delux Edition published by Avalon Hill in 1993. That should baseline this answer for you. It says on p46, "For general purposes, 1 ENC point equals 1Kg (about 2.2 pounds). In human scale, one ENC is generally equal to 1/6th of a SIZ point." Therefore, knowing this all you have to do is hit the net looking for chemistry sites telling you the volume of metal per Kg. For example at this website (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/phys.html) I am able to find out that the density of Iron is 7874 Kg/m^3. I want in in volume per unit weight so I invert it and get 1/7874 m^3/Kg. Now i want it in something I can translate into volumes I understand. That would be cubic centimeters (1000cc = 1 liter; and 0.946liter = 1quart). So I take the cubed root of 1/7874, multiply by 100 (convert m to cm), and cube that value. I end up with 127 cm^3/Kg (0.127 liter) of iron. This is about half a cup. You can go to a volume conversion website like: http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm if you dont want to do the math. Iron = .5 cup per ENC Silver = .4 cup per ENC (yes silver is heavier and denser than Iron) Gold = .2 cup per ENC Tin = .6 cup per ENC Bronze = .5 cu/ENC Lead = .37 cu/ENC Platinum = .2 cu/ENC Steel = .5 cu/ENC (so why is steel the same as iron when you thought it weighed less, steel is stronger and you need less of it to do the same job, so it is only lighter becasue you use less) As for pricing, that depends on your world, the scarcity of the materials, and what age (iron, bronze, stone, etc) you are playing in. Can't help you with that, but the ohter responder did. Hope this helps, Fred >From: Simon Phipp >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Runemetal ENC >Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:20:49 +0100 (BST) > > > Laura Kneedler sent me an email asking me a question I couldn't answer. >I know that you lot will have the sources to hand and can show off your >knowledge :-) > > How much do rune metals (e.g., iron, silver, etc.) weigh, and how much >do they cost per ENC? > > I know the info is in Elder Secrets (RQ3) and, maybe, Wyrms >Footnotes/Footprints (RQ2). > > If anyone has the cources, prehaps they could look it up? > > I thought that Iron had the same ENC as bronze in RQ3 but was one ENC >lighter in RQ2, Copper was ENC / 2, Gold and Lead was ENCx2, but I remember >lead as being odd and Aluminium Tin and Silver were normal ENC. > > As for costs, I seem to recall that Iron was 5xcost and the others were >3xcost. > > But, I am hazy. > > Thanks > > Simon > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From tcantine at incentre.net Tue May 23 13:57:23 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:57:23 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605221148wc0a5c35rad7be62eca50ba5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1c92296e0605221148wc0a5c35rad7be62eca50ba5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3D5C33EC-EA10-11DA-8EC2-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> True enough. In fact, that's one of the very few instances I can think of where I had enough success to warrant using the tactic: sword parry against natural weapons. It's especially useful when fighting ghouls, with their Demoralizing howls. Demoralize affects attack percentages, but not defensive ones, so I often found that sword parry against an unsuccessful claw (or better yet, bite!) attack was a more reliable way to damage these opponents than attacking them directly. Some further refinements on the idea I spat out this morning, now. It now amounts to a separate phase, just before statement of intent, which I will call "Opportunity Generation". Each character in a melee gets to generate one opportunity per opponent in melee range, plus one opportunity for each available attack skill over 50%. (By available attack skill, I mean one that could be used on its normal strike rank: a weapon drawn and in hand, or a natural weapon). These opportunities are hit locations rolled normally on the melee hit location table, and are specific to the attack they were rolled for. (The basic opportunity everyone gets can be used with any attack skill under 50%). If a weapon like a broadsword can be used to thrust or slash, declare which to use before identifying the opportunity. If an attack skill is over 100%, two opportunities may be rolled for it, one for thrust and one for slash (if appropriate). The opportunities then inform the characters' choices in the Statement of Intent phase. As well, it provides a mechanism to encourage use and improvement through experience of non-primary attack skills. A guy who's survived scores of serious fights should be better at things like kick and headbutt as well as sword attack. I will have to playtest this soon. On 22-May-06, at 12:48 PM, David Smart wrote: > And then there's those who essentially wait and?attack whatever an > attacker chooses to attack with. > ? > I've been thinking of allowing a To Hit bonus = (the waiting > character's melee SR minus the attacker's melee SR) * 10%. The bonus > improves either the waiting character's Parry or Attack percentage or > can be split between both but this kind of attack uses up both a Parry > and Attack action and uses a single die roll that must be equal to or > under the Parry/Attack skills to be successful. If successful, the > limb the attacker is using in his attack is struck. > ? > Armor still protects though so this may not be as useful as it sounds > (assuming it sounds useful) and I haven't tested this so it may be > more trouble than it's worth. I just like giving PCs and NPCs tactical > options in combat. > ? > David > ? > On 5/22/06, Tom Cantine wrote: > The more I think about this, along with my own experience in fencing, > the more I am inclined to drop aiming rules for melee combat. It seems > to me that if I'm trying to hit my opponent in a spot I perceive as > especially vulnerable or tactically useful, one of the things I will be > doing to enhance my likelihood of hitting there is trying to get him to > defend somewhere else, and that means actively going after those other > spots. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3355 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060522/1e722726/attachment.bin From julian.lord at gmail.com Tue May 23 18:55:54 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:55:54 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ Message-ID: <1e842f7f0605230155j49e32364wb100372eb0f06104@mail.gmail.com> I'm sure some of you have seen this already, as it's up in a thread at RPG.net cheers, Julian Lord --------------------------------------------------------- Well, I asked for it Combat, hmm. . . Well, I won't go into mechanics (we must have some secrets ), however. . . Combat is fast and (often ) deadly. It is also very mobile - none of this 'two men entire a square, one man leaves.' I have always said that great attention was paid to Star Wars Episode III when it came to combat - remember how they tended to move all over the place in fights? You have the potential to do that in RQ. We also paid great attention to weapon types and how they work in the game. For example, you might be a beefed up warrior-type with heavy armour, who concentrates on parrying with his sword. However, if someone swings a huge Greataxe at you, you will _not_ rely on sword or armour to turn the blow. You are going to want to dodge out of the way of that hunk of metal. Oh, and spears are officially cool in RQ. Damn good weapons. There are also no maths involved in combat. No adding or subtracting, no division, nothing. You roll your dice and compare it to your skill score and your enemy's dice roll (if he gets one). Nothing else. Sounds like a little thing, but we broke our backs getting the maths out of the system As for magic, there is only one type in the main rulebook, Rune Magic. Collect runes, integrate with them (and get a bonus along the way), then start using spells that use the rune. Collect a few runes, and you can start doing more complicated spells (providing your Runecasting skill is adequate). However, more magic types are possible - in fact, if you wanted, you could create a fantasy world where every nation and culture uses its own magic system. More will be included in the RQ Companion and, of course, Magic of Glorantha. The skills list looks very similar to older versions of RQ but we streamlined many of them (if you have seen what we did to the Lone Wolf RPG compared to standard D20, you will know what I mean). However, there are basic skills, which anyone can attempt, and then advanced skills, which have to be learnt - such as Martial Arts, for example. However, advanced skills are completely open-ended in that you can add new ones as you like. So, if you want a skill in Turbot-Skinning, you can create it. Can't talk about character sheets yet, as the guys laying the book out won't show me it yet As for Ducks, what can I say? Is there a more superior race in all of fantasy? We made them faster, more intelligent, stronger and better than any other race in the world! Let us hear it for Duck Power! Or not. However, you can play a Duck out of the basic rulebook. And we made them a little more bitter than you may be used to. They are generally not friendly people (though we resisted the temptation to make evil ducks, Izzard fans), though you can play a nice duck, if you wish, in the same way you can play an honourable Half-Orc in D&D. But the other ducks won't thank you for it. They are less 'Donald' as well - as soon as we get the miniatures painted up, I'll post them on the site, and you will see what I mean (personally, I wanted the big orange bill and flappy feet but I got shouted down by, well, just about everyone). __________________ Matthew Sprange Mongoose Publishing http://www.mongoosepublishing.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060523/b3241af7/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed May 24 01:43:53 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0605230155j49e32364wb100372eb0f06104@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e842f7f0605230155j49e32364wb100372eb0f06104@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605230843v54d917crc591e2b47ee1528e@mail.gmail.com> Hm, why NOT go into the mechanics of it? I mean, it's going to be public knowledge 10 minutes after the first book is sold. D&D isn't the primary RPG game out there because the mechanics are 'secret'... Sorry, but that sort of tomfoolery just makes me more dubious than I was already. Like movies that 'don't have time to preview screen for critics'.....r-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. No math, huh? IMO, one of the things I *liked* the most about RQ was the precision of the combat system. Making MRQ = Hero Wars probably is the wrong direction, IMO. On 5/23/06, Julian Lord wrote: > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Well, I asked for it > > Combat, hmm. . . Well, I won't go into mechanics (we must have some > secrets ), however. > > Combat is fast and (often ) deadly. It is also very mobile - none of this > 'two men entire a[snip...] > There are also no maths involved in combat. No adding or subtracting, no > division, nothing. You roll your dice and compare it to your skill score and > your enemy's dice roll (if he gets one). Nothing else. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060523/f2788715/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 02:01:54 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:01:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060523160154.89094.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The worse thing you can do with Chainmail is wear it with a hairy chest and nothing underneath. A mate of mine Immaced his torso during a LARP once doing this. Tweaked his nipples quite unerotically as well. Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >Nick Middleton: > >> Assuming it's easy to switch back to monthly if > traffic spikes, which > with > >> MRQ and Chaosium's new BRP imminent it might (if > only in flames ;-> ), > then > >> I'd also favour quarterly. > > > >Flames for MRQ and DBRP? Surely not. I've already > got the petrol can ready > :-) > > :-> > > >>Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour > from fallen foes and so > can > >>collect more expensive armour than they could > otherwise reasonably > afford. > >>Look at Robin Hood and the number of > soldiers/knights he stripped and > sent > >>on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and > gave him a good horse > from > >>his armoury. > > > > Swapping armor isn't as easy as some might think > (I have worn mail-shirts > > that do not fit, and it's NOT comfortable....... > > > > Wearing platearmor that doesn't fit is impossible > > Really? So all those medieval accounts of looting > armour from the dead are > made up then? And the regular loaning a accurately > made reproduction plate > that goes in various Steel weapon re-enactment > groups was purely a figment > of my imagination? Funny, could have sworn I regular > borrowed reproduction > harness (described by a curator at the Royal > Armouries as the most accurate > he'd ever seen) repeatedly with out any problems... > > Sorry, but wearing plate armour made for someone > else is NOT impossible, > and provided they are reasonably close in build it's > not even particularly > uncomfortable. Provided key measurements are similar > (limb and torso > length, girth of limbs and torso allowing for the > padding and tightness of > strapping) wearing someone else armour is perfectly > feasible and the minor > degree of inconvenience is not worth capturing in > game terms. > > >> Even textile armour is very little flexible when > it comes to swapping. > >A bit too much realism for my tastes. > > I'd argue even this is overstated - padded jacks > were the staple armour > type in the Wars of the Roses steel weapons groups I > re-enacted with and > again, armour was regularly loaned between people. > It did require fairly > similar body types, and exceptionally ill fitting > armour can be a real > liability (mail that's too large can be lethal, and > too small it just can't > be worn I agree), but all the evidence I can think > of suggests that > scavenging armour from people within a few SIZ (say > +/- 2 SIZ) is entirely > feasible and realistic. > > >> Everybody should have the rule that in order to > swap armour (yes-even > >> helmets) one should have to have an exact match, > and if (for some > reason) > >> some want to use armor in the wrong size , one > should doubble/tripple > the > >> enc-cost. > > > >Where's the fun in that, though? If I kill someone > who's about the same > size as me, then I would strip them and make >off > with their armour. It's > traditional battlefield practice. > > It's also well documented historical battlefield > practice IIRC. Now, the > D&D tendency to treat armour as like modern designer > clothes is > unacceptable I agree, but scavenging part armours of > the dead is entirely > fine IMO. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 02:08:12 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:08:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060523160812.14183.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Surely in world of Darkness damage results are as follows: - No damage - bounced off the pile of useless last edition books you've got piled up - 1 damage - scratch someone's shades - 2 damage - bounced off the character's monumental ego - 3 damage - bounced off the players monumental ego - 4 damage - light scratch of leatherette trench coat - 5 damage - spill the opponents pint of 1427 Chardonay De O or 1947 Charles De Gaul pork scratchings. - 6+ damage - instant death unless it's a player character vampyre/werewolf/ghost/wizard when it's no damage cause they're all impossible to kill. Cheers, Ash --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I agree with your impression of what combat is. I > think that this flow of > exchanged blows are best covered by the to hit-roll, > and I feel that it is > the hit-locations that makes things tricky, not the > strike ranks. > > A strike-rank is only a technicality to determine > who has the first chanse > of finding that opening you write about. > Roleplaygames (like RQ3) that > operates with hit-locations are worse, as you no > longer can let it be up to > the damage rolled and the GM to rule where you hit. > If we take WOD as an > example of a RPG that do not hav hit-locations: You > state you want to cut > the opponent with your sword. You roll to hit and > damage. If you roll little > damage, the GM can state that you hit on the > opponents gauntlat, that soaked > most of the damage. If you roll lot of damage, the > GM can state that you hit > in the armpit... > > With hit-locations, you roll damage, then > hit-location, making the urge to > add "aiming-rules". > > What I've done in my Houserules conserning aiming, > is this: > I've expended the "hit-location-roll" from a d20 > roll to a d100-roll, having > 28 hit locations in stead of 7. The locations that > are often hit during > sparring (hands/head/thighs) have a relatively large > percentage, small areas > have small percentages. > > If someone wish to aim (i.e excluding other > locations), you add the > percentage in the location(s) the player deems > acceptable location(s) to the > player's character's A%, then subtract 100. The > remaining number is what he > must roll under on the to hit-roll. If this number > is lower than your POW x > 1, you use POW x 1 instead (the character's luck). > Excample: > Beowulf have 100% in sword attack, and a POW of 15. > He fights a german 15th > century knight, that is fully covered in plate, only > the eyes are exposed. > Beowulf aims for the eyes only (any other sword-hit > will not harm the knight > anyway). In my houserules the eyes are 1% on the > d100 hit-location-roll, so > Beowulf takes his 100%, adds 1%, then subtracts > 100%, makin his chanse for > hit a mere 1%. This is lower than his POW, so he use > that instead. > > Loderick have 90% in sword attack, and a POW of 12. > He fights a foot-soldier > with a brest plate, a gamberson and gauntlets. > Loderick realizes that his > sword won't do him any good against a breast-plate, > so he states that he'll > only aim low (legs, totally roughly 50% of the d100 > hit-location table). He > then takes 90% + 50% - 100% = 40%, higher than his > POW, so he use the 40% > option. > > > > My point is that there is a *lot* going on. Not > every swing is > >parameterized, but the skill level reflects the > chance to land a real blow > >during that looooong 12 second period. A guy with > a better skill will be > >more effective at creating that opening (forcing > the defender to over > >extend) or seeing weaknesses sooner, etc. > > > > So in my games a person can 'aim' for any area, > and hit. They are > >choosing during the flurry of blows to try to get > the person to expose > >that particular part. They take a penalty on their > to hit, because they > >are forcing a particular exposure not finding the > easiest. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 02:11:03 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:11:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Archive frequency and a question about Gloranthan trolls In-Reply-To: <20060522154957.39571.qmail@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060523161103.4624.qmail@web86106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The Surgeon Uz states that this product may contain traces of Iron. --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- Clive Wickens > wrote: > > > Now, here's a thought wouldn't Gloranthan trolls > get > > belly ache from eating humans ? Iron is poisonous > > to Trolls and there's a hell of a lot of > haemoglobin > > in human blood.......> > > Yes, but have you ever looked at the hemoglobin > molecule? Over a thousand atoms each of carbon, > oxygen, and nitrogen, carrying only one atom of > iron, > which does all the work! Pure food laws permit more > poisons than that. > > Paul Cardwell > > __________________________________________________ > 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 02:16:43 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:16:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605230843v54d917crc591e2b47ee1528e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060523161643.48164.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding any modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction was for damage. Cheers, Ash From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed May 24 06:49:59 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <20060523161643.48164.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0605230843v54d917crc591e2b47ee1528e@mail.gmail.com> <20060523161643.48164.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605231349n5904f25cg91ca4069bba8bb3b@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, our house rules did. I was using the "marginal success" vs "marginal success" goes to whomever succeeded by MORE sort of resolution since ages. That is, until someone illuminated me to the clever and counterintuitive mechanic of "ties go to the highest roller still succeeding" - which saved me a BOATLOAD of in-head mathematics. Just had to make sure any modifiers were applied appropriately to the target number, never the roll. One of the real "mechanics" gems, that. -Steve On 5/23/06, Ashley Munday wrote: > > Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat > system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding any > modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction was > for damage. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060523/6ebfa3b4/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Wed May 24 10:25:27 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 18:25:27 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <20060523161643.48164.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060523161643.48164.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You kidding? I used those modifiers every chance I could! On 23-May-06, at 10:16 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: > Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat > system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding any > modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction was > for damage. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From julian.lord at gmail.com Wed May 24 10:51:35 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 02:51:35 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Latest details on MRQ Message-ID: <1e842f7f0605231751t57b76a29xbc6df6df693c6052@mail.gmail.com> I once did some pretty heavy mathematical analysis of RuneQuest III, particularly of the logarithmic structures of the Resistance Table vs. the SIZ vs Weight chart as related to the rest of the rules, and found that they made perfect mathematical sense --- but also happened to be perfectly broken from the strict mathematical POV, because they were deterministically weighted towards neutralizing any imbalances in the system, which meant that any numerical advantage in actual PC or NPC characteristics translated directly into an unfair advantage in the game system itself. I hope they have gotten rid of all that, it's just no fun --- I remember when I analysed the AD&D combat charts, and found a mnemonic system to know them off by heart, and eventually it just made the game seem so ... BORING ... Explicit maths are just clutter IMO, and should be translated into simple and easy rolls of the dice, so that people don't have to waste their energies thinking about accountancy issues ... cheers, Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/28844578/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed May 24 14:18:10 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:18:10 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <20060523160154.89094.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060523160154.89094.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4473DE82.6020705@inetnebr.com> Ashley Munday wrote: > The worse thing you can do with Chainmail is wear it > with a hairy chest and nothing underneath. A mate of > mine Immaced his torso during a LARP once doing this. > Tweaked his nipples quite unerotically as well. > Nyeah the lass I saw wearing it in a bikini fashion in the summer sun definitely beats the hairy chest problem... sun burn and chain can't be too fun unless one likes pain. From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 18:03:30 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:03:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Nope, not kidding at all. The interaction between the attack and parry gives you plenty to hang onto to describe what's happening without slowing things down. You might as well play HQ with a shed load of undescribed augments. If you're going to modify an attack chance just pull some number out of the air that feels right, don't sod about with all that "Well, he's on the ground so I get +20%, It's dusk so I get -15%" Boring, boring, boring... if you want all that go play a wargame. Cheers, Ash --- Tom Cantine wrote: > You kidding? I used those modifiers every chance I > could! > > On 23-May-06, at 10:16 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: > > > Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat > > system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding > any > > modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction > was > > for damage. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed May 24 18:05:52 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:05:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <4473DE82.6020705@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20060524080552.2263.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> ~lol~ For once, I am speechless... I also have to clean the keyboard off where I've sprayed tea all over it. Ash --- Lance Dyas wrote: > Ashley Munday wrote: > > The worse thing you can do with Chainmail is wear > it > > with a hairy chest and nothing underneath. A mate > of > > mine Immaced his torso during a LARP once doing > this. > > Tweaked his nipples quite unerotically as well. > > > Nyeah the lass I saw wearing it in a bikini fashion > in the summer sun > definitely beats the hairy chest problem... sun burn > and chain can't > be too fun unless one likes pain. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed May 24 20:28:07 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:28:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Runemetals/another metal based sorcery spell/Maths or no Maths/Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060523085612.6839B7763C0@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060524102807.85201.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Fred: > I didnt really see an answer to your question about the ENC part, just the > price. I'll be honest, I have a hard time keeping which version of > runequest i have straight because for me there has only been one; but it is > RQ FRPG Delux Edition published by Avalon Hill in 1993. That should > baseline this answer for you. That's the best one, so far. > It says on p46, "For general purposes, 1 ENC point equals 1Kg (about 2.2 > pounds). In human scale, one ENC is generally equal to 1/6th of a SIZ > point." > Therefore, knowing this all you have to do is hit the net looking for > chemistry sites telling you the volume of metal per Kg. I was hoping for the standard RQ ENCs, which Clive sent me. But, thanks, these would be really useful in a non-Gloranthan setting. In fact, for Alternate Earth, if you didn't want to use ur-metal and all the Gloranthan rubbish, these conversions would be great. It's even better that someone else did it and not me :-) Iron = .5 cup per ENC Silver = .4 cup per ENC (yes silver is heavier and denser than Iron) Gold = .2 cup per ENC Tin = .6 cup per ENC Bronze = .5 cu/ENC Lead = .37 cu/ENC Platinum = .2 cu/ENC Steel = .5 cu/ENC So, for similar shaped items: Iron = 1x ENC Silver = 1.25x ENC Gold = 2.5x ENC Tin = 0.8x ENC Bronze = 1x ENC Lead = 1.4xENC Platinum = 2.5x ENC Steel = 1x ENC I'll check out the websites for Copper and Aluminium, following your instructions (hopefully my 21 year old maths degree will help, but it was never any good with arithmetic). Presumably the same technique works with stone, depending on which stone of course, bone, wood and similar materials. No Mithril, though? > (so why is steel the same as iron when you thought it weighed less, steel is > stronger and you need less of it to do the same job, so it is only lighter > becasue you use less) In RQ terms, you'd use less of it to make your 10AP sword, but who wants a 10AP sword when you can have a 15 AP one? > Hope this helps, It did, thanks. Clive Wickens: > DISGUISE ( METAL ) > Ranged, Passive > Allows the caster to conceal the presence of > a metal. For the spell to be effective intensity > must equal the ENC of the metal to be disguised. > If the spell is effective the metal will register > as another type of metal ( caster's choice ) on > any detection, sense or locate spells. > I'm considering making this an active spell, > if someone is, well.... actively seeking > something then perhaps you actively need > to be concealing it....... Would this work against high-powered detects? What if someone used a Sense Iron spell with Intensity 20, would this be able to punch through the spell? It could also be a Variable Spirit Magic spell with similar effects. I can see a divine magic version that is stackable but covers one item per point. Have you got any more of these? More importantly, have you got a website with them all on? If not, why not? :-) Ashley Munday (with his tongue firmly in his cheek): > Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat > system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding any > modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction was > for damage. Well, the way that one player in my current campaign plays RQ, it doesn't have any maths at all (rolls dice, asks "what's that?", we tell him whether it is a hit, miss, special, critical and so on. He's an architect, though, so he is excused, just don't go into any buildings he's designed! Oh, he says that he ahs spreadsheets to do all that for him, so that's OK). When we played RQ2 many years ago, we _all_ sat down with our character sheets, our dice, our film pens, our pints of beer and our scientific calculators. It was part of the essential RQ kit. I can't remember the best add you could get in RQ3, something like opponent on the ground (20), surprised (20), you on a high llama (10) on a small rise (10) from behind (20), with a large opponent (depends on SIZ), so that's a +80 for a start, ignoring the fact that he's a giant and is asleep. Then you go berserk to really rub it in and cast your biggest Bladesharp/Bludgeon and you're away, time to roll that 00. We played a session on Monday, using the rules mentioned earlier (RQ3-ish with elements of RQM) and the party faced a vampire, well actually 5 vampires, all dressed as Zorro but using Rapiers, Daggers and carrying Arbalests (of course). The vampires crept up near to the party's caravan and shot the water skins and water barrels with a hail of Multimissiles, shattering them and draining them. Once the party had seen them and recognised them as being vampires, they used the new combat options and decided to Ignore Armour and Aimed Location, both half-chance options, so they had a quarter chance of hitting the vampire in the chest and ignoring armour. Fair enough, you may cry, they need a chance. But, then they cast Multimissile 6 on their heavy crossbows and composite bows and let fly. Now, they only had 50% chance to hit normally, so that gave them a 13% chance of hitting with the combat options, but having 6x13% chances meant that each one hit about twice, all in the chest and all ignoring armour. Fortunately, they aimed at different vampires and didn't roll a lot of damage, so the vampires turned to smoke and drifted away. But, using these combat options, dangerous foes such as Vampires are really easy meat. What do people think? Is it worth asking them if they want to keep these options? Should I rule that they can be used with the first missile but not with Multimissiles? Should I stop whingeing and let them kill my precious vampires? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/a6348dbf/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu May 25 03:33:24 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605241033x14982d8bmbb0b5b8e08a5a39@mail.gmail.com> Well, I'm probably not the only one who DID come from a wargaming background, and so the system was orrery-elegant to me, particularly after the hash of inconsistencies, rationalizations, and goofiness that was AD&D. But you're right, the meticulous calculating of every last variable could get to be excessive, of course. All in perspective. On 5/24/06, Ashley Munday wrote: > > > If you're going to modify an attack chance just pull > some number out of the air that feels right, don't sod > about with all that "Well, he's on the ground so I get > +20%, It's dusk so I get -15%" Boring, boring, > boring... if you want all that go play a wargame. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/6357a7a5/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu May 25 05:16:41 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:16:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Flames/Armour In-Reply-To: <20060524080552.2263.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <4473DE82.6020705@inetnebr.com> <20060524080552.2263.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605241216u75ea5300q39e9a4d2351573ec@mail.gmail.com> Lance, I was thinking along the same line as you. I went to a comic con one time when they hosted a "babe in chainmail" contest. After a few minutes, the models' smiles were obviously strained and becoming grimaces of pain. I just had to laugh and walk away. Then there was the SCA newbie who thought it would be cool to spar in just chain. One light hit from a mace and he was pulling the chain out of of his skin. There's a reason why metal armor is worn over padding. David Lance Dyas wrote: > Nyeah the lass I saw wearing it in a bikini fashion > > in the summer sun > > definitely beats the hairy chest problem... sun burn > > and chain can't > > be too fun unless one likes pain. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/a23f61be/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu May 25 05:23:11 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:23:11 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605241033x14982d8bmbb0b5b8e08a5a39@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0605241033x14982d8bmbb0b5b8e08a5a39@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605241223hca5d247m150e55eb0fbbca23@mail.gmail.com> Huh. And my only reaction to the Julian's post was.."The only good Duck is a Peking Duck." David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/70e93097/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu May 25 05:23:34 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:23:34 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Simons comments about Disguise Metal Message-ID: <000601c67f67$8eb4cb10$3f5a8456@sickboy> Simon said: "Would this work against high-powered detects? What if someone used a Sense Iron spell with Intensity 20, would this be able to punch through the spell?" I don't think so, In Sandy's sorcery rules it says that extra Intensity simply allows you look 'through' more stuff eg, stone, wood etc when searching for things - so Intensity 20 would allow you to look through 2 metres of rock instead of 10cm ( or whatever ) but you could still be fooled at the end of it. However, there is a secondary art: Force that DOES allow you to boost your MPvsMP roll so using that I'd reckon you could burn through the Disguise Metal spell. " It could also be a Variable Spirit Magic spell with similar effects. I can see a divine magic version that is stackable but covers one item per point." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me " Have you got any more of these? More importantly, have you got a website with them all on?If not, why not? :-)" I've got a couple of ritual spells in a draft form (not polished enough to post yet ) and about 3 more spells at the vaguely floating around in my head stage :-) Why no website ? Basically a combination of sloth and technophobia :-) Also I don't think I've got enough material to warrant people being interested enough to drop by if I did do one -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/acfc9f2a/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu May 25 05:35:51 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:35:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] slight clarification Message-ID: <000601c67f69$45cc0510$3f5a8456@sickboy> Thats 3 more sorcery spells related to metal, I've got a few divine spells, but strangely very few spirit magic spells. Most the ones I've got are tied into an adaption of Sandy's shamanic rules I'm wrestling with looking at Totem animals etc - It surprised me that given how important the subject is in real world shamanry he didn't really cover it in his rules. Maybe because in Glorantha all that shape shifting stuff is done via Gods eg Telmor etc etc. I thought there was a gap that needed to be filled and I'm trying to rough something out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/bd695ba8/attachment.html From C.DAVIS at uws.edu.au Thu May 25 09:51:28 2006 From: C.DAVIS at uws.edu.au (Cory Davis) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:51:28 +1000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's Shaman stuff Message-ID: <2FDE83AF1A69C84796CBD13788DDA88302673048@BONHAM.AD.UWS.EDU.AU> Hi all I'm getting back into RQ after a long layoff and I thought I saw a list of Shamanic traditions made up for Sandy's Shaman rules somewhere on the web but now I can't find it Has anyone made any or know where there are some Cheers Cory From tcantine at incentre.net Thu May 25 11:41:41 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:41:41 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Runemetals/another metal based sorcery spell/Maths or no Maths/Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060524102807.85201.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060524102807.85201.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9D3FB032-EB8F-11DA-82F9-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> On 24-May-06, at 4:28 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > Clive Wickens: > > DISGUISE ( METAL ) > > Ranged, Passive > > Allows the caster to conceal the presence of > > a metal. For the spell to be effective intensity > > must equal the ENC of the metal to be disguised. > > If the spell is effective the metal will register > > as another type of metal ( caster's choice ) on > > any detection, sense or locate spells. > > I'm considering making this an active spell, > > if someone is, well.... actively seeking > > something then perhaps you actively need > > to be concealing it....... > ? > Would this work against high-powered detects? What if someone used a > Sense Iron spell with Intensity 20, would this be able to punch > through the spell? > I'd say that disguise metal simply disguises it, end of story. Is that too powerful? Nah, Because a simple, Intensity 1 Detect (Disguise (Metal)) will solve your problem most of the time. Not sure what to do if someone starts casting Disguise Gold on random bits of stone, tin, string and such. Actually, I expect if you Multispell together Detect Gold and Detect (Disguise Gold), you should be able to distinguish disguised gold from disguised non-gold. But Intensity alone shouldn't do it. I'd rule that Intensity is inversely proportionate to the size of gold it can detect. An Intensity 1 should pick up any lump of 1 SIZ (6 ENC) or more, and each level of Intensity halves the minimum amount to detect. Intensity 10 can pick out bits of gold of a little less than 6 grams. Intensity 20 is needed to find flecks of 5 or 6 milligrams. Intensity 1 could also confirm that a small sample in one's hand contained gold, even if it couldn't help to locate it. From tcantine at incentre.net Thu May 25 11:22:08 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:22:08 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060524080330.1450.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I agree that you don't need to have an official set of tables for all those bonuses, but to use SOME kind of bonus or penalty is something I place considerable value upon, especially for characters who are of beginning to moderate skill levels. Whether those numbers are chosen because they feel right or because they're in the rulebook is of admittedly lesser importance. However, there's something to be said for a published baseline from which one can get a sense of what feels right. On 24-May-06, at 2:03 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: > Nope, not kidding at all. The interaction between the > attack and parry gives you plenty to hang onto to > describe what's happening without slowing things down. > You might as well play HQ with a shed load of > undescribed augments. > > If you're going to modify an attack chance just pull > some number out of the air that feels right, don't sod > about with all that "Well, he's on the ground so I get > +20%, It's dusk so I get -15%" Boring, boring, > boring... if you want all that go play a wargame. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Tom Cantine wrote: > >> You kidding? I used those modifiers every chance I >> could! >> >> On 23-May-06, at 10:16 AM, Ashley Munday wrote: >> >>> Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat >>> system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding >> any >>> modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction >> was >>> for damage. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ash >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RQ-Rules mailing list >>> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu May 25 13:06:46 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's Shaman stuff In-Reply-To: <2FDE83AF1A69C84796CBD13788DDA88302673048@BONHAM.AD.UWS.EDU.AU> Message-ID: <20060525030646.65635.qmail@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Hi all > > I'm getting back into RQ after a long layoff and I > thought I saw a list > of Shamanic traditions made up for Sandy's Shaman > rules somewhere on the web but now I can't find it > > Has anyone made any or know where there are some > > Cheers > > Cory I have a version on my site http://www.godlearner.d2g.com/Spirit/rules.asp Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu May 25 16:18:25 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:18:25 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Runemetals/another metal basedsorcery spell/Maths or no Maths/Combat Options References: <20060524102807.85201.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e601c67fc3$07e66dd0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed that allowing any chance to avoid armor was disastrous for the target. Pick location, yes, do extra damage, yes, but not ignore armor. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Phipp To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:28 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Runemetals/another metal basedsorcery spell/Maths or no Maths/Combat Options Fred: > I didnt really see an answer to your question about the ENC part, just the > price. I'll be honest, I have a hard time keeping which version of > runequest i have straight because for me there has only been one; but it is > RQ FRPG Delux Edition published by Avalon Hill in 1993. That should > baseline this answer for you. That's the best one, so far. > It says on p46, "For general purposes, 1 ENC point equals 1Kg (about 2.2 > pounds). In human scale, one ENC is generally equal to 1/6th of a SIZ > point." > Therefore, knowing this all you have to do is hit the net looking for > chemistry sites telling you the volume of metal per Kg. I was hoping for the standard RQ ENCs, which Clive sent me. But, thanks, these would be really useful in a non-Gloranthan setting. In fact, for Alternate Earth, if you didn't want to use ur-metal and all the Gloranthan rubbish, these conversions would be great. It's even better that someone else did it and not me :-) Iron = .5 cup per ENC Silver = .4 cup per ENC (yes silver is heavier and denser than Iron) Gold = .2 cup per ENC Tin = .6 cup per ENC Bronze = .5 cu/ENC Lead = .37 cu/ENC Platinum = .2 cu/ENC Steel = .5 cu/ENC So, for similar shaped items: Iron = 1x ENC Silver = 1.25x ENC Gold = 2.5x ENC Tin = 0.8x ENC Bronze = 1x ENC Lead = 1.4xENC Platinum = 2.5x ENC Steel = 1x ENC I'll check out the websites for Copper and Aluminium, following your instructions (hopefully my 21 year old maths degree will help, but it was never any good with arithmetic). Presumably the same technique works with stone, depending on which stone of course, bone, wood and similar materials. No Mithril, though? > (so why is steel the same as iron when you thought it weighed less, steel is > stronger and you need less of it to do the same job, so it is only lighter > becasue you use less) In RQ terms, you'd use less of it to make your 10AP sword, but who wants a 10AP sword when you can have a 15 AP one? > Hope this helps, It did, thanks. Clive Wickens: > DISGUISE ( METAL ) > Ranged, Passive > Allows the caster to conceal the presence of > a metal. For the spell to be effective intensity > must equal the ENC of the metal to be disguised. > If the spell is effective the metal will register > as another type of metal ( caster's choice ) on > any detection, sense or locate spells. > I'm considering making this an active spell, > if someone is, well.... actively seeking > something then perhaps you actively need > to be concealing it....... Would this work against high-powered detects? What if someone used a Sense Iron spell with Intensity 20, would this be able to punch through the spell? It could also be a Variable Spirit Magic spell with similar effects. I can see a divine magic version that is stackable but covers one item per point. Have you got any more of these? More importantly, have you got a website with them all on? If not, why not? :-) Ashley Munday (with his tongue firmly in his cheek): > Not that RQ ever had a lot of maths in the combat > system anyway. Most people didn't bother adding any > modifiers: about the only addition and subtraction was > for damage. Well, the way that one player in my current campaign plays RQ, it doesn't have any maths at all (rolls dice, asks "what's that?", we tell him whether it is a hit, miss, special, critical and so on. He's an architect, though, so he is excused, just don't go into any buildings he's designed! Oh, he says that he ahs spreadsheets to do all that for him, so that's OK). When we played RQ2 many years ago, we _all_ sat down with our character sheets, our dice, our film pens, our pints of beer and our scientific calculators. It was part of the essential RQ kit. I can't remember the best add you could get in RQ3, something like opponent on the ground (20), surprised (20), you on a high llama (10) on a small rise (10) from behind (20), with a large opponent (depends on SIZ), so that's a +80 for a start, ignoring the fact that he's a giant and is asleep. Then you go berserk to really rub it in and cast your biggest Bladesharp/Bludgeon and you're away, time to roll that 00. We played a session on Monday, using the rules mentioned earlier (RQ3-ish with elements of RQM) and the party faced a vampire, well actually 5 vampires, all dressed as Zorro but using Rapiers, Daggers and carrying Arbalests (of course). The vampires crept up near to the party's caravan and shot the water skins and water barrels with a hail of Multimissiles, shattering them and draining them. Once the party had seen them and recognised them as being vampires, they used the new combat options and decided to Ignore Armour and Aimed Location, both half-chance options, so they had a quarter chance of hitting the vampire in the chest and ignoring armour. Fair enough, you may cry, they need a chance. But, then they cast Multimissile 6 on their heavy crossbows and composite bows and let fly. Now, they only had 50% chance to hit normally, so that gave them a 13% chance of hitting with the combat options, but having 6x13% chances meant that each one hit about twice, all in the chest and all ignoring armour. Fortunately, they aimed at different vampires and didn't roll a lot of damage, so the vampires turned to smoke and drifted away. But, using these combat options, dangerous foes such as Vampires are really easy meat. What do people think? Is it worth asking them if they want to keep these options? Should I rule that they can be used with the first missile but not with Multimissiles? Should I stop whingeing and let them kill my precious vampires? See Ya Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060524/2f276da3/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu May 25 16:55:47 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 08:55:47 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runemetals/another metalbasedsorcery spell/Maths or no Maths/Combat Options Message-ID: Interistingly enough, my group is experimenting with some houserules around the armour. Okay, first let me admit that we don't really bother with ENC, within reason that is. Basically we say if you want the armour, wear it, but also don't expect you opponent to be disadvantaged by his armour's ENC. So, our experiments involve. 1. An acrobat who relies on her agility and lack of armour to jump, dodge and basically be faster than armoured foes. Because we don't play enc, I kind of allow her additional moves etc so long as she can back them up. Also opened an acrobatics skill for the purpose. 2. Another idea we had is that fighting in armour is a skill. As most people use armour, its considered a given. Thus is someone specifically doens't use armour for the advantage of manoueverability we give them a bonus to dodge or parry, just to make up for it else they will be hacked to pieces against an armoured foe. Against an unarmoured foe the foe would theoretically have the same advantages. Dunno, its flawed and prob has huge holes in the logic, but we are experimenting with it anyway Cheers Tony ________________________________ Steve Perrin Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed that allowing any chance to avoid armor was disastrous for the target. Pick location, yes, do extra damage, yes, but not ignore armor. Steve Perrin ----- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060525/34753434/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 25 20:10:29 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:10:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060525065634.26D7278A8BA@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060525101029.44502.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> > Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Runemetals/another metal basedsorcery spell/Maths or no > Maths/Combat Options So, it's official, my emails ARE junk. Steve Perrin: > Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed that allowing any chance to avoid armor was disastrous for > the target. Pick location, yes, do extra damage, yes, but not ignore armor. Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion. I think I'll have some trollkin do a mass sling/multimissile barrage against one of the PCs, I'll give them 40% to hit, 20% ignoring armour and see how the PCs like it. They'll soon agree to take that combat option out. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060525/7938c246/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri May 26 01:14:31 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060525101029.44502.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060525065634.26D7278A8BA@mini.thinbits.net> <20060525101029.44502.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605250814t6cc88537v9436e4f55de5b24d@mail.gmail.com> I once toyed with a system that I thought showed promise (but never really had a chance to implement, as my 'regular gaming' days were behind me, I just didn't realize it yet...): The basic premise is that EVERYONE aims - all the time. Nobody just "swings blindly" at a combat opponent, or "shoots blindly" at a target. My goal was to resolve a hit in one roll (of multiple dice, perhaps). So I started with single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, with an outline drawing of a standing humanoid figure on the front, side view on the back. Then two more sheets of "crouching" front/side, and prone front/side. I then used a transparent overlay and drew concentric circles, as well as 12 radiant lines. The player would place the overlay on the representative target, showing his intended point of aim. How well the player succeeded in 'beating' his skill roll, determined how closely to the center point his strike landed, with the radial deviation just a random d12 roll. (Eventually I settled on a separate asymmetric overlay for slashing/blunt weapons as well. The "circular" template would be used for missile weapons and thrusting attacks only.) Other considered tweaks were that the lighter, more nimble weapons would have a 'finer' grain of deviation, while larger, heavier, bulkier weapons would use a coarser grid. For missile fire, it worked better as you could use 2/3, half, quarter, even 1/8 scale outline pictures with the same grid, and rather than arbitrarily reducing the shooter's 'chance to succeed' by range, just using the smaller target sheeets made it NATURALLY harder to hit distant foes. Irregular cover/concealment was even simpler - you could just lay whatever represented cover over the target sheet, and depending on where the character's shot landed, either cause damage, resolve penetrating the (soft cover/concealment) barrier, or declare it a 'miss'. It made shooting into melee MUCH riskier - with transparent-enough paper, you could stack 4, 5, even 6 sheets and still see the outlines, and just let the arrow hit whomever it hits. Recognizing that there were a bulk of problems unresolved (like non humanoid targets for one), I set it aside uncompleted but I always wondered how well it would have worked in practice. Probably too much sheet-switching (ala Rolemaster) and ultimately too complex but now, with computers that could resolve the apparent size of the target, and the aimpoint/landing point discrepancy instantly... On 5/25/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Steve Perrin: > > Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed that allowing any chance > to avoid armor was disastrous for > the target. Pick location, yes, do extra > damage, yes, but not ignore armor. > Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion. I think I'll have some trollkin do a > mass sling/multimissile barrage against one of the PCs, I'll give them 40% > to hit, 20% ignoring armour and see how the PCs like it. They'll soon agree > to take that combat option out. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060525/3640dc4e/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri May 26 02:19:26 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve at perrinworlds.com) Date: 25 May 2006 16:19:26 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL *** Message-ID: <20060525161926.36034.qmail@ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060525/4dde0f5b/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri May 26 06:57:45 2006 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605250814t6cc88537v9436e4f55de5b24d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This was actually a published system called "Killer Crosshairs" by Biohazrad games, I believe. With the human sillouettes and transparencies. Greg --- Styopa wrote: > I once toyed with a system that I thought showed > promise (but never really > had a chance to implement, as my 'regular gaming' > days were behind me, I > just didn't realize it yet...): > > The basic premise is that EVERYONE aims - all the > time. Nobody just "swings > blindly" at a combat opponent, or "shoots blindly" > at a target. My goal was > to resolve a hit in one roll (of multiple dice, > perhaps). > > So I started with single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, > with an outline drawing > of a standing humanoid figure on the front, side > view on the back. Then two > more sheets of "crouching" front/side, and prone > front/side. I then used a > transparent overlay and drew concentric circles, as > well as 12 radiant > lines. The player would place the overlay on the > representative target, > showing his intended point of aim. How well the > player succeeded in > 'beating' his skill roll, determined how closely to > the center point his > strike landed, with the radial deviation just a > random d12 roll. > (Eventually I settled on a separate asymmetric > overlay for slashing/blunt > weapons as well. The "circular" template would be > used for missile weapons > and thrusting attacks only.) Other considered > tweaks were that the lighter, > more nimble weapons would have a 'finer' grain of > deviation, while larger, > heavier, bulkier weapons would use a coarser grid. > > For missile fire, it worked better as you could use > 2/3, half, quarter, even > 1/8 scale outline pictures with the same grid, and > rather than arbitrarily > reducing the shooter's 'chance to succeed' by range, > just using the smaller > target sheeets made it NATURALLY harder to hit > distant foes. > > Irregular cover/concealment was even simpler - you > could just lay whatever > represented cover over the target sheet, and > depending on where the > character's shot landed, either cause damage, > resolve penetrating the (soft > cover/concealment) barrier, or declare it a 'miss'. > > It made shooting into melee MUCH riskier - with > transparent-enough paper, > you could stack 4, 5, even 6 sheets and still see > the outlines, and just let > the arrow hit whomever it hits. > > Recognizing that there were a bulk of problems > unresolved (like non humanoid > targets for one), I set it aside uncompleted but I > always wondered how well > it would have worked in practice. Probably too much > sheet-switching (ala > Rolemaster) and ultimately too complex but now, with > computers that could > resolve the apparent size of the target, and the > aimpoint/landing point > discrepancy instantly... > > On 5/25/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > Steve Perrin: > > > Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed > that allowing any chance > > to avoid armor was disastrous for > the target. > Pick location, yes, do extra > > damage, yes, but not ignore armor. > > Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion. I think I'll > have some trollkin do a > > mass sling/multimissile barrage against one of the > PCs, I'll give them 40% > > to hit, 20% ignoring armour and see how the PCs > like it. They'll soon agree > > to take that combat option out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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 From tcantine at incentre.net Fri May 26 11:23:49 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:23:49 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48B5009F-EC56-11DA-A006-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Wow. I remember thinking about doing the very same thing, way back in 1981 or so, when my only RPG experience was Traveller. On 25-May-06, at 2:57 PM, grogthing wrote: > This was actually a published system called "Killer > Crosshairs" by Biohazrad games, I believe. > > With the human sillouettes and transparencies. > > > Greg > > > --- Styopa wrote: > >> I once toyed with a system that I thought showed >> promise (but never really >> had a chance to implement, as my 'regular gaming' >> days were behind me, I >> just didn't realize it yet...): >> >> The basic premise is that EVERYONE aims - all the >> time. Nobody just "swings >> blindly" at a combat opponent, or "shoots blindly" >> at a target. My goal was >> to resolve a hit in one roll (of multiple dice, >> perhaps). >> >> So I started with single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, >> with an outline drawing >> of a standing humanoid figure on the front, side >> view on the back. Then two >> more sheets of "crouching" front/side, and prone >> front/side. I then used a >> transparent overlay and drew concentric circles, as >> well as 12 radiant >> lines. The player would place the overlay on the >> representative target, >> showing his intended point of aim. How well the >> player succeeded in >> 'beating' his skill roll, determined how closely to >> the center point his >> strike landed, with the radial deviation just a >> random d12 roll. >> (Eventually I settled on a separate asymmetric >> overlay for slashing/blunt >> weapons as well. The "circular" template would be >> used for missile weapons >> and thrusting attacks only.) Other considered >> tweaks were that the lighter, >> more nimble weapons would have a 'finer' grain of >> deviation, while larger, >> heavier, bulkier weapons would use a coarser grid. >> >> For missile fire, it worked better as you could use >> 2/3, half, quarter, even >> 1/8 scale outline pictures with the same grid, and >> rather than arbitrarily >> reducing the shooter's 'chance to succeed' by range, >> just using the smaller >> target sheeets made it NATURALLY harder to hit >> distant foes. >> >> Irregular cover/concealment was even simpler - you >> could just lay whatever >> represented cover over the target sheet, and >> depending on where the >> character's shot landed, either cause damage, >> resolve penetrating the (soft >> cover/concealment) barrier, or declare it a 'miss'. >> >> It made shooting into melee MUCH riskier - with >> transparent-enough paper, >> you could stack 4, 5, even 6 sheets and still see >> the outlines, and just let >> the arrow hit whomever it hits. >> >> Recognizing that there were a bulk of problems >> unresolved (like non humanoid >> targets for one), I set it aside uncompleted but I >> always wondered how well >> it would have worked in practice. Probably too much >> sheet-switching (ala >> Rolemaster) and ultimately too complex but now, with >> computers that could >> resolve the apparent size of the target, and the >> aimpoint/landing point >> discrepancy instantly... >> >> On 5/25/06, Simon Phipp wrote: >>> >>> Steve Perrin: >>>> Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed >> that allowing any chance >>> to avoid armor was disastrous for > the target. >> Pick location, yes, do extra >>> damage, yes, but not ignore armor. >>> Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion. I think I'll >> have some trollkin do a >>> mass sling/multimissile barrage against one of the >> PCs, I'll give them 40% >>> to hit, 20% ignoring armour and see how the PCs >> like it. They'll soon agree >>> to take that combat option out. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 26 19:43:45 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:43:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP In-Reply-To: <20060317154934.51333.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060317144001.DADBB52D6AE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4476DBE1.10331.37F7732@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 17 Mar 2006 at 15:49, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Anyway, those are my thought on the whole RQM debacle. I hope they > bring a good game out which is as good as RQ2 and RQ3 were, as I am a > bif RQ fan. If they don't, then DBRP looks a good second best. > I think it'll be a sort of RQ2.5, which isn't a bad thing since RQ3 was a little overengineered and dry. However DBRP will probably be just as legitimately the child of RQ as MRQ, so not really second best. I will buy both, I will try both, I may even use both. After all I ran RQ and Stormbringer side by side for years. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 26 19:43:46 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:43:46 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP In-Reply-To: <20060318170127.78229536E87@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4476DBE2.26835.37F7926@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 18 Mar 2006 at 18:01, Gianni wrote: > There is a huge difference between them, though: DBRP is heading > towards 800+ pages, whereas RQM should be around 150 pages. In terms I suspect when Mongoose have finished publishing all the companions, bestiaries, add-ons, GM books, etc they'll be about the same! Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 26 19:43:45 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:43:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shapechange In-Reply-To: <20060316164552.23083.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4476DBE1.6510.37F752E@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 16 Mar 2006 at 8:45, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > A character lost a leg, nothing new here, but the leg > is totally gone not just severed. The party is in the You're the ref, what do you think? I'd say YES, it's MGF (Maximum Game Fun) Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 26 19:53:59 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53:59 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] This List? In-Reply-To: References: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <4476DE47.24799.388D5E0@tom.zunder.org.uk> So. Which version of RQ will this list support when MRQ comes out? Will we need to have a rule on preceding posts with [MRQ] or [RQ3] or [RQ2] or do we split and have two lists? Flame on! Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri May 26 19:54:00 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder (Home)) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:54:00 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <48B5009F-EC56-11DA-A006-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4476DE48.27243.388D823@tom.zunder.org.uk> On 25 May 2006 at 19:23, Tom Cantine wrote: > Wow. I remember thinking about doing the very same thing, way back in > 1981 or so, when my only RPG experience was Traveller. > > On 25-May-06, at 2:57 PM, grogthing wrote: > > > This was actually a published system called "Killer > > Crosshairs" by Biohazrad games, I believe. Saw it. We tried for a while using 'to hit a very small area roll twice, succeed twice or miss' This is very nasty if you have 30% skill, and very easy if you have 90%.. Another slant I guess. Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri May 26 19:59:20 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:59:20 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP In-Reply-To: <4476DBE2.26835.37F7926@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: >On 18 Mar 2006 at 18:01, Gianni wrote: > >> There is a huge difference between them, though: DBRP is heading >> towards 800+ pages, whereas RQM should be around 150 pages. In terms > >I suspect when Mongoose have finished publishing all the >companions, bestiaries, add-ons, GM books, etc they'll be about >the same! And with judicious layout (and provide the new Powers section isn't gi-normous), there's no reason the new BRP book should be THAT big. The playtest PDF's aren't in final print layout, so it's deceptive (as was discussed in the playtest group IIRC)... Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri May 26 22:21:27 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 08:21:27 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] This List? In-Reply-To: <4476DE47.24799.388D5E0@tom.zunder.org.uk> References: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> <4476DE47.24799.388D5E0@tom.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: I don't know about the list (and come to think of it, I'd swear I put this same question to the list quite some time ago). But although my RQ site will probably support any system which is essentially compatible with RQ (which leaves out HeroQuest), I *personally* am not planning to buy or support MRQ. On 5/26/06, Tom Zunder (Home) wrote: > > So. Which version of RQ will this list support when MRQ comes > out? Will we need to have a rule on preceding posts with [MRQ] > or [RQ3] or [RQ2] or do we split and have two lists? > > Flame on! > > Tom Zunder > http://www.zunder.org.uk > http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ > ICQ: 1521799 > MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk > Y!: tzunder > Google Talk: tom.zunder > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060526/517c5a97/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Mon May 29 13:19:27 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 21:19:27 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules In-Reply-To: <48B5009F-EC56-11DA-A006-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <48B5009F-EC56-11DA-A006-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? You know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's some extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon May 29 17:04:51 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:04:51 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules Message-ID: I reckon it would take some sort of special check, maybe STR vs STR resistance. Think one would have to immobalise the limb first. Tony -----Original Message----- Tom Cantin Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? You know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's some extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 29 20:30:58 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:30:58 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: I like this idea >So I wonder if it might help things if we change the sequence of the dice >rolls a bit. >Here's my suggestion, then: If I want to target a location, roll the hit >location BEFORE finishing the statement of intent. That way, if I'm up >against someone with an unarmoured head, and I see from his stance that his >armoured left arm is exposed, I can state Parry and Dodge. Actually, since >I can in principle declare a variety of different attacks (slash, stab, >punch, kick, headbutt, grapple, shield bash...), we could be perverse and >roll a different location for each potential attack, and then decide what >intent to declare. (Incidentally, it also could influence defensive >tactics; if I realize my shielded left arm is exposed to the guy with the >bastardsword on my left, while my unarmoured abdomen is vulnerable to the >one on my right, I might choose to parry differently.) From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 29 20:44:24 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:44:24 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605230843v54d917crc591e2b47ee1528e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Hm, why NOT go into the mechanics of it? That's up to individual gaminggroups to decide. >No math, huh? I like to avoid detailed combat systems because the more i know of real combat (I have trained Fiori di Liberi for 4 years now, and I allso do horse-to ground-fighting), I realise that any paper-system will never be able to give 100% realizm to a fight anyway; then, it's better to keep it simple. I mean; there are so many complex aspects of fighting that simply cannot be reflected in tables and modifiers! (Take a dagger for instance; in RQ, it does 1d4+2 A greatsword does 2d8? What do theese weapons against full plate IN REALITY? Nothing. Now try to grapple with theese blades, and that's how you kill fully plated knights on the ground; apply grappeling, pin the opponent, then pierce his armor in a weak spot (an eyelid, armpit, etc). In order to avoid a 100 pages compendium including all possible alternatives and combinations in combat, I've worked out a set of houserules, where you simply pit the participant's A% against eachother and the margin of failure/success dictates how severe the outcome of the combat round was. >IMO, one of the things I *liked* the most about RQ was the precision of the >combat system. >Making MRQ = Hero Wars probably is the wrong direction, IMO. IMHO, i Like the Hero Wars approach, as they tend to let more be up to the gm/players to improvise. (I prefere the RQ3.system though, but more for nostalgic reasons than realistic reasons. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 29 21:52:59 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options In-Reply-To: <20060525205745.8918.qmail@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A swedish RPG called "Western" allso use crosshairs for shooting. Personally, I've tried to work out some crosshairs-aiming-grid-stuff for RQ3, but only for shooting. IMHO aimingrules with crosshairs doesn't work for wresteling/melee, as arcs, cuts, sweeps, etc. are worse to cope with than piercing hits (missile). >From: grogthing >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Combat Options >Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:57:45 -0700 (PDT) > >This was actually a published system called "Killer >Crosshairs" by Biohazrad games, I believe. > >With the human sillouettes and transparencies. > > >Greg > > >--- Styopa wrote: > > > I once toyed with a system that I thought showed > > promise (but never really > > had a chance to implement, as my 'regular gaming' > > days were behind me, I > > just didn't realize it yet...): > > > > The basic premise is that EVERYONE aims - all the > > time. Nobody just "swings > > blindly" at a combat opponent, or "shoots blindly" > > at a target. My goal was > > to resolve a hit in one roll (of multiple dice, > > perhaps). > > > > So I started with single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, > > with an outline drawing > > of a standing humanoid figure on the front, side > > view on the back. Then two > > more sheets of "crouching" front/side, and prone > > front/side. I then used a > > transparent overlay and drew concentric circles, as > > well as 12 radiant > > lines. The player would place the overlay on the > > representative target, > > showing his intended point of aim. How well the > > player succeeded in > > 'beating' his skill roll, determined how closely to > > the center point his > > strike landed, with the radial deviation just a > > random d12 roll. > > (Eventually I settled on a separate asymmetric > > overlay for slashing/blunt > > weapons as well. The "circular" template would be > > used for missile weapons > > and thrusting attacks only.) Other considered > > tweaks were that the lighter, > > more nimble weapons would have a 'finer' grain of > > deviation, while larger, > > heavier, bulkier weapons would use a coarser grid. > > > > For missile fire, it worked better as you could use > > 2/3, half, quarter, even > > 1/8 scale outline pictures with the same grid, and > > rather than arbitrarily > > reducing the shooter's 'chance to succeed' by range, > > just using the smaller > > target sheeets made it NATURALLY harder to hit > > distant foes. > > > > Irregular cover/concealment was even simpler - you > > could just lay whatever > > represented cover over the target sheet, and > > depending on where the > > character's shot landed, either cause damage, > > resolve penetrating the (soft > > cover/concealment) barrier, or declare it a 'miss'. > > > > It made shooting into melee MUCH riskier - with > > transparent-enough paper, > > you could stack 4, 5, even 6 sheets and still see > > the outlines, and just let > > the arrow hit whomever it hits. > > > > Recognizing that there were a bulk of problems > > unresolved (like non humanoid > > targets for one), I set it aside uncompleted but I > > always wondered how well > > it would have worked in practice. Probably too much > > sheet-switching (ala > > Rolemaster) and ultimately too complex but now, with > > computers that could > > resolve the apparent size of the target, and the > > aimpoint/landing point > > discrepancy instantly... > > > > On 5/25/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > > > Steve Perrin: > > > > Our playtests of the previous MRQ system showed > > that allowing any chance > > > to avoid armor was disastrous for > the target. > > Pick location, yes, do extra > > > damage, yes, but not ignore armor. > > > Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion. I think I'll > > have some trollkin do a > > > mass sling/multimissile barrage against one of the > > PCs, I'll give them 40% > > > to hit, 20% ignoring armour and see how the PCs > > like it. They'll soon agree > > > to take that combat option out. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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 >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 30 00:29:27 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:29:27 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0605290729h4d298866ibd34b521169937b3@mail.gmail.com> A special success with just Grapple would usually be successful vs. unarmored targets, unless the damage roll is poor, with a critical success being necessary vs. armored targets. You could also go with a combo of Martial Arts and Grapple. Roll once and the roll must successful against both skills, with the successful Martial Arts rolll allow the Grapple to one level of success. Again, a special Grapple should do enough damage vs. unarmored heads while a crit is needed to get past the effects of a helm (i.e. a smooth hard surface that make the fancy move difficult to implement). David On 5/29/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > I reckon it would take some sort of special check, maybe STR vs STR > resistance. Think one would have to immobalise the limb first. > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > Tom Cantin > > Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? You > know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's some > extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's > not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/79d2bc3b/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue May 30 00:35:35 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:35:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605290735h682eed91lf7e497884f3d5478@mail.gmail.com> If your players like a bit more tactics in their combat, you could add an Attack skill vs Attack skill roll on the Resistance table to see if their opponent is good enough to not advertise his next move to the player. Combine this with the pre-Intent location role. But then this will definitely slow down combat. It _is_ fun though if the GM is running a single higher-level player adventure. It could also be used as a very low-level reward for a successful minor Heroquest or for someone with a weapon skill above 100. YMMV. David On 5/29/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > I like this idea > > >So I wonder if it might help things if we change the sequence of the dice > >rolls a bit. > >Here's my suggestion, then: If I want to target a location, roll the hit > >location BEFORE finishing the statement of intent. That way, if I'm up > >against someone with an unarmoured head, and I see from his stance that > his > >armoured left arm is exposed, I can state Parry and Dodge. Actually, > since > >I can in principle declare a variety of different attacks (slash, stab, > >punch, kick, headbutt, grapple, shield bash...), we could be perverse and > >roll a different location for each potential attack, and then decide what > >intent to declare. (Incidentally, it also could influence defensive > >tactics; if I realize my shielded left arm is exposed to the guy with the > >bastardsword on my left, while my unarmoured abdomen is vulnerable to the > >one on my right, I might choose to parry differently.) > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/60dd884c/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 29 19:43:43 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Rosalinda) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:43:43 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] prOblems with meds expencies, you Are On right way Message-ID: <41170800.20060529094343@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/44a4b2c1/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 29 15:44:10 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Robin) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:44:10 +0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***0nline pharmaceutics consultations Message-ID: <1688714.20060529094410@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/af9ad108/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue May 30 05:55:52 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Ofelia) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:55:52 -1000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Doctor recommendations Message-ID: <52182812.20060529095552@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/e72a5f35/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue May 30 05:18:12 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Janet) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:18:12 -0900 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Amazing and cheap Online pharm@cy.de Message-ID: <43184224.20060529101812@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/c22db8bc/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 29 17:42:09 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Margo) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:42:09 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Pe0ple first sales the sec0ndary Message-ID: <32033791.20060529104209@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/dafa009d/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 29 20:46:46 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Angelia) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:46:46 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Effective medicine cOuld be cheap! Message-ID: <53422342.20060529104646@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/11de94bc/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Mon May 29 09:08:23 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Frankie) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:08:23 +1200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Try Our pills. Interesting offers Message-ID: <31440408.20060529110823@crashbox.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/f039df8d/attachment.html From viktor.haag at gmail.com Tue May 30 05:12:26 2006 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (Viktor Haag) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 15:12:26 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] List being spam-bombed? Message-ID: <1786319f0605291212r14714cd9k2b7a61b98aaf1abd@mail.gmail.com> In the past day or so, the amount of spam leaking through on this list has increased dramatically; is the list admin dealing with this problem? Thanks, -- Viktor From tcantine at incentre.net Tue May 30 11:47:31 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:47:31 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605290735h682eed91lf7e497884f3d5478@mail.gmail.com> References: <71256687-E9BD-11DA-9D6C-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1c92296e0605290735h682eed91lf7e497884f3d5478@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4200E3F6-EF7E-11DA-AD62-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I've been thinking about it since I first posted it, and now have refined the proposal a bit. During statement of intent, a player may roll the hit locations on his or her target before deciding what attacks to make. This represents seeing openings and either exploiting them or passing them by. Only one opening is available at a time; the player must decide whether to exploit it or not before being able to roll the next one. One can roll an opening for every full 50 percentiles one has in a given available attack, plus one general opening for all available attacks under 50%. (An available attack is one a character could make without having to ready a weapon or move into range.) So, for example, Blorg has 2H Spear attack 75%, Fist attack 60%, and everything else is below 50%. He faces Thrak, who has a massive kite shield on his left arm and wears a stolen breastplate, but no other armour to speak of. At statement of intent, he contemplates stabbing with his spear, but the only opening he sees is to Thrak's left arm, protected by 16 points of kite shield. Blorg sees the futility of that attack, and decides to chance an opening for his Fist attack, which turns out to be even worse: Thrak's chest. A fist against 8 points of plate armour is just not worth it. He checks for his last, general opening, and gets Thrak's head. Hmm. Blorg decides to make a Grapple attack. (If it succeeds, perhaps we can interpret it as Blorg ducking aside, slippling behind Thrak and hooking the haft of his spear under Thrak's chin to choke him...) So Blorg chooses to Spear Parry and Grapple Attack at Thrak's head. Incidentally, this system makes me think that for weapons like swords, Slash and Thrust could be developed as separate skills, so one could generate different openings for each. On 29-May-06, at 8:35 AM, David Smart wrote: > If your players like a bit more tactics in their combat, you could add > an Attack skill vs Attack skill roll on the Resistance table to see if > their opponent is good enough to not advertise his next move to the > player. Combine this with the pre-Intent location role. > ? > But then this will definitely slow down combat. It?_is_ fun though if > the GM is running a single higher-level player adventure. It could > also be used as a very low-level reward for a successful minor > Heroquest or for someone with a weapon skill above 100. > ? > YMMV. > ? > David > > ? > On 5/29/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I like this idea > > >So I wonder if it might help things if we change the sequence of the > dice > >rolls a bit. > >Here's my suggestion, then: If I want to target a location, roll the > hit > >location BEFORE finishing the statement of intent. That way, if I'm up > >against someone with an unarmoured head, and I see from his stance > that his > >armoured left arm is exposed, I can state Parry and Dodge. Actually, > since > >I can in principle declare a variety of different attacks (slash, > stab, > >punch, kick, headbutt, grapple, shield bash...), we could be perverse > and > >roll a different location for each potential attack, and then decide > what > >intent to declare. (Incidentally, it also could influence defensive > >tactics; if I realize my shielded left arm is exposed to the guy with > the > >bastardsword on my left, while my unarmoured abdomen is vulnerable to > the > >one on my right, I might choose to parry differently.) > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3839 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060529/17f1e9b0/attachment.bin From gianni at basicrps.com Tue May 30 21:14:02 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:14:02 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP Message-ID: <20060530111420.7B98B7B982D@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all, > > There is a huge difference between them, though: DBRP is heading > > towards 800+ pages, whereas RQM should be around 150 pages. > > I suspect when Mongoose have finished publishing all the > companions, bestiaries, add-ons, GM books, etc they'll be about > the same! I guess you're right -- and I reckon that in the end DBRP will be cheaper than the whole collection of MRQ books ;-) Gianni From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 30 21:18:14 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:18:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP, This List?, Grapple rules In-Reply-To: <20060529103114.3F4607B0AE5@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060530111814.8269.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Zunder: > I think it'll be a sort of RQ2.5, which isn't a bad thing since RQ3 > was a little overengineered and dry. > > However DBRP will probably be just as legitimately the child of > RQ as MRQ, so not really second best. Well, looking at the playtest documents, it does seem to be the child of CoC rather than RQ, but that probably says more about my anti-CoC predjudices than anything else :-) One of the main problems with the DBRP approach is that they are definitiely trying to distance themselves from RQ in general and MRQ in particular, so the two streams may well diverge considerably. > I will buy both, I will try both, I may even use both. After all I ran > RQ and Stormbringer side by side for years. I'll buy both, but I'll probably not try both. In fact, unless they are very good, I might stick with RQ3-and-a-bit. > So. Which version of RQ will this list support when MRQ comes > out? Will we need to have a rule on preceding posts with [MRQ] > or [RQ3] or [RQ2] or do we split and have two lists? Well, at the moment it covers RQ2, RQ3, RQ4-ish and extensions and house rules, so I can't see a problem with it continuing to support those and MRQ. There might be a problem talking about magic, but I am sure we can come up with discussions about all the rules versions without any major issues. > Flame on! Surely, the first flames will be when saying how good/bad MRQ is compared with RQ2/3. Don't forget there are still a lot of people who, unfairly in my opinion, won't give RQ3 the time of day. Peter Maranci: > I don't know about the list (and come to think of it, I'd swear I put this > same question to the list quite some time ago). But although my RQ site will > probably support any system which is essentially compatible with RQ (which > leaves out HeroQuest), I *personally* am not planning to buy or support MRQ. That's a shame. It could mean that your site might fall behind as more and more new things come out, which wouldn't be a good thing. It might be worth supporting it, if only to bring out house rules that make it a better system. Not that I am pre-judging it, or anything. Tom Cantine: > Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? RQ-wise, I assume :-) > You know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's some > extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's > not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? Well, we played that if you held on to a location and rolled a successful grapple, then you could do 1D6+DB damage to that location. So, you'd sneak up behind them, Ninja-style, grab their neck with surprise (Grapple Roll, no need to aim as you have surprise) then, with your second combat action, make another Grapple roll and do damage. If you twist their head around, there is even an argument that the damage ignores armour, which is what we played as well, I think. So, Burly George has 18HP with 6HP in the head and is standing guarding a very important gate when a nasty PC comes along with Grapple 80%, 1D6 Damage Bonus and Ironhand 4. The PC grabs his neck, rolling 70%, then twists the neck, rolling 12% - a special - so he does 1D6 +1D6 + 1D6 (because of the special) + 4, rolling a total of 13, which ignores armour and takes the head down to -7 which is a palpable neck-breaking move. Of course, if you don't have surprise then you have to roll for location and probably roll STR vs STR to be able to twist things off ignoring armour. Then it gets a bit messier. Tony Den: > I reckon it would take some sort of special check, maybe STR vs STR > resistance. Think one would have to immobalise the limb first. Maybe a STR vs STR is better tan the second Grapple roll to do the damage. If you wanted to do a grab-and-break move then I would allow that as two combat actions. So, your combat actions could include: Grab-Immobilise Grab-Throw Grab-Break Grab-Block Once you've grabbed hold of the location, then you need a STR vs STR to immobilise it, sure, but you could also just break the arm/leg/neck/genitals instead. You shouldn't make it too static, though. If you are aiming for the movie-style combat then make it fast and dynamic - grab-twist rather than grap-immobilise-try to twist-twist. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/d9861cac/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 30 21:30:08 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:30:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: List being spam-bombed?/Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <20060530111834.A5FEE7B9998@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060530113008.62781.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Viktor: > In the past day or so, the amount of spam leaking through on this list > has increased dramatically; is the list admin dealing with this > problem? Well, they aren't getting through, except for the subject line, so admin must be working. As I get my mails in Digest form, it doesn't really impact at all, apart from being flagged as Junk Mail myself. They sounded intersting, though ..... From: Tom Cantine > During statement of intent, a player may roll the hit locations on his > or her target before deciding what attacks to make. This represents > seeing openings and either exploiting them or passing them by. Only one > opening is available at a time; the player must decide whether to > exploit it or not before being able to roll the next one. One can roll > an opening for every full 50 percentiles one has in a given available > attack, plus one general opening for all available attacks under 50%. > (An available attack is one a character could make without having to > ready a weapon or move into range.) Don't you like fast combats, then? I can see this slowing things down a huge amount. I already have problems trying to keep my players from: 1. Discussing every round of combat as though it is a major tactical event 2. Trying to squeeze every tactical advantage out of the combat 3. Asking each other questions such as "Should I cast Bladesharp, what do you think?" 4. Taking ages to work out their attack chances 5. Shaking the dice in their hands, pausing, shaking them again, pausing, saying something, shaking them again, pausing, asking if we say so-and-so on telly last night, pausing, shaking them again and GET ON WITH IT AND ROLL THE BLOODY DICE!!!!! See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/c21277bb/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 30 23:09:13 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:09:13 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605290729h4d298866ibd34b521169937b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ...while in reality, it's the other way around ;-) In order to injure somebody with a plate helmet, it's MUCH EASIER to do so with grappeling than with -say a sword. Actually if you consult the historical manuals that are available on the internet, you will see that when they cover fighting in armour; they allways resort to grappelingtechniques and never to "fencing-techniques". So if I were the judge of things; you would need a critical hit in order to injure somebody with a sword if the target had a full-cover helmet, and just a sucess in order to injure somebody using grappeling if the target had a full-cover helmet. >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules >Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:29:27 -0500 > >A special success with just Grapple would usually be successful vs. >unarmored targets, unless the damage roll is poor, with a critical success >being necessary vs. armored targets. > >You could also go with a combo of Martial Arts and Grapple. Roll once and >the roll must successful against both skills, with the successful Martial >Arts rolll allow the Grapple to one level of success. Again, a special >Grapple should do enough damage vs. unarmored heads while a crit is needed >to get past the effects of a helm (i.e. a smooth hard surface that make the >fancy move difficult to implement). > >David > > >On 5/29/06, Den, Tony T wrote: >> >>I reckon it would take some sort of special check, maybe STR vs STR >>resistance. Think one would have to immobalise the limb first. >>Tony >> >>-----Original Message----- >>Tom Cantin >> >>Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? You >>know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's some >>extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's >>not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 30 23:19:40 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:19:40 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <4200E3F6-EF7E-11DA-AD62-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is really no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). In stead, I've incorporated a consept from a longswordmanual from 1410, "giokko lago" and "giokko stretto" (roughly translated into english as "Close play" and "Long play". Long play is basically what you see in fantasymovies as "fencing", whereas Close play is "the art of grappeling, using a weapon". So in your example, the character with the 2h spear would have a CP% and a LP%, and if he got an opening on the left arm with the kite-shield, he could use his Spear-CP-skill, charging the opponent, banging the side of the kite-shield to flip it around, then grappeling the left arm, then imobilise/break it. (In my houserules armor doesn't count vs. grappeling, as a neck breaks equally easy wether it have a pot helmet on top or not. >From: Tom Cantine >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed >Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:47:31 -0600 > >I've been thinking about it since I first posted it, and now have refined >the proposal a bit. > >During statement of intent, a player may roll the hit locations on his or >her target before deciding what attacks to make. This represents seeing >openings and either exploiting them or passing them by. Only one opening is >available at a time; the player must decide whether to exploit it or not >before being able to roll the next one. One can roll an opening for every >full 50 percentiles one has in a given available attack, plus one general >opening for all available attacks under 50%. (An available attack is one a >character could make without having to ready a weapon or move into range.) > >So, for example, Blorg has 2H Spear attack 75%, Fist attack 60%, and >everything else is below 50%. He faces Thrak, who has a massive kite shield >on his left arm and wears a stolen breastplate, but no other armour to >speak of. At statement of intent, he contemplates stabbing with his spear, >but the only opening he sees is to Thrak's left arm, protected by 16 points >of kite shield. Blorg sees the futility of that attack, and decides to >chance an opening for his Fist attack, which turns out to be even worse: >Thrak's chest. A fist against 8 points of plate armour is just not worth >it. He checks for his last, general opening, and gets Thrak's head. Hmm. >Blorg decides to make a Grapple attack. (If it succeeds, perhaps we can >interpret it as Blorg ducking aside, slippling behind Thrak and hooking the >haft of his spear under Thrak's chin to choke him...) So Blorg chooses to >Spear Parry and Grapple Attack at Thrak's head. > > >Incidentally, this system makes me think that for weapons like swords, >Slash and Thrust could be developed as separate skills, so one could >generate different openings for each. > >On 29-May-06, at 8:35 AM, David Smart wrote: > >>If your players like a bit more tactics in their combat, you could add an >>Attack skill vs Attack skill roll on the Resistance table to see if their >>opponent is good enough to not advertise his next move to the player. >>Combine this with the pre-Intent location role. >> ? >>But then this will definitely slow down combat. It?_is_ fun though if the >>GM is running a single higher-level player adventure. It could also be >>used as a very low-level reward for a successful minor Heroquest or for >>someone with a weapon skill above 100. >> ? >>YMMV. >>? >>David >> >>? >>On 5/29/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: >>I like this idea >> >> >So I wonder if it might help things if we change the sequence of the >>dice >> >rolls a bit. >> >Here's my suggestion, then: If I want to target a location, roll the hit >> >location BEFORE finishing the statement of intent. That way, if I'm up >> >against someone with an unarmoured head, and I see from his stance that >>his >> >armoured left arm is exposed, I can state Parry and Dodge. Actually, >>since >> >I can in principle declare a variety of different attacks (slash, stab, >> >punch, kick, headbutt, grapple, shield bash...), we could be perverse >>and >> >roll a different location for each potential attack, and then decide >>what >> >intent to declare. (Incidentally, it also could influence defensive >> >tactics; if I realize my shielded left arm is exposed to the guy with >>the >> >bastardsword on my left, while my unarmoured abdomen is vulnerable to >>the >> >one on my right, I might choose to parry differently.) >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 30 23:21:57 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:21:57 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the light of our reacent melee-discussions, I recomend you to take a look at this website, which is an online version of the manual I've trained from the past 4 years: http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/fiore.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue May 30 23:39:03 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:39:03 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Neck Message-ID: <329C53D7-022E-472B-B4F6-1E99F2499166@zunder.org.uk> On 30 May 2006, at 12:18, Simon Phipp wrote: > Tom Cantine: > > > Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? > Hit them with HERO 5th Edition? From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed May 31 00:21:22 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:21:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grapple rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0605300721i6bfeecaawc6942a93d5242b2e@mail.gmail.com> What an incredible wealth of information! I love it when Reality(tm) ends up being counter-intuitive for me. *grin* This is a great website, Bjorn. Thank you for making me (and the rest of the list) aware of it. I admit to being more than a bit envious that you have access to such training. David On 5/30/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > In the light of our reacent melee-discussions, I recomend you to take a > look > at this website, which is an online version of the manual I've trained > from > the past 4 years: > http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/fiore.html > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/8d26b4fe/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed May 31 00:26:13 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:26:13 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Neck In-Reply-To: <329C53D7-022E-472B-B4F6-1E99F2499166@zunder.org.uk> References: <329C53D7-022E-472B-B4F6-1E99F2499166@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605300726y70c2402o8198d913d82cd25@mail.gmail.com> ROFLMAO. Be sure to strap all the books together to take out the target's horse too. David On 5/30/06, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > On 30 May 2006, at 12:18, Simon Phipp wrote: > > > > Tom Cantine: > > > > > Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? > > > > Hit them with HERO 5th Edition? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/3fcbca24/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed May 31 00:28:34 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:28:34 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: References: <4200E3F6-EF7E-11DA-AD62-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> Bjorn, Would you happen to have your house rules posted to the Internet? I'd love to see them in detail, if you don't mind sharing them. Of course, "no" is a valid answer. *grin* David On 5/30/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a > restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is > really > no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real > historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/05b88419/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed May 31 00:50:36 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:50:36 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Neck In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605300726y70c2402o8198d913d82cd25@mail.gmail.com> References: <329C53D7-022E-472B-B4F6-1E99F2499166@zunder.org.uk> <1c92296e0605300726y70c2402o8198d913d82cd25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 May 2006, at 15:26, David Smart wrote: > ROFLMAO. Be sure to strap all the books together to take out the > target's horse too. Horse? You could take out Cacodemon with that lot.. Shame I like the precept of HERO, but the size, the size, I could never take it out of the shop. From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 31 03:28:04 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII Shaman Message-ID: <57080.65.220.101.126.1149010084.squirrel@crashbox.com> Everyone, I've started running an RQIII campaign for people and have some questions about shamans. I've only played RQ:AiG shaman before, never RQ:III so this is a new process for me. -First off, has anyone played an RQIII shaman. (Fetch and all?) -Did you use the spirit random encounter table every day because you have shaman? -How did you hunt for spirits when discorporate? -Could the fetch be attacked independent of the shaman during normal combat? Thanks, -Andrew From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed May 31 03:50:28 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII Shaman Message-ID: <20060530175028.74456.qmail@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Oh boy, are you in for a world of hurting. A PC shaman in RQ III is either a gret laibility to the party or a very overbalancing. In either case the rules were not written very well, and most times it was assumed to be an NPC profession. Encounters - according to the rules, these are to happen every day. These should kill any new shaman fairly quickly if you play it as written. Otherwise your shaman will be very, VERY, strong very quickly, due to all the POW gain rolls he will be getting. Plus, since these combas are really quick, in game time, that is lasting less than a round the rest of the party will not be able to do anything to help the shaman. Lots of solo stuff = bad for campaign. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Everyone, > > I've started running an RQIII campaign for people and have some > questions about shamans. I've only played RQ:AiG shaman before, never > RQ:III so this is a new process for me. > > -First off, has anyone played an RQIII shaman. (Fetch and all?) > > -Did you use the spirit random encounter table every day because you have > shaman? > > -How did you hunt for spirits when discorporate? > > -Could the fetch be attacked independent of the shaman during normal combat? > > Thanks, > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 31 06:31:43 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII Fetch as a spirit trap Message-ID: <36522.65.220.101.126.1149021103.squirrel@crashbox.com> In RQ:AiG the fecth functions as a reusable spirit trap. I.e. a shaman can pull on the MP, spells, etc. Is that how the fetch works in RQIII too? Or is it just a temporary holding pen until a binding is created. From gianni at basicrps.com Wed May 31 06:56:36 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:56:36 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQM/DBRP, This List?, Grapple rules Message-ID: <20060530205637.C78C77BE558@mini.thinbits.net> ----- Original Message ----- > > Anyone have any ideas about how to handle breaking someone's neck? > > You know, like in the movies in a ferocious battle when someone grab's > some > > extra's head and twists, and the extra falls limp to the ground? That's > > not just "immobilize limb" on the head location, is it? He he... This could well be a "legendary ability" as per the MRQ rules >:-> Gianni From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed May 31 07:19:57 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:19:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4200E3F6-EF7E-11DA-AD62-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605301419i64bbb81dpb9bc1549f0b34017@mail.gmail.com> It's one of the things I liked about Harn's combat system - IIRC you declare your priority - attack, defense, or counterattack (essentially attack at all costs), x-ref your roll vs my roll, and voila, a result. I also REALLY liked that they didn't really have a fixed number of hp, but that damage essentially caused an accumulating chance of you collapsing from your injuries - so there was NEVER "ah, he can only do a d8, I have 9 hp, I'm safe" nonsense. But that's a tangent for another thread. On 5/30/06, David Smart wrote: > > On 5/30/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > > In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a > > restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is > > really > > no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real > > historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/9df53f32/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed May 31 07:26:35 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:26:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Latest details on MRQ In-Reply-To: References: <56e64e7a0605230843v54d917crc591e2b47ee1528e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0605301426w6c3724bflaa7687d6ebe00d7e@mail.gmail.com> I meant, in terms of discussing it publicly, from the Mongoose point of view. I don't see any actual tangible reason not to say "OK, to hit you compare Abiility X with Ability Y, and each roll d20s...etc." - the nitty gritty of the mechanics. Generally, when someone refuses to reveal the mechanics of a game - be it a board wargame, an RPG, or even a computer game - I get immediately suspicious that they don't trust their logic to the scrutiny of others. On 5/29/06, Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > >Hm, why NOT go into the mechanics of it? > That's up to individual gaminggroups to decide. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/28508cc5/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Wed May 31 10:25:21 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:25:21 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Aiming and attack speed In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0605301419i64bbb81dpb9bc1549f0b34017@mail.gmail.com> References: <4200E3F6-EF7E-11DA-AD62-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> <1c92296e0605300728j6abe64d9m5a426f91544e90c0@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0605301419i64bbb81dpb9bc1549f0b34017@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As a matter of fact, I'm using elements of Harn's wounding system in my campaign, but only for PC's. For most NPC foes, the basic RQ system suffices, since I don't need to deal with their healing all that much. It happens off-camera, if it happens at all. On 30-May-06, at 3:19 PM, Styopa wrote: > It's one of the things I liked about Harn's combat system - IIRC you > declare your priority - attack, defense, or counterattack (essentially > attack at all costs), x-ref your roll vs my roll, and voila, a result. > > I also REALLY liked that they didn't really have a fixed number of hp, > but that damage essentially caused an accumulating chance of you > collapsing from your injuries - so there was NEVER "ah, he can only do > a d8, I have 9 hp, I'm safe" nonsense.?? But that's a tangent for > another thread. > > On 5/30/06, David Smart wrote: > On 5/30/06, Bjorn Stolen < stolenbjorn at hotmail.com> wrote: > In my houserules, I have discarded A% and P% for weapons (as i use a > restistance roll to decide both active and passive activity (there is > really > no such thing as an attack and parry-skill, as many actions in real > historical weapon-melee were both active and passive at the same time). > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1489 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060530/a35d29ce/attachment.bin From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed May 31 19:29:52 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:29:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQIII Shaman In-Reply-To: <20060531003552.3D85C7C0042@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060531092952.41108.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Andrew Mellinger: > I've started running an RQIII campaign for people and have some > questions about shamans. I've only played RQ:AiG shaman before, never > RQ:III so this is a new process for me. I've never played RQ:AiG, so I'm not sure how their shamans differed from RQ3. First of all, the RQ3 rules for Shamans suck, big time. To be fair, the RQ2 rules for shamans also sucked, but in a different way. So, I use different rules. I have seen two or three different sets of rules for shamans on the web, so have a look for them and cherry pick the best parts, or suggest rules changes to your GM. > -First off, has anyone played an RQIII shaman. (Fetch and all?) Yes, but only for a short time, but I've GMd with shamans in the party. > -Did you use the spirit random encounter table every day because you have > shaman? I don't use the Spirit Plane Encounter Table at all, as it is far too generic and doesn't take into account regional variations. However, doesn't a shaman have a POW+Fetch's POW chance of an encounter? That means he doesn't get a guaranteed encounter every day, unless he is very powerful. What I tend to do is to assume that a shaman in his stronghold would not have meaningful spirit encounters every day. Outside his stronghold, then use the Encounter Tables but ignore most rolls. So, a shaman meeting a Power Spirit can choose to either bind or ignore it, if he ignores it then the Power Spirit cannot engage in Spirit Combat, if he tries to bind it then he should do a couple of rounds of Spirit Combat. In any case, depending on the POW of the spirit, there are several ways of doing this: 1. The shaman automatically binds it (no Spirit Combat, no POW gain roll, no risk, if the spirit is vastly inferior) 2. Roll POW vs POW to see if the Spirit can be bound, this is a fast way of avoiding loads of Spirit Combat, if the spirit succeeds then it breaks away, if the shaman succeeds then he binds the spirit, if the shaman fumbles then the spirit posseses him. 3. Go into Spirit Combat and take up 10 minutes on a meaningless encounter while the other players sit around and talk about what was on the telly last night. Also bear in mind that the Shaman will very quickly fill up his fetch if you use the standard RQ rules. A shaman with a fetch POW 20 can only store up to 20POW of spirits, so he could have POW 10, 6 and 4 spirits stored in his fetch. This isn't a lot at all. So, if a shaman meets a spirit then chances are he has to have a binding enchantment of some kind, or a POW crystal, to bind the spirit into, otherwise it is a meaningless encounter. I much prefer to ignore the daily encounters and only concentrate on the meaningful encounters, sendings from other shamans, spirits who have sought out the shaman, curses, scenario hooks and so on. In the same way, I don't roll random encounters for every 6 hours PCs are in Pavis training or living as I can't see the point. Downtime is downtime. > -How did you hunt for spirits when discorporate? According to the RQ3 rules, the shaman goes discorporate and his Fetch stays behind to guard his body. You roll on the Frontier Spirit Plane Encounter Table and can adjust the roll by your Fetch's POW to find a spirit. If it's the wrong kind of spirit, you hang around a bit and roll again until you either run out of MPs or find and bind the correct kind of spirit. If you want a particularly exotic or powerful spirit then you adjust the roll to go into the Outer of Innner Region of the Spirit Plane and roll on those Encounter Tables. In my scheme of things, the Fetch goes Discorporate and the Shaman stays behind drumming and dancing, as the Fetch is the Shaman's Spirit Self. The Fetch goes a-wandering and enters various areas of the Spirit Plane until it finds the correct area and looks for the correct spirit. Depending on the area, the player can roleplay getting the spirit or can roll on the Area-Specific Encounter Table and adjust it by his Fetch's POW as normal. So, Kolash Spiritfriend goes a-hunting on the Spirit Plane to find a Spirit of Law. He starts in Pavis and goes discorporate, his Fetch has 20 POW. He needs to cross over into the Pavic Spirit Plane, then go to the Praxian Spirit Plane, then go to the Tribal Camp, then to Waha's Teepee. Once in Waha's Teepee, he tries to convince the guardians to let him have a Spirit of Law and, if they give one to him, then he goes into spirit combat and binds it to his fetch and immediately returns to the normal plane. Of course, he could have met various spirits on the way, some hostile some friendly. > -Could the fetch be attacked independent of the shaman during normal combat? I would say no, not if the shaman was not discorporate. Of course, if the shaman is discorporate then the fetch could be attacked. Leon Kirshtein: > Oh boy, are you in for a world of hurting. A PC shaman > in RQ III is either a gret laibility to the party or a > very overbalancing. In either case the rules were not > written very well, and most times it was assumed to be > an NPC profession. Unfortunately, that is true, the bit about the rules, anyway. Actually, Shamans are not that unbalancing, if you give them loads of places to dump POW - into Binding Enchantments, Divine Spells from many Spirit Cults, Divine Spells from the main cult and so on. Shamans are no more a liability than Priests, in my opinion, expect for the fact that they attract spirits like moths to a flame. > Encounters - according to the rules, these are to > happen every day. Well, there's a chance of having an encounter that increases as the shaman gets stronger and more powerful. > These should kill any new shaman fairly quickly if you > play it as written. Otherwise your shaman will be > very, VERY, strong very quickly, due to all the POW > gain rolls he will be getting. If every encounter results in spirit combat then yes. But you roll on a reaction table to see if the spirit is hostile, in which case it attacks, otherwise it doesn't. But it is very dull. > Plus, since these combas are really quick, in game > time, that is lasting less than a round the rest of > the party will not be able to do anything to help the > shaman. Lots of solo stuff = bad for campaign. Agreed. It's best to avoid it wherever possible. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060531/49ba9b47/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Wed May 31 21:37:56 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:37:56 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spam on the list Message-ID: <3B8280F5-FE30-48C9-8A3D-106F9D8C9251@crashbox.com> Everyone, I'm looking into the spam problem. The hard part is that the spammers are using my address as the return address so the list allows it through. They're getting pretty clever those spammers. -Andrew