From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 23:00:52 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Testing... Message-ID: A quick test to see if the list is still working. And just to include something RQ-related: I believe I mentioned a while ago that my RQ site was probably going to go dark for a few days or weeks while I moved it away from my terrible old host/registrar. The transfer is complete (I think I criticalled my Fast Talk roll), so if anyone has a problem seeing the site, please email me and let me know. ->Peter -- 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/20070403/7a4dec22/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 11:11:31 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:11:31 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [Fwd: Valley of Death] In-Reply-To: <6275.196.8.104.37.1175067009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <6275.196.8.104.37.1175067009.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <461D8743.6040708@gmail.com> Wow! a long delay on receiving this. 1) for the legionnaires roll per 10 men, so that will give you 10 rolls instead of a hundred. Then for the last roll roll a 10's die again & that is the number of characters effected in the last roll. For example for 100 men, that's 10 rolls & say 4 are failures. Roll a 10's die & you get a 7 so 3 failed dies at a full 10 value = 30 plus the 7 for the last one = 37 soldiers effected. I've also done it with d20 & even d100 for larger groups. 2) I would combine both effects in this manner. ---a) a POW roll where success = you just see them (Obviously the more magically connected you are the more likely you can perceive Spirits) & failure means you roll a INT save. Fail the Int save & then you not only see them but you also join in with the fighting until you make an INT save at the end of rounds. If you take a perceived wound in your madness, it manifests physically. ---b) A Spirit/Ghost must "possess" a character to force it to do it's bidding. "Possession" is accomplished by the Spirit defeating the character in Spirit combat and reducing his POW to "0" or less. If a character or Legionnaire is "possessed" there is no saving throw. He stays that way until the ghost is driven out by a Shaman who has defeated the spirit in spirit combat, or if the character is killed physically, or if the geas is accomplished & the ghost decides to release the character & head to the afterlife. Any questions? skal, Sven postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Trying this post again as it did not arrive first time. > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Valley of Death > From: postmaster at runequest.za.org > Date: Tue, March 27, 2007 10:49 am > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I am currently running a campaign where the three characters are in charge > of roughly a century of men, campaigning in a bit of a civil war. The > characters are alternatly the centurion, his optio and the main scout. So > my next session I am planning, I was thinking of guiding them through a > haunted valley - where the remains of an ancient battle and teh spirits > around cause it to be shunned. (The century is mostly of foreign stock, > and even the so called locals who have joined have moved beyone the bounds > of once familiar countryside). > > The valley will be pretty much strew with ancient bones, bits of bronze > weaponry, maybe it will be very dry and ssome of the courpses mummified. > Initially I was going to make it the haunt of gouls, but I am now thinking > more of a haunting. Maybe there was some big betrayal or simething and the > ghosts will press the characters into avenging them (on the decendants of > the victors). Still have to decide on the details, but to my main point: > > My rules are at a friends house, and I can't remember. Would a ghost have > to enter spirit combat to force some sort of geas on a character. > Alternatly I was thinking of the place being so desolate and dreadful that > the characters just roll against POW and if they fail, they see the dead > as if they were alive and still batteling. Maybe have them lose POW points > or worse case scenario they think the battle is real and join in, maybe > get stuck there/kill comerades, become part of the curse. > > Any thoughts of how I should handle this, for the characters as well as > for their legionairres (I do not want to roll for 100+ men) > Cheers > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Apr 12 12:35:30 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:35:30 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh In-Reply-To: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: I can't help you with ghost rules, because I haven't thought about it that much an only know the rules for the one gaming system i play in RQ3w/house. However, as far as you dealing with 100 men and thier rolls, I can. The great thing about the world we live in today is computers. In my opinion, anything dealing with data and tedium should be done on a computer. If i were to approach your problem i'd write a few excel macros and put Bill to work. If you wanted to develop them enough and had a laptop you could do it in real time during the game or if it doesn't matter to you, you could just run it for two or three different scenarios that would cover almost anything you needed and have it all predetermined. If you don't know how to write excel macros, I would be willing to write 1 or 2 simple ones for you and post the code to the site. All I would need to know is what you would want to happen and the initial data...like the dudes' stats. Fred >From: postmaster at runequest.za.org >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:49:40 +0200 (SAST) > >I am currently running a campaign where the three characters are in charge >of roughly a century of men, campaigning in a bit of a civil war. The >characters are alternatly the centurion, his optio and the main scout. So >my next session I am planning, I was thinking of guiding them through a >haunted valley - where the remains of an ancient battle and teh spirits >around cause it to be shunned. (The century is mostly of foreign stock, >and even the so called locals who have joined have moved beyone the bounds >of once familiar countryside). > >The valley will be pretty much strew with ancient bones, bits of bronze >weaponry, maybe it will be very dry and ssome of the courpses mummified. >Initially I was going to make it the haunt of gouls, but I am now thinking >more of a haunting. Maybe there was some big betrayal or simething and the >ghosts will press the characters into avenging them (on the decendants of >the victors). Still have to decide on the details, but to my main point: > >My rules are at a friends house, and I can't remember. Would a ghost have >to enter spirit combat to force some sort of geas on a character. >Alternatly I was thinking of the place being so desolate and dreadful that >the characters just roll against POW and if they fail, they see the dead >as if they were alive and still batteling. Maybe have them lose POW points >or worse case scenario they think the battle is real and join in, maybe >get stuck there/kill comerades, become part of the curse. > >Any thoughts of how I should handle this, for the characters as well as >for their legionairres (I do not want to roll for 100+ men) >Cheers >Tony >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07 From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Apr 12 13:07:02 2007 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:07:02 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh Message-ID: <041220070307.14188.461DA2560006F1E20000376C2200761438CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > My rules are at a friends house, and I can't remember. Would a ghost have > to enter spirit combat to force some sort of geas on a character. > Alternatly I was thinking of the place being so desolate and dreadful that > the characters just roll against POW and if they fail, they see the dead > as if they were alive and still batteling. Maybe have them lose POW points > or worse case scenario they think the battle is real and join in, maybe > get stuck there/kill comerades, become part of the curse. As I recall, the ghost attack in standard spirit combat. If the ghost wins, the they possesses the character and is in complete control. So, if you want a geas implanted, that should be just fine. After all, that is better than the ghost making the PC jump in a bonfire. Jim From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 13:38:26 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:38:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh In-Reply-To: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <1c92296e0704112038i3dd59912j6caaef21c8dfeb63@mail.gmail.com> Unless each of the 100 really needs to be unique, you could just use a generic character template for most of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070411/d98acef9/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Apr 12 17:48:38 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:48:38 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh In-Reply-To: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <000c01c77cd6$fb86f5c0$0201a8c0@laptop2> I am currently running a campaign where the three characters are in charge of roughly a century of men... Any thoughts of how I should handle this, for the characters as well as for their legionairres (I do not want to roll for 100+ men) ****************** I wouldn't roll at all. You are the GM, telling a story here. Figure out what you want to happen with the NPC legionairres and make it so. Some of them flee, go mad, don't see the ghosts at all, whatever. -- Joe From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Apr 12 18:57:01 2007 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:57:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Valley of Deatrh In-Reply-To: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <37698.196.8.104.37.1174985380.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <62187.194.60.38.10.1176368221.V1wUQ21ZSUx/QB0W.squirrel@194.60.38.10> Sounds like a good story. My question would be, what would you do if there was a battle between your century and another army? Would you do all of the rolling for the background characters? Personally I would be inclined to make the outcomes of battles of large numbers of men dependent upon the actions of the main characters. Thus good battle rolls by the centurion and optio mean that their men would be prevailing, countering the enemy and inflicting casualties. That puts the spotlight and focus on the main PCs. Always a good thing. In this particular circumstance I would not feel obliged to follow the letter of the rules either. For the narrative of the story I might have the century ambushed by the ghost army - it would be up to you whether you provided any clues as to their real nature or whether it appeared up front to be a normal military skirmish. The difference would be that the enemies keep coming - killing them does not seem to make any difference and the men of the century are falling left right and centre. The physical battle would however only be a representation of the spiritual conflict and at some point the century will be defeated and possessed by the ghost army. The PCs might become aware of the ghostly nature of their opponents and find themselves the only un-possessed people left - at which point the ghost general would speak to them and try to convince them to lead the possessed to avenge them. It means that the PCs are not necessarily possessed themselves but that they may see no other option than to lead their century to do the ghosts bidding just to get their men back... Stephen From sunwolfek12 at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 13 03:51:44 2007 From: sunwolfek12 at sbcglobal.net (andrep) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:51:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Haunted Valley ideas continued Message-ID: A lurker here: I get my mail archived, so you may have long ago resolved your strategy concerning the Haunted Valley scenario--nice idea, btw :-). I would be very concerned about who sees the ghosts and would bend my efforts to resolving that as (I use the RQ III rules set) spirit combat is engaged only if one or both participants are "discorporate", but more importantly, the attacking spirit must, "make itself visible on the mundane plane at least one full melee round before attacking" (Perrin 92). I like Sven's suggestions too, but would tweak "---a)" a bit to fit my milieu where I try to keep dice rolling at a minimum in an effort to pursue role-play: Depending upon how you have construed the ghosts' goals, they may want/need to be seen, so they can entice players to join in their eternal battle so as to possess and use them for their own ends. I wouldn't actually roll to see if my players "saw" them. It would be a given based on the ghosts' need to go corporal so as to eventually engage in spirit combat. I would reserve the POW vs. POW roll for said combat. Or (cue the diabolical chuckle) if the question of possession is based on actually and literally engaging in the battle, rather than an INT roll save, or even an POW vs. POW, I'd substitute an actual melee scenario: defeat for the dead equals no possession; defeat for the player, on the other hand... It could all take place in their minds or even, with a little further tweaking, in their dreams. Thinking on it further, I might require what I call an exploded INT roll for those, possessed or not, who engaged the ghost warrior(s) in an effort to avoid madness or even post-traumatic stress syndrome...I.E. "...save below your INT X3 or go mad!" (see 119 for Madness Effect Table). On a further note ghosts are usually tied to an area and do not leave it. This might lead me to choose a different type of specter...a slightly modified Passion Spirit ('Obsession' in my game) for example. A ghost can have magic spells, however, and though RQ III doesn't have an appropriate spell for such (do I dare suggest?) a careful and thoughtful modification of the DnD spell 'Geas/Quest' or 'Lesser Geas/Quest' might be appropriate. Slainte, Andre' Perrin, Steve, et al. Rune Quest Deluxe Edition. Baltimore: The Avalon Hill Game Company, 1993. A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools. --Thucydides, Greek Historian 471 BC - 400 BC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070412/eb1707f5/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Apr 13 16:05:17 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:05:17 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Haunted Valley ideas continued In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40050.196.8.104.37.1176444317.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Than ks for all the advise and comments. Unfortunatly the list was more or less down so I ended up running the session before I received teh advice. Still, interesting it is that many of the ideas followed along the lines of what I tried. Tony > A lurker here: > > I get my mail archived, so you may have long ago resolved your strategy > concerning the Haunted Valley scenario--nice idea, btw :-). > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 15 06:14:02 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:14:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] City of Carse supplement Message-ID: <000601c77ed1$7445bae0$6e252ad9@sickboy> Somewhat off topic, but does anybody have a copy of the old Chaosium product City of Carse ? I ask because I bought a second hand copy over the net, and, alas the centre map is missing. Now the people I bought it from have offered me a full refund without hesitation, but I'd rather keep what I've got and try and track down a copy of the map ( they've offered me a 50% refund if I decide to do this ). If someone does have copy and could find it in their heart to consider doing a photocopy for me, then please drop me a mail and we'll talk postage costs etc etc grovel, grovel Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070414/679df637/attachment.html From anders at california.com Mon Apr 16 02:28:09 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:28:09 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] City of Carse supplement In-Reply-To: <000601c77ed1$7445bae0$6e252ad9@sickboy> References: <000601c77ed1$7445bae0$6e252ad9@sickboy> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:14:02 +0100 "Clive Wickens" wrote: > Somewhat off topic, but does anybody have a copy of the old Chaosium > product City of Carse ? I ask because I bought a second hand copy over the > net, and, alas the centre map is missing. Now the people I bought it from > have offered me a full refund without hesitation, but I'd rather keep what > I've got and try and track down a copy of the map ( they've offered me a > 50% refund if I decide to do this ). If someone does have copy and could > find it in their heart to consider doing a photocopy for me, then please > drop me a mail and we'll talk postage costs etc etc > > grovel, grovel > > Clive I LOVE Carse! I worked a little with Chaosium on some of the old Medkemia material. I can't gurantee anything, but I'll look arfound the house and see if I can find my old copy. Now in case I find a different edition, is it the city overall map you need? --Anders From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 16 04:01:45 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:01:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] City of Carse supplement Message-ID: <000201c77f88$43b4f140$6d3e9656@sickboy> Anders, Thanks for replying, yes it's just the overall city map I need, everything else is there. I managed to pick up a copy of Tulan of the Isles a while back another nice generic chaosium product ! I'm hoping to track down the rest of the Midkemia press/Chaosium stuff as time goes by. Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070415/0c12d331/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Apr 28 10:08:12 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/Glorantha licensing Message-ID: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Please correct me if I'm wrong. 1. Issaries has the license to produce all things Glorantha. 2. Issaries has granted to Mongoose the rights to publish Glorantha 2nd Age material. 3. Mongoose has published an edition RuneQuest which is OGL. 4. However, the license from 1/2 does not transfer to 3. 5. Therefore any OGL RuneQuest publications from third parties can't be about Glorantha's 2nd Age or any other era. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From allan.hird at gmail.com Sat Apr 28 11:23:43 2007 From: allan.hird at gmail.com (Allan Hird) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:23:43 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/Glorantha licensing In-Reply-To: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'd be surprised if it were otherwise. Does WoTC let anyone else make supplements for their game worlds like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk? They probably would want some creative control or influence. Who would stand for that on either end of the deal? On 4/27/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > 1. Issaries has the license to produce all things > Glorantha. > > 2. Issaries has granted to Mongoose the rights to > publish Glorantha 2nd Age material. > > 3. Mongoose has published an edition RuneQuest which > is OGL. > > 4. However, the license from 1/2 does not transfer to > 3. > > 5. Therefore any OGL RuneQuest publications from third > parties can't be about Glorantha's 2nd Age or any > other era. > > __________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Certainty Murders Possibility ~ Shinsei Power over others is Weakness disguised as Strength ~ Eckhart Tolle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070427/5231005d/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sat Apr 28 19:34:24 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:34:24 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/Glorantha licensing In-Reply-To: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46331520.50700@brinkdata.se> Lev Lafayette skrev: > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > 4. However, the license from 1/2 does not transfer to > 3. Correct. > 5. Therefore any OGL RuneQuest publications from third > parties can't be about Glorantha's 2nd Age or any > other era. > Correct. Such parties would need a special license from Issaries. From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Apr 28 23:13:11 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:13:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQ/Glorantha licensing In-Reply-To: <679775.12574.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070428131311.9921.qmail@web28007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Lev Lafayette skrev: Please correct me if I'm wrong. 1. Issaries has the license to produce all things Glorantha. 2. Issaries has granted to Mongoose the rights to publish Glorantha 2nd Age material. 3. Mongoose has published an edition RuneQuest which is OGL. 4. However, the license from 1/2 does not transfer to 3. 5. Therefore any OGL RuneQuest publications from third parties can't be about Glorantha's 2nd Age or any other era. That's correct. You can however produce non-commercial fan publications for the 2nd Age as long as you keep within the Issaire's Fan Policy. You could write some gloranthan 2nd Age stuff, put the RuneQuest logo on top and then exchange all gloranthan names with "generic" names. GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070428/84d92756/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Sun Apr 29 02:56:18 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:56:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: <46331520.50700@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Hey Yall, after losing my copy of 3rd edition, I decided to get the new one (4th edition?). I have read a few reviews regarding it before purchasing it, and I understand it is NOT as Runequest as the previious editions, but playable none-the less. My books come today or Monday... I order the core book, Monster book, DM screen, Companion, and the two cult books. I plan on doing the campaign in Hyboria, since I have all the supplements for Conan RPG... I will not publish it, as I am not wanting to deal with licensing. QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking anything from previous editions? Does the Monster book cover other playable races for the game? This seems to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be used, and what is the detail gone into making them as PC's... Thanks John _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From shaw at caprica.com Sun Apr 29 03:40:14 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:40:14 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: References: <46331520.50700@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070428103754.033b2260@caprica.com> >QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking anything from >previous editions? I can't speak for the final product, but I found parts of the combat system very lackluster when I was involved in the playtest. Unfortunately, its been long enough now that the details have faded. I have gotten the impression that RQ grognards tended to not find the final result all that edifying, but newbies or fans of non-RQ BRP weren't as put off (and of course, not all grognards were either). Take that as you will. From pmaranci at gmail.com Sun Apr 29 04:21:43 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:21:43 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: References: <46331520.50700@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Personally, I'm boycotting Mongoose RQ and Glorantha products. But that's me. Having said that, I will point out that Chaosium is still selling the RuneQuest III Players, Gamemaster, Magic, and Creatures books. They're word-for-word copies of the Avalon Hill originals with the two alterations: 1) all Glorantha references have been removed, and 2) the word "RuneQuest" has been replaced with "Basic RolePlaying" throughout. I assume that this is because Issaries/Stafford managed to get the trademark to the RuneQuest name (although NOT the RuneQuest system - they "acquired" that by making a poor copy "using other words"). The books are being published as "monograph" editions. You can find them on the Chaosium website. It's also worth noting that Chaosium is going to be publishing a multi-genre system under the name "Chaosium's Basic RolePlaying System" (possibly also going by the name "d100", I'm not sure). It consists of the best rules taken from many iterations of the Basic RolePlaying system. A modular rules system allows the duplication of virtually any previous BRP-derived game - and yes, that includes RuneQuest III. I was a playtester for both Mongoose RQ and the Chaosium d100/BRP, and in my opinion d100 blows the doors off of the Mongoose system. I just hope Chaosium comes out with it soon, and manages to sustain and support it. ->Peter On 4/28/07, John Pare' wrote: > > Hey Yall, after losing my copy of 3rd edition, I decided to get the new > one > (4th edition?). > > I have read a few reviews regarding it before purchasing it, and I > understand it is NOT as Runequest as the previious editions, but playable > none-the less. > > My books come today or Monday... > > I order the core book, Monster book, DM screen, Companion, and the two > cult > books. I plan on doing the campaign in Hyboria, since I have all the > supplements for Conan RPG... I will not publish it, as I am not wanting > to > deal with licensing. > > QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking anything from previous > editions? > > Does the Monster book cover other playable races for the game? This seems > to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be used, and what is the > detail > gone into making them as PC's... > > Thanks > > John > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office > Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070428/78535ab3/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sun Apr 29 04:33:36 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:33:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: References: <46331520.50700@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070428113222.033ee670@caprica.com> >I was a playtester for both Mongoose RQ and the Chaosium d100/BRP, >and in my opinion d100 blows the doors off of the Mongoose system. I >just hope Chaosium comes out with it soon, and manages to sustain >and support it. I have to admit that the longer I was in the MRQ playtest, the less it interested me and the more the ABRP/D100 project did. Even though I'm hacking together my own version of an RQ3/RQAIG hybrid for my personal use at the moment. From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Apr 29 04:54:00 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: New Runequest Question Message-ID: <90216.62859.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> John Pare: > Hey Yall, after losing my copy of 3rd edition, I decided to get the new one > (4th edition?). Probably 5th, to separate it from RQ4 which never made it into print. > I have read a few reviews regarding it before purchasing it, and I > understand it is NOT as Runequest as the previious editions, but playable > none-the less. It's just as RuneQuest as earlier additions but has been changed considerably. > I order the core book, Monster book, DM screen, Companion, and the two cult > books. I plan on doing the campaign in Hyboria, since I have all the > supplements for Conan RPG... I will not publish it, as I am not wanting to > deal with licensing. You probably need Lhankmar and Newhon as well, then, as they describe things for RQ. It's probably worthwhile downloading all the SRDs as well, especially the Companion. Look at the Mongoose Site, go to Downloads and choose RQ. > QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking anything from previous > editions? It's a bit different. Basically, you roll percentiles to hit, then percentiles to dodge/parry, then work out the result. SRs are completely different, armour is a bit different, damage is less, there are no Total Hits, Encumbrance works differently and magic has changed. But apart from those and a few more things, it's pretty much the same :-) > Does the Monster book cover other playable races for the game? This seems > to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be used, and what is the detail > gone into making them as PC's... Just about all the standard RQ monsters are covered. They are lacking in background and detail, but this is just a Monsters Book not a detailed sourcebook. There are rules for playing certain species as PCs, with a list of proffesions available for 22 creatures. Other than that, character generation follows the standard rules. You have to play according to the stats of the creatures, though, so instead of rolling 4D6 for a Great Troll's STR you roll 5D6+12 and take the best 4 and so on.You have to intrepret the skills as well, as some human skills make sense and some don't when used for non-humans. But, yes, it is generally playable and easy to use. Peter Maranci: > Personally, I'm boycotting Mongoose RQ and Glorantha products. But that's > me. > It's also worth noting that Chaosium is going to be publishing a multi-genre > system under the name "Chaosium's Basic RolePlaying System" (possibly also > going by the name "d100", I'm not sure). It consists of the best rules taken > from many iterations of the Basic RolePlaying system. A modular rules system > allows the duplication of virtually any previous BRP-derived game - and > yes, that includes RuneQuest III. It looks good, but when is it going to come out? > I was a playtester for both Mongoose RQ and the Chaosium d100/BRP, and in my > opinion d100 blows the doors off of the Mongoose system. I just hope > Chaosium comes out with it soon, and manages to sustain and support it. Mongoose has produced 9 RQ books so far and has a lot more in the pipeline. Personally, I couldn't justify advising someone to wait for a system that might come out, sometime, rather than one that has been well supported so far. I'd like to see both systems supported, together with systems such as GORE, using the Open Licence. That way, we'll be able to mix and match, taking bits from each system and having a grand old time. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070428/b1180aa4/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Apr 29 05:35:49 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:35:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <378763.92715.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> >QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking anything from previous editions? Yes, very much so. And I at least I find them lacking, specially in realism. >Does the Monster book cover other playable races for the game? This seems to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be used, and what is the detail gone into making them as PC's... The monster book contains stats for elves, trolls and dwaves, but no rules for generating characters from them. GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070428/8611ad04/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Apr 29 05:40:42 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:40:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <551053.15823.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Another possiblity is to get a copy of the RQ4 - Adventures in Glorantha playtest copy. You might be able to get some directions on a pm to where on the net it can be found if you post the question in gbc's glorantha forum... GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070428/c06c32d2/attachment.html From rjmeints at aol.com Sun Apr 29 07:33:09 2007 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest License In-Reply-To: <20070428182157.81F821802221@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070428182157.81F821802221@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <8C957F3F35AC98B-1024-DA21@WEBMAIL-RD03.sysops.aol.com> Lev, Here are the important facts of the licensing agreements that Issaries has with Mongoose: Mongoose has an exclusive license to the Runequest trademark. They have a non-exclusive license to use the Glorantha trademark. Issaries cannot grant you a license to use the Runequest trademark for anything, fan publications, etc. until the agreement with Mongoose terminates. Issaries can license someone to write a Gloranthan publication. Issaries cannot license someone to write a Runequest Gloranthan publication without Mongoose's permission, which Mongoose will not currently give. Mongoose will allow people to use the Runequest Trademark via their OGL terms and such on their website. Several publishers have already taken advantage of this and published Runequest supplements and game worlds using the Runequest rules. Mongoose will NOT license other people to write Runequest Gloranthan material. No exceptions. They specifically state this in their Runequest license terms on their website. Regards, Rick Meints ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070428/bad51e17/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 29 10:02:36 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <434718.47530.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John Pare' wrote: > Hey Yall, after losing my copy of 3rd edition, I > decided to get the new one > (4th edition?). > > I have read a few reviews regarding it before > purchasing it, and I > understand it is NOT as Runequest as the previious > editions, but playable > none-the less. > > My books come today or Monday... > > I order the core book, Monster book, DM screen, > Companion, and the two cult > books. I plan on doing the campaign in Hyboria, > since I have all the > supplements for Conan RPG... I will not publish it, > as I am not wanting to > deal with licensing. > > QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking > anything from previous > editions? > Combat is different. You will find that you have actions/reactions, which I quite like, and hit points per location but no general hit points, which is also fine by me. Stuff I don't like: you roll for initiative every round. Bleh. The parry/dodge tables are totally broken. Don't use them. Many of the modifiers are broken; if you lose a leg you're a a mere -10% to dodge, but if both your arms are useless you're at -30%. A charge does a +1d4 bonus regardless of whether you're a duck or the Crimson Bat. > Does the Monster book cover other playable races for > the game? This seems > to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be > used, and what is the detail > gone into making them as PC's... There are stats, but no rules for generation, iirc. There's big changes in magic as well, but they're not the sort of thing which makes many people happy - even if the core concept wasn't so bad. HTH HAND, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 29 19:36:04 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:36:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO: Sverre Message-ID: <000201c78a42$04b67710$41698456@sickboy> Sverre, Tried to send you a link for the Greenback Clan link list via your mail address on the GBC website, but it kept saying the address was not recognised, so here it is: http://www.obsidiancity.org.uk/ RQ2 in format, lots of interesting cults, magic, monsters etc. Also have you considered adding BRP links to the list ? The system is after all closely related to RQ and there are several good sites out there that desrve to be more widely known. Ta, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070429/cc23434e/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 30 02:14:10 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question In-Reply-To: <434718.47530.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks. I guess every new edtion or re-make has somethings that people just do not like, this is not an exception to the rule. As I said before, i lost my 3rd edition, and I had to make up for it. I am sure it is quite playable as it is, but in time, I will find my own rules to adapt to it. What I really miss the most is NOT having the combat rules accessible to me. >From 3rd edition. I hate to buy even more and more books. John >From: Lev Lafayette >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] New Runequest Question >Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:02:36 -0700 (PDT) > > >--- John Pare' wrote: > > > Hey Yall, after losing my copy of 3rd edition, I > > decided to get the new one > > (4th edition?). > > > > I have read a few reviews regarding it before > > purchasing it, and I > > understand it is NOT as Runequest as the previious > > editions, but playable > > none-the less. > > > > My books come today or Monday... > > > > I order the core book, Monster book, DM screen, > > Companion, and the two cult > > books. I plan on doing the campaign in Hyboria, > > since I have all the > > supplements for Conan RPG... I will not publish it, > > as I am not wanting to > > deal with licensing. > > > > QUESTIONS: Is the combat different? is it lacking > > anything from previous > > editions? > > > >Combat is different. You will find that you have >actions/reactions, which I quite like, and hit points >per location but no general hit points, which is also >fine by me. > >Stuff I don't like: you roll for initiative every >round. Bleh. > >The parry/dodge tables are totally broken. Don't use >them. > >Many of the modifiers are broken; if you lose a leg >you're a a mere -10% to dodge, but if both your arms >are useless you're at -30%. A charge does a +1d4 bonus >regardless of whether you're a duck or the Crimson >Bat. > > > Does the Monster book cover other playable races for > > the game? This seems > > to be lacking in some reviews. How many can be > > used, and what is the detail > > gone into making them as PC's... > >There are stats, but no rules for generation, iirc. > >There's big changes in magic as well, but they're not >the sort of thing which makes many people happy - even >if the core concept wasn't so bad. > >HTH HAND, > > >Lev > > >__________________________________________________ >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 _________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 30 09:02:34 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest License In-Reply-To: <8C957F3F35AC98B-1024-DA21@WEBMAIL-RD03.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <408620.79517.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for all these responses people. I suspected as such - which all-in-all means that there won't be any more RQ products for Third Age Glorantha. Oh well, just as well there's a small mountain of fan material, verdade? All the best, Lev --- rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > Lev, > > Here are the important facts of the licensing > agreements that Issaries > has with Mongoose: > > Mongoose has an exclusive license to the Runequest > trademark. > They have a non-exclusive license to use the > Glorantha trademark. > Issaries cannot grant you a license to use the > Runequest trademark > for anything, fan publications, etc. until the > agreement with Mongoose > terminates. Issaries can license someone to write a > Gloranthan publication. > Issaries cannot license someone to write a Runequest > Gloranthan publication > without Mongoose's permission, which Mongoose will > not currently give. > > Mongoose will allow people to use the Runequest > Trademark via their > OGL terms and such on their website. Several > publishers have already > taken advantage of this and published Runequest > supplements and > game worlds using the Runequest rules. Mongoose will > NOT license other > people to write Runequest Gloranthan material. No > exceptions. > They specifically state this in their Runequest > license terms on their website. > > Regards, > Rick Meints > ________________________________________________________________________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out > more about what's free from AOL at AOL.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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 30 15:38:47 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow Message-ID: <843448.8757.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's available here: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at the same time, although that is a little like shooting fish in the proverbial... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Mon Apr 30 20:32:55 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:32:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow In-Reply-To: <843448.8757.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <843448.8757.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1177929175.568f0c2ad3bb0@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I think it's on topic. To be honest, I never hold Snake Pipe Hollow in great esteem - perhaps when it was first produced it was a good product, but times moved on and the reprintings of Snake Pipe didn't. It still remained a huge dungeon bash which, whilst relatively fun, didn't blow my mind. Still, I can imagine a really fantastic campaign set in and around Snake Pipe, perhaps expanding upon the scant location descriptions that each edition just tantalised us with. IMO, Nikk > > OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I > recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's > available here: > > http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml > > I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at the > same time, although that is a little like shooting > fish in the proverbial... > > __________________________________________________ > 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 lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 30 20:37:28 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow In-Reply-To: <1177929175.568f0c2ad3bb0@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <962602.282.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I must admit it was precisely this which inspired by questions about Mongoose/RQ licensing. I would really love to do an "Snake Pipe Hollow Expanded" setting and campaign pack. Maybe I'll have to do it for (sotto voce) HeroQuest... --- Nikk Effingham wrote: > I think it's on topic. To be honest, I never hold > Snake Pipe Hollow in great > esteem - perhaps when it was first produced it was a > good product, but times > moved on and the reprintings of Snake Pipe didn't. > It still remained a huge > dungeon bash which, whilst relatively fun, didn't > blow my mind. Still, I can > imagine a really fantastic campaign set in and > around Snake Pipe, perhaps > expanding upon the scant location descriptions that > each edition just > tantalised us with. > > IMO, > > Nikk > > > > > OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I > > recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's > > available here: > > > > http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml > > > > I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at > the > > same time, although that is a little like shooting > > fish in the proverbial... > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 22:18:03 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:18:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow In-Reply-To: <962602.282.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1177929175.568f0c2ad3bb0@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> <962602.282.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No, Lev, no! If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Seriously, why not pull a Mongoose? Create your own version of Snake Pipe Hollow using other words, and use RQIII (or *cough*, CBRP/d100) for the system. You could call it "Reptile Flute Basin"! :D ->Peter On 4/30/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > I must admit it was precisely this which inspired by > questions about Mongoose/RQ licensing. > > I would really love to do an "Snake Pipe Hollow > Expanded" setting and campaign pack. > > Maybe I'll have to do it for (sotto voce) HeroQuest... > > --- Nikk Effingham wrote: > > > I think it's on topic. To be honest, I never hold > > Snake Pipe Hollow in great > > esteem - perhaps when it was first produced it was a > > good product, but times > > moved on and the reprintings of Snake Pipe didn't. > > It still remained a huge > > dungeon bash which, whilst relatively fun, didn't > > blow my mind. Still, I can > > imagine a really fantastic campaign set in and > > around Snake Pipe, perhaps > > expanding upon the scant location descriptions that > > each edition just > > tantalised us with. > > > > IMO, > > > > Nikk > > > > > > > > OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I > > > recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's > > > available here: > > > > > > http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml > > > > > > I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at > > the > > > same time, although that is a little like shooting > > > fish in the proverbial... > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- 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/20070430/005afbe2/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Mon Apr 30 22:27:00 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:27:00 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Serpent Fife Depression"? "Ophidian Recorder Dip"? :D Nick Middleton "Peter Maranci" To Sent by: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." rq-rules-bounces@ crashbox.com cc Subject 30/04/2007 13:18 Re: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow Please respond to "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." No, Lev, no! If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Seriously, why not pull a Mongoose? Create your own version of Snake Pipe Hollow using other words, and use?RQIII (or *cough*, CBRP/d100) for the system. You could call it "Reptile Flute Basin"! :D ->Peter On 4/30/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: I must admit it was precisely this which inspired by questions about Mongoose/RQ licensing. I would really love to do an "Snake Pipe Hollow Expanded" setting and campaign pack. Maybe I'll have to do it for (sotto voce) HeroQuest... --- Nikk Effingham < phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > I think it's on topic. To be honest, I never hold > Snake Pipe Hollow in great > esteem - perhaps when it was first produced it was a > good product, but times > moved on and the reprintings of Snake Pipe didn't. > It still remained a huge > dungeon bash which, whilst relatively fun, didn't > blow my mind. Still, I can > imagine a really fantastic campaign set in and > around Snake Pipe, perhaps > expanding upon the scant location descriptions that > each edition just > tantalised us with. > > IMO, > > Nikk > > > > > OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I > > recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's > > available here: > > > > http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml > > > > I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at > the > > same time, although that is a little like shooting > > fish in the proverbial... > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- 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/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Apr 30 22:36:25 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:36:25 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow Message-ID: <20070430123642.2A1E0181712D@mini.thinbits.net> OTOH Mongoose said they might consider Gloranthan submissions for Signs&Portents. G. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:27:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe Hollow > "Serpent Fife Depression"? > "Ophidian Recorder Dip"? > > :D > > Nick Middleton > > > > "Peter Maranci" > om> To > Sent by: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > rq-rules-bounces@ > crashbox.com cc > > Subject > 30/04/2007 13:18 Re: [Rq-rules] Review of Snake Pipe > Hollow > > Please respond to > "Discussion of > RuneQuest rules." > x.com> > > > > > > No, Lev, no! If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate > your destiny! > > Seriously, why not pull a Mongoose? Create your own version of Snake Pipe > Hollow using other words, and use RQIII (or *cough*, CBRP/d100) for the > system. You could call it "Reptile Flute Basin"! :D > > ->Peter > > On 4/30/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > I must admit it was precisely this which inspired by > questions about Mongoose/RQ licensing. > > I would really love to do an "Snake Pipe Hollow > Expanded" setting and campaign pack. > > Maybe I'll have to do it for (sotto voce) HeroQuest... > > --- Nikk Effingham < phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > > > I think it's on topic. To be honest, I never hold > > Snake Pipe Hollow in great > > esteem - perhaps when it was first produced it was a > > good product, but times > > moved on and the reprintings of Snake Pipe didn't. > > It still remained a huge > > dungeon bash which, whilst relatively fun, didn't > > blow my mind. Still, I can > > imagine a really fantastic campaign set in and > > around Snake Pipe, perhaps > > expanding upon the scant location descriptions that > > each edition just > > tantalised us with. > > > > IMO, > > > > Nikk > > > > > > > > OK, this is possibly *slightly* off-topic, but I > > > recently did a review of Snake Pipe Hollow. It's > > > available here: > > > > > > http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12938.phtml > > > > > > I also did a review of AD&Ds "Tomb of Horrors" at > > the > > > same time, although that is a little like shooting > > > fish in the proverbial... > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > -- > 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/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection > software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check > before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage > or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail > and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the > confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged > and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person > without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us > immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), > PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel > 01249 441441 > Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered > office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. > Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421.