From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Aug 1 02:21:04 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:21:04 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Message-ID: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/cfc1d758/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 02:29:42 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:29:42 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46AF6376.2040905@gmail.com> Hear, Hear & well said! I stopped using Glorantha during the playtesting of RQ1 (before it was even published) in my own games. Combined with the insulting & demeaning attitude of Mongoose towards Steve Perrin especially and to the original set of playtesters, I have no interest in MRQ. I do not support their rampant greed and lack of honour. That being said, it did loosely grow out of MRQ and belongs here as much as other variants such as Ringworld, etc. So I generally decline to participate in MRQ discussions, and as long as MRQ does not become the soul point of discussion & the site stays free of the "turkey-track-stain" taint of direct support by Mongoose I will stay active on this list. Skal, Sven Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: >>> It may be legal under the current twisted copyright/trademark laws of >>> > the > >>> US, but I don't consider it ethical. Mongoose RQ represents a break in >>> > the > >>> provenance of the RuneQuest system. >>> >> No it doesn't. Trademarks come and go, they can be bought and sold >> or can lapse and be obtained by someone else. If you let a Trademark >> lapse then it's your own stupid fault. Mongoose RQ is licenced from >> Issarie, which is owned by Greg Stafford who first brought out RQ. >> Where's the break in provenance there? Greg Stafford brought out RQ >> and Greg Stafford is licencing RQ. Sure, he set up Chaosium to make >> games and they owned RQ for a while, but relationships are made and >> break up. That's life again. >> > > Chaosium still "own" the game RuneQuest though - the copyright of the text > of RQI, II & III resides with Chaosium (and they have RQIII in print as the > BRP monographs), and whilst the law in both the US and EU indulges in weird > hair-splitting about it, from a common sense practical point of view, RQ > the game is the description of how one plays the game communicated by that > text... > > Added to which, Stafford spent much of the last decade (and I believe > Issaries web sites still does) claiming "RuneQuest" is fundamentally the > wrong system to describe and game in his precious Glorantha, yet when this > deal with Mongoose was announced was quick to indicate that the intention > was "the same system but not the same copyright words." The word > "hypocrite" sprang to mind and has stuck as far as I'm concerned... > > >> Personally, I have no problems with the so-called provenance of RQM. >> I wish the quality was better and that they had more scenario packs >> and better maps and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ >> is better than no RQ. >> > > For a variety of reasons, not all related to the MRQ playest, I don't buy > Mongoose books, nor Issaries Inc books anymore. And since I was still > playing Runequest when there was no version in print, and introducing new > players to the game, I'm afraid I can't agree that "any RQ is better than > no RQ." Not to mention the fact that RQIII was back in print as the BRP > monographs for two years before MRQ saw print, and is STILL in print in > that form. > > But, per my previous post, for good or ill this list, informally at least, > has always been about rule systems clearly derived from the original > RuneQuest by Steve Perrin & Co. So if I can ignore the Glorantha specific > conversations (which don't interest me as it's not a setting I've used > directly for decades), I can equally ignore the MRQ specific stuff (which I > personally find distasteful and mechanically uninteresting as most of the > features where MRQ differs from RQIII I think are flaws). > > Albeit if this list (as was speculated about some little while ago) begins > to receive direct support from either Issaries or Mongoose (hosted on their > servers, or direct financial support) I'll be unsubscribing. > > >> I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes out", but I can't >> see DBRP getting the kind of support or publishing the number of >> supplements that RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit >> bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. >> > > *shrug* judging by the last playtest draft I saw as a rule system it's > already stronger (more internally consistent and flexible) than the MRQ SRD > and whilst it has a lot of optional rules they don't seem to clutter the > system too badly (albeit the final test will be how well structured the > published book is). But I agree it's unlikely to have the volume of > supplements that Mongoose churn out for MRQ - but then, I don't subscribe > to the "any RQ is better than no RQ" school of thought and will take > quality over quantity any day. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070731/24cb0ec7/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 02:42:56 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:42:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question re: "Worlds Beyond" Message-ID: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone know if "Worlds Beyond", offered on Chaosium's website, is BRP-based? David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/a50ab45f/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Wed Aug 1 02:53:05 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:53:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> Message-ID: <575207.19057.qm@web28001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> DBRP might not get all that much official supplements and support. But if they're smart and make the system OGL they would probably get a lot of third party support. I know I would publish a couple of Lulu scenarios at least. SGL. steve skrev: What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be supported the way Mongoose can support MRQ. Mongoose is a growing company with a lot of employees. Chaosium has had the same six employees for almost a decade, and has had periods when it had less than that. It was up to ten employees when Tadashi Ehara and I left, and I don't think it has ever reached that number again. And I think the only "creative" employees are Lynn and Charlie. Consider how long it is taking to get DBRP printed... So don't expect much support. Even if everyone on this list, and the BRP list, sent in a printable scenario and was willing to defer payment, it would still take 3 years or more to print them all. That's just the way it is. Steve Perrin, who, to answer Peter Maranci's request, gets no money from MRQ -----Original Message----- From: lev _lafayette at yahoo.com.au To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Personally, I have no problems with the so-called > provenance of RQM. I wish the quality was better and > that they had more scenario packs and better maps > and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ > is better than no RQ. WTF? If the RQ trademark fell into the hands of morons and they published the worst roleplaying game in the history of gaming you think that would be better than RQ not being in print? > I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes > out", but I can't see DBRP getting the kind of > support or publishing the number of suppl ements that > RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit > bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. Why not? Chaosium has produced quite a lot of games in the past with excellent circulation. DBRP may be just the shot in the arm they need. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/r q-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/91197ff8/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Wed Aug 1 02:55:20 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:55:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Do you feel MRQ is part of the "true" RQ-family? I don't, but then I don't consider bad RQ to be better than no RQ either. SGL. Styopa skrev: On 7/30/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: Which is pretty much what I play (yes, I *do* use some of MRQ - but not much). This said, I don't think anyone includes "RuneQuest: Slayers" here, verdade? --- John Pare' < parejf63 at hotmail.com> wrote: I believe it shouldn't be included - I haven't looked at the rules since, well, probably the 90's but IIRC it had no mechanics in common with what I would call the 'true' RQ family. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/07b33608/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Aug 1 02:56:13 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:56:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question re: "Worlds Beyond" In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Davis (and list), >Does anyone know if "Worlds Beyond", offered on Chaosium's website, is BRP-based? Yes, it is. Ben Monroe mentioned it in a discussion on the BRP playtest group, so I went looking and found it for sale from Noble Knight (bless 'em). Various members of said group (Jason Durall, me, possibly Ben and a few others) ordered copies from Noble Knight. Since Ben is still close to the Chaosium dudes, I assume he mentioned that there were still copies available in distribution and then sourced a box and put it up in the BRP section during the catalogue revamp. It's also been mentioned a few times recently at RPGNet ('cos of Sci-Fi week there I suppose). Ben's original explanation to me was that someone contacted Chaosium (via Bill Dunn IIRC) in '88 / '89 about using "BRP" for an SF game, Chaosium agreed and _Worlds Beyond_ was the result. It's fun in an 80's pulp-ish SF vein - it has some well thought out aliens, a solid starship system and a nice world generation system. The rules are clearly a BRP variant: closer than FASA Trek to "core" BRP (RQIII/SB5), not quite as close as the fan Blake's 7 RPG... Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 bo.rosen at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 02:57:56 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:57:56 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question re: "Worlds Beyond" In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1185901076.6010.0.camel@delirium> tis 2007-07-31 klockan 11:42 -0500 skrev David Smart: > Does anyone know if "Worlds Beyond", offered on Chaosium's website, is > BRP-based? Seems to be as it's also listed under the BRP heading. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/673b3332/attachment.bin From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Aug 1 03:02:01 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:02:01 +0100 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <575207.19057.qm@web28001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 31/07/2007 17:53:05: >DBRP might not get all that much official supplements and support. >But if they're smart and make the system OGL they would probably get >a lot of third party support. I know I would publish a couple of >Lulu scenarios at least. *shrug* as recent activities have ably demonstrated, whether they OGL the system or not is irrelevant - rules are not protected under EU or US (at least to any useful extent) - re-write what you want in different words and they have no recourse. The only thing you would need to license would be the trademark "BRP" and I'm afraid that there is still no indication that Chaosium are prepared to allow anything like the d20 System Trademark License or Mongoose/Issaries RuneQuest Trademark License to enable third party support. I wish I was wrong, I think it's a HUGE mistake that they cling so tightly to the license but it's their call in the end. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 1 04:12:12 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:12:12 -0700 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.co m> References: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111121.033bd8c0@caprica.com> At 05:03 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: >On 7/30/07, Lev Lafayette ><lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >Which is pretty much what I play (yes, I *do* use some >of MRQ - but not much). > >This said, I don't think anyone includes "RuneQuest: >Slayers" here, verdade? > >--- John Pare' < parejf63 at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >I believe it shouldn't be included - I haven't looked at the rules >since, well, probably the 90's but IIRC it had no mechanics in >common with what I would call the 'true' RQ family. Honestly, they never claimed it would when it was being worked on; it was a game written to use the name, and it was about questing for runes. But it has no mechanical heritage from RQ/BRP worth mentioning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/da4b646f/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 1 04:14:51 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:14:51 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question re: "Worlds Beyond" In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111435.033acd10@caprica.com> At 09:42 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: >Does anyone know if "Worlds Beyond", offered on Chaosium's website, >is BRP-based? If its the game I'm thinking of, I believe it is. From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 1 04:19:41 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:19:41 -0700 Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> At 09:55 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: >Do you feel MRQ is part of the "true" RQ-family? I don't, but then I >don't consider bad RQ to be better than no RQ either. I think getting into defining what's the "true" RQ family is tantamount to getting into religious niggling; MRQ is clearly RQ derived, and while I don't like what I've seen of it at all, excluding discussion of an RQ derived game called RuneQuest on a list called "RuneQuest Rules" that deals with multiple versions would be, to say the least, perverse. From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 07:44:03 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:44:03 -0400 Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> References: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> Message-ID: Oh, I'd never suggest *excluding* discussion of MRQ from the list - that wouldn't make sense. Nor should any BRP-derived game be off limits, although intense discussion of games such as CoC which have their own lists (there IS a Call of Cthulhu list, isn't there?) should probably take place ON those game-specific lists. Likewise, I imagine that in-depth discussion of Glorantha probably belongs on the Glorantha list rather than here. Which is all just my opinion, of course, and you know what they say about those. ;-) I will admit that if this list fell under the control of Issaries or Mongoose, I'd be inclined to sign off. But that's a very unlikely prospect - right? This thread has made me wonder...what if someone announced a plan to commercially publish their own version of Glorantha "using different words", and to release it under some type of OGL? The word "lawsuit" leaps to mind. :D ->Peter On 7/31/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 09:55 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: > >Do you feel MRQ is part of the "true" RQ-family? I don't, but then I > >don't consider bad RQ to be better than no RQ either. > > I think getting into defining what's the "true" RQ family is > tantamount to getting into religious niggling; MRQ is clearly RQ > derived, and while I don't like what I've seen of it at all, > excluding discussion of an RQ derived game called RuneQuest on a list > called "RuneQuest Rules" that deals with multiple versions would be, > to say the least, perverse. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070731/a2508521/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 08:52:36 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:52:36 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, when one comes out with a new version, several things change - wether for the better of the game is not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. Not only in name. There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, RQII, and RQIII, and even more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have to admit, they added a touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG genre. Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. Change is NOT always good. I feel MRQ has taken back what was once a highly played game and brought it with a different scope to ensure a good following. One thing I commend them in is doing it with a lot of supplements, something that was a little lacking in previous versions (or for the sake of arguments) none too frequent supplements. Do you have to like it? By NO means. Fact is, it is here, it has a good and growing fan club. Just my four and a half cents... John _________________________________________________________________ http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 1 09:17:47 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- John Pare' wrote: > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > when one comes out with a > new version, several things change - wether for the > better of the game is > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > Not only in name. Yep, no problems with that. > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > RQII, and RQIII, and even > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's still in the family, but a very distant relation. > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > to admit, they added a > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > genre. Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. Regards, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 1 10:01:52 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:01:52 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's >still in the family, but a very distant relation. There were a few other things here and there, but you're correct that the two editions were substantially the same. > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. As someone who played OD&D at the time AD&D came out, I can't say I considered much they'd done with it an improvement (AD&D2 and 3e were a different story). From parejf63 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 11:23:36 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:23:36 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Albiet maybe suttle changes in the first two versions, there were changes. III changed it all... Still, there were changes. RQ (any version), MRQ, Herowars --- it is all a matter of personal prerspective of the game. I too was an adversary of it, till I broke down and got the first book. Than what to my wandering wallet should be apprear? All the damned books they have. It is all a choice to each person. No one is right, and no one is wrong.. I chose to get it, I like it, and I will continue to buy the books. Needles to say, older versions are hard to come by, "Most" people cannot afford them. John >From: Lev Lafayette >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) > > >--- John Pare' wrote: > > > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > > when one comes out with a > > new version, several things change - wether for the > > better of the game is > > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > > Not only in name. > >Yep, no problems with that. > > > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > > RQII, and RQIII, and even > > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). > >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's >still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > > to admit, they added a > > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > > genre. > >Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D >probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > >Regards, > > >Lev > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Got a little couch potato? >Check out fun summer activities for kids. >http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ http://liveearth.msn.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 11:56:03 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:56:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but my understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at all to RuneQuest or BRP - which were, according to Stafford, inadequate to represent Glorantha. The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going from 5% increments to a full percentile system. I don't think anyone would disagree about that? But that was merely refining an already-existing mechanic. >From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system which were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. That doesn't mean that MRQ shouldn't be discussed here. I'm merely noting that the differences between RQ 1/2/3 and perhaps even RQ:AiG (i.e. RuneQuest 4) are far less than the difference between ANY other edition of RQ and MRQ. Come to think of it, even Chaosium's new D100 system may be closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! Can anyone knowledgeable comment on that? I haven't purchased MRQ, don't plan to, and my playtest documents are (presumably) way out of date. As for older versions not being available, if I were Charlie Krank I'd be ripping my hair out right now (assuming Charlie has hair. I've never met him, so I don't know). Chaosium has "monograph" editions of the RQ3 Players, Gamemaster, Magic, and Creatures books available for sale RIGHT NOW on their website. These monograph editions contain the full text of the RQ3 system books, with the sole difference being that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced throughout with "Basic Roleplaying". And, of course, there is no Glorantha book. So I don't want to yell, but RuneQuest 3 IS in print. It has been in print for a couple of YEARS now. But almost no one seems to realize it, not even here. ->Peter On 7/31/07, John Pare' wrote: > > Albiet maybe suttle changes in the first two versions, there were changes. > III changed it all... > > Still, there were changes. > > RQ (any version), MRQ, Herowars --- it is all a matter of personal > prerspective of the game. I too was an adversary of it, till I broke down > and got the first book. Than what to my wandering wallet should be > apprear? > All the damned books they have. > > It is all a choice to each person. > > No one is right, and no one is wrong.. > > I chose to get it, I like it, and I will continue to buy the books. > > Needles to say, older versions are hard to come by, "Most" people cannot > afford them. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Lev Lafayette > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" > >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >--- John Pare' wrote: > > > > > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > > > when one comes out with a > > > new version, several things change - wether for the > > > better of the game is > > > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > > > Not only in name. > > > >Yep, no problems with that. > > > > > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > > > RQII, and RQIII, and even > > > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). > > > >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II > >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe > >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). > >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat > >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's > >still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > > > > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > > > to admit, they added a > > > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > > > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > > > genre. > > > >Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D > >probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > > > > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > > > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition > >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one > >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even > >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Lev > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Got a little couch potato? > >Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://liveearth.msn.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/20070731/6278be82/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Wed Aug 1 11:58:46 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:58:46 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" Message-ID: In a message dated 7/31/2007 6:57:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pmaranci at gmail.com writes: I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but my understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at all to RuneQuest or BRP - which were, according to Stafford, inadequate to represent Glorantha. . . . I can guarantee (having read the books and owning them) that the HW/HQ system is as related to RQ as a supernova is to a carrot. Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/b37860ba/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 1 12:16:52 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <905310.37627.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/31/2007 6:57:01 P.M. Pacific > Daylight Time, > pmaranci at gmail.com writes: > > I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero > Wars/HeroQuest, but my > understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at > all to RuneQuest or BRP - which > were, according to Stafford, inadequate to > represent Glorantha. > > > I can guarantee (having read the books and owning > them) that the HW/HQ > system is as related to RQ as a supernova is to a > carrot. I will concur with this opinion (although they're both stars as far as I'm concerned, just different class)... Currently playing in umm... three HQ games and two RQ games. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 1 12:25:47 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20713.3581.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going > from 5% increments to a > full percentile system. I don't think anyone would > disagree about that? But > that was merely refining an already-existing > mechanic. Depends on what you consider important. I found going to a full percentile system a fairly minor (but nice) change. The really big changes were, imo, those to the cultural system (really good) and to the spell system (OK). All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ From parejf63 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 12:25:44 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >These monograph editions contain the full text of the RQ3 system books, >with >the sole difference being that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced >throughout with "Basic Roleplaying". And, of course, there is no Glorantha >book. Thanks Pete. Many are aware of this. including myself. But still, most are too familiar with the Glorantha aspect of Runequest. Though Runequest was made for Glorantha, they seem to go hand in hand. If the Chaos creatures are not in the Monographs, it takes away something vital (to me). I do not want to start an argument here. Did not mean to do that. That is just the way I feel.. John >From: "Peter Maranci" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:56:03 -0400 > >I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but my >understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at all to RuneQuest or BRP >- which were, according to Stafford, inadequate to represent Glorantha. > >The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going from 5% increments to a >full percentile system. I don't think anyone would disagree about that? But >that was merely refining an already-existing mechanic. > > >From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system >which >were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. > >That doesn't mean that MRQ shouldn't be discussed here. I'm merely noting >that the differences between RQ 1/2/3 and perhaps even RQ:AiG (i.e. >RuneQuest 4) are far less than the difference between ANY other edition of >RQ and MRQ. Come to think of it, even Chaosium's new D100 system may be >closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! Can anyone knowledgeable comment on that? I >haven't purchased MRQ, don't plan to, and my playtest documents are >(presumably) way out of date. > >As for older versions not being available, if I were Charlie Krank I'd be >ripping my hair out right now (assuming Charlie has hair. I've never met >him, so I don't know). Chaosium has "monograph" editions of the RQ3 >Players, >Gamemaster, Magic, and Creatures books available for sale RIGHT NOW on >their >website. > >These monograph editions contain the full text of the RQ3 system books, >with >the sole difference being that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced >throughout with "Basic Roleplaying". And, of course, there is no Glorantha >book. > >So I don't want to yell, but RuneQuest 3 IS in print. It has been in print >for a couple of YEARS now. But almost no one seems to realize it, not even >here. > >->Peter > >On 7/31/07, John Pare' wrote: > > > > Albiet maybe suttle changes in the first two versions, there were >changes. > > III changed it all... > > > > Still, there were changes. > > > > RQ (any version), MRQ, Herowars --- it is all a matter of personal > > prerspective of the game. I too was an adversary of it, till I broke >down > > and got the first book. Than what to my wandering wallet should be > > apprear? > > All the damned books they have. > > > > It is all a choice to each person. > > > > No one is right, and no one is wrong.. > > > > I chose to get it, I like it, and I will continue to buy the books. > > > > Needles to say, older versions are hard to come by, "Most" people cannot > > afford them. > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Lev Lafayette > > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" > > >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > > >--- John Pare' wrote: > > > > > > > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > > > > when one comes out with a > > > > new version, several things change - wether for the > > > > better of the game is > > > > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > > > > Not only in name. > > > > > >Yep, no problems with that. > > > > > > > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > > > > RQII, and RQIII, and even > > > > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). > > > > > >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II > > >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe > > >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). > > >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat > > >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's > > >still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > > > > > > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > > > > to admit, they added a > > > > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > > > > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > > > > genre. > > > > > >Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D > > >probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > > > > > > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > > > > > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition > > >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one > > >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even > > >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > > >Lev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > > >Got a little couch potato? > > >Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > > > > >http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > > >_______________________________________________ > > >RQ-Rules mailing list > > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > http://liveearth.msn.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 _________________________________________________________________ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 12:29:56 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:29:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question re: "Worlds Beyond" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111435.033acd10@caprica.com> References: <1c92296e0707310942s5aabed9fj9f4998dcbe398c0a@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111435.033acd10@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707311929v59f51f7boff651100dd8b2695@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, everyone, for the replies. Nick and Wayne ares correct, as confirmed by Dustin at Chaosium (I kicked Chaosium an email too). Now if their online ordering system would just work (got another email into Dustin), I'd be able to get a copy! Nick, thank you for the great details. I'm really looking forward to getting a copy. David On 7/31/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 09:42 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: > >Does anyone know if "Worlds Beyond", offered on Chaosium's website, > >is BRP-based? > > If its the game I'm thinking of, I believe it is. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070731/c7926a8c/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 12:35:45 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:35:45 -0500 Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> References: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707311935o317e056an9f6c12e84ba90976@mail.gmail.com> I just think of MRQ as an associated cult. ;-P On 7/31/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 09:55 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: > >Do you feel MRQ is part of the "true" RQ-family? I don't, but then I > >don't consider bad RQ to be better than no RQ either. > > I think getting into defining what's the "true" RQ family is > tantamount to getting into religious niggling; MRQ is clearly RQ > derived, and while I don't like what I've seen of it at all, > excluding discussion of an RQ derived game called RuneQuest on a list > called "RuneQuest Rules" that deals with multiple versions would be, > to say the least, perverse. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070731/d7ef079d/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Aug 1 13:20:38 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:20:38 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> Message-ID: <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> One other difference between RQI and RQII was, in the words of Steve Henderson, "We exchanged one unplaytested set of Shaman rules for another set of unplaytested Shaman rules." :) Steve Perrin, who is still looking for some decent Shaman rules... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" > >>Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II >>require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe >>the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). >>RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat >>different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's >>still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > There were a few other things here and there, but you're correct that the > two editions were substantially the same. > > >> > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D >> > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and >> > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. >> >>An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition >>were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one >>can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even >>I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > > As someone who played OD&D at the time AD&D came out, I can't say I > considered much they'd done with it an improvement (AD&D2 and 3e were a > different story). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Aug 1 13:23:01 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:23:01 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007001c7d3eb$43dc8810$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Just to answer another question. Charlie Krank is noted for his head of hair... Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but my understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at all to RuneQuest or BRP - which were, according to Stafford, inadequate to represent Glorantha. The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going from 5% increments to a full percentile system. I don't think anyone would disagree about that? But that was merely refining an already-existing mechanic. From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system which were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. That doesn't mean that MRQ shouldn't be discussed here. I'm merely noting that the differences between RQ 1/2/3 and perhaps even RQ:AiG (i.e. RuneQuest 4) are far less than the difference between ANY other edition of RQ and MRQ. Come to think of it, even Chaosium's new D100 system may be closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! Can anyone knowledgeable comment on that? I haven't purchased MRQ, don't plan to, and my playtest documents are (presumably) way out of date. As for older versions not being available, if I were Charlie Krank I'd be ripping my hair out right now (assuming Charlie has hair. I've never met him, so I don't know). Chaosium has "monograph" editions of the RQ3 Players, Gamemaster, Magic, and Creatures books available for sale RIGHT NOW on their website. These monograph editions contain the full text of the RQ3 system books, with the sole difference being that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced throughout with "Basic Roleplaying". And, of course, there is no Glorantha book. So I don't want to yell, but RuneQuest 3 IS in print. It has been in print for a couple of YEARS now. But almost no one seems to realize it, not even here. ->Peter On 7/31/07, John Pare' wrote: Albiet maybe suttle changes in the first two versions, there were changes. III changed it all... Still, there were changes. RQ (any version), MRQ, Herowars --- it is all a matter of personal prerspective of the game. I too was an adversary of it, till I broke down and got the first book. Than what to my wandering wallet should be apprear? All the damned books they have. It is all a choice to each person. No one is right, and no one is wrong.. I chose to get it, I like it, and I will continue to buy the books. Needles to say, older versions are hard to come by, "Most" people cannot afford them. John >From: Lev Lafayette < lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au> >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." < rq-rules at crashbox.com> >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) > > >--- John Pare' < parejf63 at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > > when one comes out with a > > new version, several things change - wether for the > > better of the game is > > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > > Not only in name. > >Yep, no problems with that. > > > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > > RQII, and RQIII, and even > > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). > >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's >still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > > to admit, they added a > > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > > genre. > >Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D >probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > >Regards, > > >Lev > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Got a little couch potato? >Check out fun summer activities for kids. >http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ http://liveearth.msn.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/88b9c856/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 13:32:31 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <007001c7d3eb$43dc8810$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: Steve Wrote: >Just to answer another question. Charlie Krank is noted for his head of >hair...> Wish I had a full head of hair. I should grow one long one and wrap it around my head... John >From: "Steve Perrin" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:23:01 -0700 > >Just to answer another question. Charlie Krank is noted for his head of >hair... > >Steve Perrin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Maranci > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" > > > I may be mistaken, since I don't play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but my >understanding was that HW/HQ had no relationship at all to RuneQuest or BRP >- which were, according to Stafford, inadequate to represent Glorantha. > > The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going from 5% increments to a >full percentile system. I don't think anyone would disagree about that? But >that was merely refining an already-existing mechanic. > > From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system >which were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. > > That doesn't mean that MRQ shouldn't be discussed here. I'm merely >noting that the differences between RQ 1/2/3 and perhaps even RQ:AiG (i.e. >RuneQuest 4) are far less than the difference between ANY other edition of >RQ and MRQ. Come to think of it, even Chaosium's new D100 system may be >closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! Can anyone knowledgeable comment on that? I >haven't purchased MRQ, don't plan to, and my playtest documents are >(presumably) way out of date. > > As for older versions not being available, if I were Charlie Krank I'd >be ripping my hair out right now (assuming Charlie has hair. I've never met >him, so I don't know). Chaosium has "monograph" editions of the RQ3 >Players, Gamemaster, Magic, and Creatures books available for sale RIGHT >NOW on their website. > > These monograph editions contain the full text of the RQ3 system books, >with the sole difference being that the name "RuneQuest" has been replaced >throughout with "Basic Roleplaying". And, of course, there is no Glorantha >book. > > So I don't want to yell, but RuneQuest 3 IS in print. It has been in >print for a couple of YEARS now. But almost no one seems to realize it, not >even here. > > ->Peter > > > On 7/31/07, John Pare' wrote: > Albiet maybe suttle changes in the first two versions, there were >changes. > III changed it all... > > Still, there were changes. > > RQ (any version), MRQ, Herowars --- it is all a matter of personal > prerspective of the game. I too was an adversary of it, till I broke >down > and got the first book. Than what to my wandering wallet should be >apprear? > All the damned books they have. > > It is all a choice to each person. > > No one is right, and no one is wrong.. > > I chose to get it, I like it, and I will continue to buy the books. > > Needles to say, older versions are hard to come by, "Most" people >cannot > afford them. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Lev Lafayette < lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au> > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." < rq-rules at crashbox.com> > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" > >Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:17:47 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >--- John Pare' < parejf63 at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think it is part of the "Family" of RQ. First, > > > when one comes out with a > > > new version, several things change - wether for the > > > better of the game is > > > not an issue. MRQ is another version of Runequest. > > > Not only in name. > > > >Yep, no problems with that. > > > > > There were pretty much substantial changes in RQ, > > > RQII, and RQIII, and even > > > more in RQ4 (A web rough draft). > > > >Er, not so much. The changes between RQ and RQ II > >require a fanatic to know the difference (I believe > >the spelling of Glorantha and the use of d12 changed). > >RQIII was significantly different. RQIV was somewhat > >different to III, iirc. MRQ is very different. It's > >still in the family, but a very distant relation. > > > > > MRQ does resemble runequest in many ways, adn I have > > > to admit, they added a > > > touch of D20 to make it more appealing to an > > > evergrowing D&D Ruled RPG > > > genre. > > > >Well the touch of d20 wasn't appealing imo, and D&D > >probably has a *lower* market share than yesteryear. > > > > > Now, look at the changes in D&D, AD&D, AD&D > > > 2nd Ed, and 3.0, 3.5 and > > > god knows what they will do with the rumored 4.0. > > > >An interesting thing about D&D is that in each edition > >were improvements to the previous. I'm not sure one > >can say that MRQ is an improvement to RQ III or even > >I/II. Indeed, I am personally certain that it is not. > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Lev > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Got a little couch potato? > >Check out fun summer activities for kids. > > >http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://liveearth.msn.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 >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ http://liveearth.msn.com From parejf63 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 13:34:08 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:34:08 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] BRP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BRP Now, I wll get that one from Chaosium, when and if it gets released... John _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!? http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2 From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Wed Aug 1 15:27:35 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:27:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shaman rules [was MRQ "A Real Runequest Game"] In-Reply-To: <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> I've run and played in multiple campaigns that prominently featured shamans of the RQ:AiG variety and of the Sandy Petersen shaman rules. We universally preferred Sandy's rules. I've found none that I like better. On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Steve Perrin wrote: > One other difference between RQI and RQII was, in the words of > Steve Henderson, "We exchanged one unplaytested set of Shaman rules > for another set of unplaytested Shaman rules." :) > > Steve Perrin, who is still looking for some decent Shaman rules... Brad Furst There are three kinds of people in the world today: those who can count and those who can't. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/02de812d/attachment.html From mason.bruce at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 17:52:01 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:52:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> On 01/08/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system which > were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. As someone who has played RQ2, RQ3, AiG (an old printed copy) and MRQ, I would say that the family tree looks something like Rq1 - RQ2 - RQ3 - AiG \ - MRQ Which is to say that I think MRQ is an attempt at revisioning RQ2 in the current atmosphere. For me, the biggest changes between RQ2 and RQ3 were: Fatigue Points, Sorcery, rejigging of Spirit Magic and Divine Magic, single percentage point increments, different hit locations for melee and missile combat, massive changes to the SR system, addition of dodge. RQ3 always seemed more complex than RQ2. The biggest changes between RQ2 and MRQ are: removal of resistance table and General HPs, removal of SRs, removal of skill category modifiers, collapsing specials and criticals into criticals, addition of opposed rolls, yet another rejig of spirit magic. To me it seems that RQ3 was founded on the presumption that what role-players wanted was more crunch in the system, MRQ is founded on the presumption that role-players wanted the reverse. Plus one was designed 20 years after the other so I suspect that if RQ3 were being designed now, it would come up with the same answers as RQ3 did then. I also suspect that if you took all the names off the books and showed someone who knew nothing Rq2 and then showed them Rq3 and MRQ and asked which is closest to Rq2 that MRQ would get the nod at least as often as RQ3. This is not to make any value judgements about any of the versions involved. From what I've heard about BRP, I suspect that I'll end up running something that is based on that with bits of MRQ added in. From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 17:57:09 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:57:09 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shaman rules [was MRQ "A Real Runequest Game"] In-Reply-To: <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708010057y44c5637brde55629c040d850b@mail.gmail.com> Forgive a "cl00l355 n00b", but what exactly is the problem with the RQ3 Shaman rules? Is it that they are effectively immune to magic (thanks to massive POW)? The power of the spirits that they can control? Discorporation? Looked at purely in RQ3 core rules, it looks to me that Shamans compare fairly unfavourably to sorcerers (who can Tap for effectively the same magic immunity - once you're down to a 5% chance, it makes little difference if I have 10 more or 100 more MP than you), even leaving the Duration stuff out of the question - since Sorcerers that are Adepts (the equivalent of Shamans) have less time requirements. Even Sandy's rules for sorcerers (which are excellent) do not really depower the sorcerer, but merely make them less fiddly to play. Comparing them to priests is trickier. If you follow the rules for regaining divine magic strictly then priests really have to ration their magic unless they have easy access to a Great Temple. On the other hand divine magic is typically a lot stronger than spirit magic (compare Spirit Block to Spirit Screen, or Protection to Shield), but I can certainly imagine shamans that have enough powerful spirit magic available that this becomes a non-issue (and if nothing else they can perhaps control spirits that know divine magic). I'd say that in the core rules Priests < Shamans < Sorcerers. There are numerous exceptions, of course, but I'm honestly curious as to what the main objection to RQ3 shamans is (power? blandness?) On 01/08/07, Brad Furst wrote: > > I've run and played in multiple campaigns that prominently featured shamans > of the RQ:AiG variety and of the Sandy Petersen shaman rules. We universally > preferred Sandy's rules. I've found none that I like better. > > > > On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Steve Perrin wrote: > > One other difference between RQI and RQII was, in the words of Steve > Henderson, "We exchanged one unplaytested set of Shaman rules for another > set of unplaytested Shaman rules." :) > > Steve Perrin, who is still looking for some decent Shaman rules... > > Brad Furst > There are three kinds of people in the world today: > those who can count and those who can't. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- GAZZA From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Aug 1 18:29:20 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:29:20 +0100 Subject: BRP/d100 was Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Come to think of it, even Chaosium's > new D100 system may be closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! Can anyone > knowledgeable comment on that? I haven't purchased MRQ, don't plan > to, and my playtest documents are (presumably) way out of date. If by "closer" you mean "virtually indistinguishable if you use the right combination of optional rules" then yes... :D d100/ BRP has optional rules for Skill Category modifiers (couple of names changes and which attributes effect which category have been tweaked IIRC but otherwise as in RQIII), hit locations calculated as per RQIII (although the pre-calculated values in the table are now rounded correctly...). The only RQIII feature that WASN'T in the playtest draft either as a core rule or an option was the RQIII magic system - but that's available separately as the BRP Magic book monographs and the BRP does contain magic / power systems based on Magic World, Elric!/SB5, Hawkmoon's Mutations, ElfQuest's Psychic Powers and SuperWorld's super powers... There are some subtle differences - opposed skill mechanics are formally defined (with a few options and in the process the issue some people had with Dodge in RQIII is solved) for example, and the skill definitions have examples of outcomes for each level of result (Critical, special, normal success, normal failure and fumble). But basically the RQIII system is in there, just tidied up and in modular form, so it's easy to drop features you don't like (swap DEX ranks for Strike Ranks) or add them from other BRP games (you could run an RQIII game with the Allegiance system from Elric!/SB5). Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Aug 1 19:16:53 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:16:53 +0100 Subject: Shamans Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: > One other difference between RQI and RQII was, in the words of Steve > Henderson, "We exchanged one unplaytested set of Shaman rules for another > set of unplaytested Shaman rules." :) > Steve Perrin, who is still looking for some decent Shaman rules... I rather like the RQII ones - certainly more than the RQIII ones - but that's probably distant memories of a rather munchkin Shaman character I played quite early in my RQ-gaming... More importantly, I find the RQII shaman rules nicely atmospheric and "plausible", in that I can "see" how a starting character could get there, if you see what I mean. But I haven't had to use the RQIII shaman rules "in anger" for a quite a while (haven't run or played an RQIII game where shaman entered play for a number of years), and I seem to recall that the last time I did I cam away with the feeling I wanted to tweak them back to more like RQII... Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 19:50:17 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 05:50:17 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shaman rules [was MRQ "A Real Runequest Game"] In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708010057y44c5637brde55629c040d850b@mail.gmail.com> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> <9ebd81400708010057y44c5637brde55629c040d850b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: A lot has been written here on this topic in the past, but the biggest two problems that I saw both grew out of the rule that the shaman's chance of a random spirit encounter were equal to his POW plus his fetch's POW as a percent every day. This meant that A) on a long trip which was intended to be otherwise uneventful, the GM would spend a lot of time rolling spirit encounters unless the GM changed or ignored that rule by fiat, and B) since the spirit encounter table had the option of meeting a god, over a year or so a shaman was virtually SURE to meet a hostile god. Which made it hard to figure out how any shaman managed to survive for long. ->Peter On 8/1/07, Gary Sturgess wrote: > > Forgive a "cl00l355 n00b", but what exactly is the problem with the > RQ3 Shaman rules? > > Is it that they are effectively immune to magic (thanks to massive > POW)? The power of the spirits that they can control? Discorporation? > > Looked at purely in RQ3 core rules, it looks to me that Shamans > compare fairly unfavourably to sorcerers (who can Tap for effectively > the same magic immunity - once you're down to a 5% chance, it makes > little difference if I have 10 more or 100 more MP than you), even > leaving the Duration stuff out of the question - since Sorcerers that > are Adepts (the equivalent of Shamans) have less time requirements. > Even Sandy's rules for sorcerers (which are excellent) do not really > depower the sorcerer, but merely make them less fiddly to play. > > Comparing them to priests is trickier. If you follow the rules for > regaining divine magic strictly then priests really have to ration > their magic unless they have easy access to a Great Temple. On the > other hand divine magic is typically a lot stronger than spirit magic > (compare Spirit Block to Spirit Screen, or Protection to Shield), but > I can certainly imagine shamans that have enough powerful spirit magic > available that this becomes a non-issue (and if nothing else they can > perhaps control spirits that know divine magic). > > I'd say that in the core rules Priests < Shamans < Sorcerers. There > are numerous exceptions, of course, but I'm honestly curious as to > what the main objection to RQ3 shamans is (power? blandness?) > > On 01/08/07, Brad Furst wrote: > > > > I've run and played in multiple campaigns that prominently featured > shamans > > of the RQ:AiG variety and of the Sandy Petersen shaman rules. We > universally > > preferred Sandy's rules. I've found none that I like better. > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Steve Perrin wrote: > > > > One other difference between RQI and RQII was, in the words of Steve > > Henderson, "We exchanged one unplaytested set of Shaman rules for > another > > set of unplaytested Shaman rules." :) > > > > Steve Perrin, who is still looking for some decent Shaman rules... > > > > Brad Furst > > There are three kinds of people in the world today: > > those who can count and those who can't. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > -- > GAZZA > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070801/a1e597a6/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 1 21:29:09 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom at zunder.org.uk) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Shaman rules [was MRQ "A Real Runequest Game"] In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> <9ebd81400708010057y44c5637brde55629c040d850b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2551.84.43.14.189.1185967749.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> > This meant that A) on a long trip which was intended to be otherwise > uneventful, the GM would spend a lot of time rolling spirit encounters > unless the GM changed or ignored that rule by fiat, and B) since the spirit > encounter table had the option of meeting a god, over a year or so a shaman > was virtually SURE to meet a hostile god. They would have to make a lot of deals with gods, some of whom would ignore them as petty, some who would get them to do some dirty work for them, and some the shaman would have learnt a way to pacify or avoid. If you see the encounters as not always screaming spirit battles then it is dangerous but it actually makes the shaman very interesting as a parlayer or secret ways, gatherer of knowledge, and also patron of odd missions that don't seem to make a lot of sense, but the shaman owes Cacodemon a favour.. Most shaman used to be non-aligned, so they can make deals. Those that are aligned (like a KL shamaness) may well be able to use their allegiance as a way to bully past others, but in some cases you'd need to run away, even on the spirit plane! From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 21:40:41 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents Message-ID: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Steve Perrin: > What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be supported the way > Mongoose can support MRQ. Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. DBRP may well be a better thought out product with better rules (if you ignore SAN) but it won't do as well as RQM because Mongoose have put a lot behind it and probably will continue to do so. > That's just the way it is. Unfortunately, yes. I don't particularly like Mongoose's RQ, although it has a lot of good points. I prefer to play RQ3 with a few things from RQ2, HeroQuest and Mongoose here and there. The RQM rules don't hang together particularly well and are inconsistent from supplement to supplement. But, the modularity is good and things like Legendary Abilities, Monster Abilties, Vices and rules for modifying equipment are pretty good and would work in any RQ setting. But, they have brought out a lot of RQ supplements and have allowed other people to bring out a lot of RQ supplements. This can only be a good thing, regardless of how much you love/hate Mongoose/Issaries/Chaosium. The Second Age setting is interesting, but I probably won't use it very often. The Eternal Champion settings look good, but again I probably won't get the chance to use them. Their Pirates supplement is truly excellent, well worth buying. As for the rest of the settings, Mongoose hasn't got it's own setting, so the books are ultra-generic, but with a noticeably Gloranthan tinge, as was for most of the old RQ non-Gloranthan stuff. Third party RQ publishers have their own settings which look OK, I suppose. I think Mongoose have brought out 20 supplements, of which only 8 are Gloranthan, which means 11 are generic or non-Gloranthan, including the Eternal Champion books. Other publishers have around 10 supplements out, none of which are Gloranthan. That's an awful lot, compared with how much came out in the preceeding 10 years. In fact, I'd like them to slow down a bit, to allow me to save my pennies. I know that a lot of people don't like/hate/won't buy from Issaries/Mongoose or whoever, but don't forget that Chaosium let RQ die in the 90s. I know there were other factors involved, but RQ was effectively dead in the water. No it is not. So, from a support point of view, I don't have much time for Chaosium as it is in the present day. They used to make excellent RQ supplements, but don't any more. Unfortunately, I am not particularly sentimental when dealing with games companies or games, and I don't particularly care who publishes a game or who writes for a game. If Mongoose carry on producing reasonable RQ supplements, then I will continue buying them (wife-permitting, of course). If Chaosium ever publish DBRP then I'll probably buy that and whatever related supplements I can afford. I'll also buy HeroQuest supplements. I might even buy third party RQ supplements. What I won't do, however, is refuse to buy supplements and then complain about how modern RQ is no good. There seems to be a lot of bile towards Mongoose and Issaries, which is a shame. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070801/a20fd650/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 22:30:44 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:30:44 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 8/1/07, Simon Phipp wrote: > ...don't forget that Chaosium let RQ die in the 90s. I know there were other factors involved, > but RQ was effectively dead in the water. No it is not. So, from a support point of view, I don't > have much time for Chaosium as it is in the present day. Like others here I don't particularly want to argue (believe it or not), but I think you're being unfair to Chaosium. RuneQuest died when Chaosium was being run by Greg Stafford. Then he left Chaosium and got the trademark to the RuneQuest name (over Chaosium's objections) - so Charlie Krank could hardly have supported RuneQuest after that! With D100 Chaosium is making a major effort to update and support the core mechanics and concepts which made RQ great. Agreed, they probably won't be able to produce the quantity of supplements that Mongoose can. But from what I've heard the quality of the Mongoose material is mixed, while Chaosium's reputation for top-quality supplements still stands. Personally, I'm hoping that Chaosium will find an innovative way to use the web to support D100. It would be brilliant if they could work out a way to co-ordinate fan talent and produce large amounts of good online material. I don't know how likely that is, though. ->Peter On 8/1/07, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Steve Perrin: > > > What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be > supported the way > > Mongoose can support MRQ. > > Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. DBRP may well be a better thought out > product with better rules (if you ignore SAN) but it won't do as well as RQM > because Mongoose have put a lot behind it and probably will continue to do > so. > > > That's just the way it is. > > Unfortunately, yes. > > I don't particularly like Mongoose's RQ, although it has a lot of good > points. I prefer to play RQ3 with a few things from RQ2, HeroQuest and > Mongoose here and there. > > The RQM rules don't hang together particularly well and are inconsistent > from supplement to supplement. But, the modularity is good and things like > Legendary Abilities, Monster Abilties, Vices and rules for modifying > equipment are pretty good and would work in any RQ setting. > > But, they have brought out a lot of RQ supplements and have allowed other > people to bring out a lot of RQ supplements. This can only be a good thing, > regardless of how much you love/hate Mongoose/Issaries/Chaosium. > > The Second Age setting is interesting, but I probably won't use it very > often. The Eternal Champion settings look good, but again I probably won't > get the chance to use them. Their Pirates supplement is truly excellent, > well worth buying. As for the rest of the settings, Mongoose hasn't got it's > own setting, so the books are ultra-generic, but with a noticeably > Gloranthan tinge, as was for most of the old RQ non-Gloranthan stuff. Third > party RQ publishers have their own settings which look OK, I suppose. > > I think Mongoose have brought out 20 supplements, of which only 8 are > Gloranthan, which means 11 are generic or non-Gloranthan, including the > Eternal Champion books. Other publishers have around 10 supplements out, > none of which are Gloranthan. That's an awful lot, compared with how much > came out in the preceeding 10 years. In fact, I'd like them to slow down a > bit, to allow me to save my pennies. > > I know that a lot of people don't like/hate/won't buy from > Issaries/Mongoose or whoever, but don't forget that Chaosium let RQ die in > the 90s. I know there were other factors involved, but RQ was effectively > dead in the water. No it is not. So, from a support point of view, I don't > have much time for Chaosium as it is in the present day. They used to make > excellent RQ supplements, but don't any more. > > Unfortunately, I am not particularly sentimental when dealing with games > companies or games, and I don't particularly care who publishes a game or > who writes for a game. If Mongoose carry on producing reasonable RQ > supplements, then I will continue buying them (wife-permitting, of course). > If Chaosium ever publish DBRP then I'll probably buy that and whatever > related supplements I can afford. I'll also buy HeroQuest supplements. I > might even buy third party RQ supplements. > > What I won't do, however, is refuse to buy supplements and then complain > about how modern RQ is no good. > > There seems to be a lot of bile towards Mongoose and Issaries, which is a > shame. > > See Ya > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070801/2d42a90c/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 22:33:48 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:33:48 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> References: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> Message-ID: Thanks for answering my question, Steve; I wasn't sure if it was out of line. I'll admit that I'm also wondering if you'll be getting anything from sales of D100! Which reminds me that as soon as I have some money, I should buy SPQR. :D ->Peter On 7/31/07, steve wrote: > > What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be > supported the way Mongoose can support MRQ. Mongoose is a growing company > with a lot of employees. Chaosium has had the same six employees for almost > a decade, and has had periods when it had less than that. It was up to ten > employees when Tadashi Ehara and I left, and I don't think it has ever > reached that number again. > > And I think the only "creative" employees are Lynn and Charlie. > > Consider how long it is taking to get DBRP printed... > > So don't expect much support. Even if everyone on this list, and the BRP > list, sent in a printable scenario and was willing to defer payment, it > would still take 3 years or more to print them all. > > That's just the way it is. > > Steve Perrin, who, to answer Peter Maranci's request, gets no money from > MRQ > > > > > > > > > > > *-----Original Message-----* > From: lev _lafayette at yahoo.com.au > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > --- Simon Phipp wrote: > > > Personally, I have no problems with the so-called > > provenance of RQM. I wish the quality was better and > > that they had more scenario packs and better maps > > and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ > > is better than no RQ. > > WTF? If the RQ trademark fell into the hands of morons > and they published the worst roleplaying game in the > history of gaming you think that would be better than > RQ not being in print? > > > I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes > > out", but I can't see DBRP getting the kind of > > support or publishing the number of suppl ements that > > RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit > > bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. > > Why not? Chaosium has produced quite a lot of games in > the past with excellent circulation. DBRP may be just > the shot in the arm they need. > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who > knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/r q-rules > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070801/0bc8c867/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 00:02:50 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:02:50 -0500 Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> References: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> <482808.41911.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731111802.0342bad8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708010702i3803d780m9b1ae0630a642759@mail.gmail.com> On 7/31/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 09:55 AM 7/31/2007, you wrote: > >Do you feel MRQ is part of the "true" RQ-family? I don't, but then I > >don't consider bad RQ to be better than no RQ either. > > I think getting into defining what's the "true" RQ family is > tantamount to getting into religious niggling; And vehement religious niggling is clearly the provenance of the Gloranthan Mailing List. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070801/04b05995/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 00:07:48 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 07:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BRP/d100 was Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> God, I'm going to love that book when it gets published! Tick, tick, tick... Gregory --- Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > Come to think of it, even Chaosium's > > new D100 system may be closer to RQ3 than MRQ is! > Can anyone > > knowledgeable comment on that? I haven't purchased > MRQ, don't plan > > to, and my playtest documents are (presumably) way > out of date. > > If by "closer" you mean "virtually indistinguishable > if you use the right > combination of optional rules" then yes... :D > > d100/ BRP has optional rules for Skill Category > modifiers (couple of names > changes and which attributes effect which category > have been tweaked IIRC > but otherwise as in RQIII), hit locations calculated > as per RQIII (although > the pre-calculated values in the table are now > rounded correctly...). The > only RQIII feature that WASN'T in the playtest draft > either as a core rule > or an option was the RQIII magic system - but that's > available separately > as the BRP Magic book monographs and the BRP does > contain magic / power > systems based on Magic World, Elric!/SB5, Hawkmoon's > Mutations, ElfQuest's > Psychic Powers and SuperWorld's super powers... > > There are some subtle differences - opposed skill > mechanics are formally > defined (with a few options and in the process the > issue some people had > with Dodge in RQIII is solved) for example, and the > skill definitions have > examples of outcomes for each level of result > (Critical, special, normal > success, normal failure and fumble). But basically > the RQIII system is in > there, just tidied up and in modular form, so it's > easy to drop features > you don't like (swap DEX ranks for Strike Ranks) or > add them from other BRP > games (you could run an RQIII game with the > Allegiance system from > Elric!/SB5). > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 00:13:22 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:13:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> Interesting, Peter - I didn't know that they were selling those. What's damn sad is that they want (for these 4 books) $57, which is ridiculous, IMO. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070801/dbcb0df2/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Thu Aug 2 00:39:57 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:39:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <112289.17780.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> "I also suspect that if you took all the names off the books and showed someone who knew nothing Rq2 and then showed them Rq3 and MRQ and asked which is closest to Rq2 that MRQ would get the nod at least as often as RQ3." If you showed someone who knew nothing about RQ2 some RQ3 and MRQ books, how on earth would they be able to say which resembled RQ2 the most??? SGL. Bruce Mason skrev: On 01/08/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > From what I've heard, MRQ has grafted mechanics onto the RQ/BRP system which > were never present in any previous edition, not even in embryo. As someone who has played RQ2, RQ3, AiG (an old printed copy) and MRQ, I would say that the family tree looks something like Rq1 - RQ2 - RQ3 - AiG \ - MRQ Which is to say that I think MRQ is an attempt at revisioning RQ2 in the current atmosphere. For me, the biggest changes between RQ2 and RQ3 were: Fatigue Points, Sorcery, rejigging of Spirit Magic and Divine Magic, single percentage point increments, different hit locations for melee and missile combat, massive changes to the SR system, addition of dodge. RQ3 always seemed more complex than RQ2. The biggest changes between RQ2 and MRQ are: removal of resistance table and General HPs, removal of SRs, removal of skill category modifiers, collapsing specials and criticals into criticals, addition of opposed rolls, yet another rejig of spirit magic. To me it seems that RQ3 was founded on the presumption that what role-players wanted was more crunch in the system, MRQ is founded on the presumption that role-players wanted the reverse. Plus one was designed 20 years after the other so I suspect that if RQ3 were being designed now, it would come up with the same answers as RQ3 did then. I also suspect that if you took all the names off the books and showed someone who knew nothing Rq2 and then showed them Rq3 and MRQ and asked which is closest to Rq2 that MRQ would get the nod at least as often as RQ3. This is not to make any value judgements about any of the versions involved. From what I've heard about BRP, I suspect that I'll end up running something that is based on that with bits of MRQ added in. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070801/846d63bf/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 01:02:39 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:02:39 +0800 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <112289.17780.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <112289.17780.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708010802n3d13387dw4c116ec68e7893b5@mail.gmail.com> RQ2 has been absorbed into the collective unconscious. :) On 01/08/07, sverre larne wrote: > "I also suspect that if you took all the names off the books and showed > someone who knew nothing Rq2 and then showed them Rq3 and MRQ and > asked which is closest to Rq2 that MRQ would get the nod at least as > often as RQ3." > > If you showed someone who knew nothing about RQ2 some RQ3 and MRQ books, how > on earth would they be able to say which resembled RQ2 the most??? > -- GAZZA From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 2 02:50:26 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:50:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Shaman rules [was MRQ "A Real Runequest Game"] In-Reply-To: <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070731170008.033bba48@caprica.com> <005f01c7d3ea$eec1e140$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <1831BE4C-51FA-4BDA-9A5D-57F33936CB21@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801094923.01131410@caprica.com> At 10:27 PM 7/31/2007, you wrote: >I've run and played in multiple campaigns that prominently featured >shamans of the RQ:AiG variety and of the Sandy Petersen shaman >rules. We universally preferred Sandy's rules. I've found none that >I like better. What did you think of the AIG version? I'm likely to be using rules partly based on the AIG/RQ4 draft down the road, and any heads-up information would be useful. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 2 02:53:45 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:53:45 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <20713.3581.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20713.3581.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801095259.033c0e80@caprica.com> At 07:25 PM 7/31/2007, you wrote: >--- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > The biggest change between RQ2 and RQ3 was going > > from 5% increments to a > > full percentile system. I don't think anyone would > > disagree about that? But > > that was merely refining an already-existing > > mechanic. > >Depends on what you consider important. I found going >to a full percentile system a fairly minor (but nice) >change. > >The really big changes were, imo, those to the >cultural system (really good) and to the spell system >(OK). At the time when we converted, the thing most people noticed (besides the true percentile usage) were fatigue (problematic) and sorcery (in parts, _really_ problematic). From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 2 02:57:03 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:57:03 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801095456.03427e90@caprica.com> >combat, massive changes to the SR system, addition of dodge. RQ3 Funny, but other than going from 12 to 10 SR per round, we barely noticed the changes in SR initially. From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Aug 2 04:09:09 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom at zunder.org.uk) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: References: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1659.84.43.14.189.1185991749.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> Am I going to be flamed for saying I'd like to see products of varying quantity but volume rather than one perfect gem every 5 years? After all very few products are so bad they have no use whatsoever, well apart from Daughters of Darkness. I also think RQM/MRQ is flawed. I think since Lawrence Whitaker started working for Mongoose it'll be fixed at the core, but that isn't the point. It's good enough, and if you want to improve it then you can do so yourself as house rules, or play RQ3/2/DBRP and use the material and stats from MRQ/RQM publications. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 2 04:45:34 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:45:34 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <1659.84.43.14.189.1185991749.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.u k> References: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1659.84.43.14.189.1185991749.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801114328.03424008@caprica.com> At 11:09 AM 8/1/2007, you wrote: >Am I going to be flamed for saying I'd like to see products of varying >quantity but volume rather than one perfect gem every 5 years? After all very >few products are so bad they have no use whatsoever, well apart from Daughters >of Darkness. > >I also think RQM/MRQ is flawed. I think since Lawrence Whitaker started >working for Mongoose it'll be fixed at the core, but that isn't the point. >It's good enough, and if you want to improve it then you can do so yourself as >house rules, or play RQ3/2/DBRP and use the material and stats from MRQ/RQM >publications. Well, note that while I'm not an RQM fan, I don't hate its existance like some people; I'm mostly just irritated that a number of us did playtesting for some time and then were, as best I can determine, pretty much ignored completely. I don't expect a company to do everything playtesters suggest, but this is the first time I've seen a playtest list apparently utterly disregarded. But that's more directed at Mongoose than at the product, which stands or falls on its own (falls to me, but others aren't required to agree). From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 2 07:07:27 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <1659.84.43.14.189.1185991749.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <983320.3177.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- tom at zunder.org.uk wrote: > Am I going to be flamed for saying I'd like to see > products of varying > quantity but volume rather than one perfect gem > every 5 years? After all very > few products are so bad they have no use whatsoever, > well apart from Daughters > of Darkness. Havin actually played/ran Daughters of Darkness I have to say it's not quite as bad as it looks (and I agree, it looks terrible). > I also think RQM/MRQ is flawed. I think since > Lawrence Whitaker started > working for Mongoose it'll be fixed at the core, but > that isn't the point. > It's good enough, and if you want to improve it then > you can do so yourself as > house rules, or play RQ3/2/DBRP and use the material > and stats from MRQ/RQM > publications. Quite; I've already started a fairly hefty list of house rules for the game. Of course in the process it's beginning to feel more like RQIV:AiG or RQIII ;-) All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 2 09:05:20 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801114328.03424008@caprica.com> Message-ID: <558024.85642.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 11:09 AM 8/1/2007, you wrote: > >Am I going to be flamed for saying I'd like to see > products of varying > >quantity but volume rather than one perfect gem > every 5 years? After all very > >few products are so bad they have no use > whatsoever, well apart from Daughters > >of Darkness. > > > >I also think RQM/MRQ is flawed. I think since > Lawrence Whitaker started > >working for Mongoose it'll be fixed at the core, > but that isn't the point. > >It's good enough, and if you want to improve it > then you can do so yourself as > >house rules, or play RQ3/2/DBRP and use the > material and stats from MRQ/RQM > >publications. > > Well, note that while I'm not an RQM fan, I don't > hate its existance > like some people; I'm mostly just irritated that a > number of us did > playtesting for some time and then were, as best I > can determine, > pretty much ignored completely. I don't expect a > company to do > everything playtesters suggest, but this is the > first time I've seen > a playtest list apparently utterly disregarded. Do you remember the time when the author/designer just disappeared off the list without warning? It was for over a month.. Absolute classic that one, a real door prize. Yeah, the playtest experience could have been better. Attention to what the playtesters were saying could have generated a better game, much quicker and with much less effort. Regards, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Aug 2 10:44:07 2007 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:44:07 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way Message-ID: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > Yeah, the playtest experience could have been better. > Attention to what the playtesters were saying could > have generated a better game, much quicker and with > much less effort. > Lev Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, that they can not let go or see something different. And that is not only with game development. Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored because of contradictory input from those higher up the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of possiblities. Jim From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 2 10:54:24 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, > that they can not let go or see something different. > And that is not only with game development. > Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored > because of contradictory input from those higher up > the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of > possiblities. > Hi Jim, I understand those possibilities, but one asks why bother with a playtest at all under those circumstances? Whilst trying really hard not to play favourites on the issue, the playtest of DBRP was *much* better. There was clarity from the start on what was up for debate (and what wasn't), there was continious interaction from the designer (even with some pretty significant lifestyle changes!) and there was a good sense that we really were being listened to and that our opinions had an effect on the design of the game. Indeed, I'm tempted to say it set a standard on how to conduct a playtest. All the best, Lev > Jim > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 11:28:19 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MRQ Playtest In-Reply-To: <20070802005437.74C98178763@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <840342.1901.qm@web53903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I never saw an articulation of Mongoose's design goals for MRQ (and I asked, repeatedly). Without that structure, I think the playtest was doomed before it started. Steve > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:44:07 +0000 > From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Message-ID: > > Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, > that they can not let go or see something different. > And that is not only with game development. > Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored > because of contradictory input from those higher up > the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of > possiblities. > > Jim Steven D. Davies PerfectJob Software 312.560.4577 mobile From parejf63 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 12:13:54 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: When a company creates a game, they WANT/NEED playtestors. I may for publication reasons or because they want to know if it is playable, getting a third party conference. They normally personally choose them from people they know or from people they know will swing a certain way. Playtestors are not necessarily a part in the scheme and creation of a game. The company knows what they want to do with it, and then regardless of input from the playtestors, THEY DO IT... In a sense, they are guinny pigs for a study. Very rarely do people gain anything out of playtesting but getting to try a new game. Just my two cents... I have been asked to playtest several games and I have declined for those same reasons. Come to think of it, no one I know of was even offered money or the book for doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in the book.. John >From: Lev Lafayette >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT) > > >--- Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > > > Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, > > that they can not let go or see something different. > > And that is not only with game development. > > Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored > > because of contradictory input from those higher up > > the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of > > possiblities. > > > >Hi Jim, > >I understand those possibilities, but one asks why >bother with a playtest at all under those >circumstances? > >Whilst trying really hard not to play favourites on >the issue, the playtest of DBRP was *much* better. >There was clarity from the start on what was up for >debate (and what wasn't), there was continious >interaction from the designer (even with some pretty >significant lifestyle changes!) and there was a good >sense that we really were being listened to and that >our opinions had an effect on the design of the game. > >Indeed, I'm tempted to say it set a standard on how to >conduct a playtest. > >All the best, > > >Lev > > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. >Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. >http://sims.yahoo.com/ >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 2 16:20:41 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <220676.38439.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In this a instance a game relevant to this discussion was utterly unplayable after several iterations of playtesting. Playtester comments, indeed even pleas, were largely falling on deaf ears. It was only when a final draft was bashed into shape by one particularly competent designer *coughKennethHitecough* was there a product even worthy of consideration. Or, in other words, the entire playtest may as well not happened and competent designer could have been left to design the product without input. It sure would have saved a lot of time and energy. All the best, Lev --- John Pare' wrote: > When a company creates a game, they WANT/NEED > playtestors. I may for > publication reasons or because they want to know if > it is playable, getting > a third party conference. > > They normally personally choose them from people > they know or from people > they know will swing a certain way. Playtestors > are not necessarily a part > in the scheme and creation of a game. > > The company knows what they want to do with it, and > then regardless of input > from the playtestors, THEY DO IT... > > In a sense, they are guinny pigs for a study. > > Very rarely do people gain anything out of > playtesting but getting to try a > new game. > > Just my two cents... > > I have been asked to playtest several games and I > have declined for those > same reasons. > > Come to think of it, no one I know of was even > offered money or the book for > doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in > the book.. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Lev Lafayette > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way > >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > >--- Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > > > > > Sometimes people become so invested in their > ideas, > > > that they can not let go or see something > different. > > > And that is not only with game development. > > > Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored > > > because of contradictory input from those higher > up > > > the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple > of > > > possiblities. > > > > > > >Hi Jim, > > > >I understand those possibilities, but one asks why > >bother with a playtest at all under those > >circumstances? > > > >Whilst trying really hard not to play favourites on > >the issue, the playtest of DBRP was *much* better. > >There was clarity from the start on what was up for > >debate (and what wasn't), there was continious > >interaction from the designer (even with some > pretty > >significant lifestyle changes!) and there was a > good > >sense that we really were being listened to and > that > >our opinions had an effect on the design of the > game. > > > >Indeed, I'm tempted to say it set a standard on how > to > >conduct a playtest. > > > >All the best, > > > > > >Lev > > > > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - > their life, your story. > >Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > >http://sims.yahoo.com/ > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool > activities served daily. > Visit now. > http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Aug 2 16:55:34 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:55:34 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents References: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> Message-ID: <008701c7d4d2$1fc45650$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Yes, you should. :) Thanks, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Thanks for answering my question, Steve; I wasn't sure if it was out of line. I'll admit that I'm also wondering if you'll be getting anything from sales of D100! Which reminds me that as soon as I have some money, I should buy SPQR. :D ->Peter On 7/31/07, steve wrote: What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be supported the way Mongoose can support MRQ. Mongoose is a growing company with a lot of employees. Chaosium has had the same six employees for almost a decade, and has had periods when it had less than that. It was up to ten employees when Tadashi Ehara and I left, and I don't think it has ever reached that number again. And I think the only "creative" employees are Lynn and Charlie. Consider how long it is taking to get DBRP printed... So don't expect much support. Even if everyone on this list, and the BRP list, sent in a printable scenario and was willing to defer payment, it would still take 3 years or more to print them all. That's just the way it is. Steve Perrin, who, to answer Peter Maranci's request, gets no money from MRQ -----Original Message----- From: lev _lafayette at yahoo.com.au To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Personally, I have no problems with the so-called > provenance of RQM. I wish the quality was better and > that they had more scenario packs and better maps > and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ > is better than no RQ. WTF? If the RQ trademark fell into the hands of morons and they published the worst roleplaying game in the history of gaming you think that would be better than RQ not being in print? > I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes > out", but I can't see DBRP getting the kind of > support or publishing the number of suppl ements that > RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit > bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. Why not? Chaosium has produced quite a lot of games in the past with excellent circulation. DBRP may be just the shot in the arm they need. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/r q-rules _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070801/9b18c28c/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Aug 2 19:17:51 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:17:51 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP Message-ID: <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does the human male: A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh sorry, wrong system, :) The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better teh subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one would appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback moth eaten nag (low APP). Thoughts? Tony From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Aug 2 19:20:14 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:20:14 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <000a01c7d4e6$559ba9e0$0201a8c0@laptop2> As a rule of thumb, I'd say that APP for differing species should be about 10 less. (18 = 8). If you're feeling Tolkien-ish, then that can be ignored for elves and dryads, I suppose. -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of postmaster at runequest.za.org Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:18 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does the human male: A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh sorry, wrong system, :) The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better teh subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one would appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback moth eaten nag (low APP). Thoughts? Tony _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Aug 2 19:21:42 2007 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:21:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <341317.64704.qm@web86112.mail.ird.yahoo.com> In the case of MRQ you can see one design imperative come through: Make it easy to port d20 products to it quickly by having direct translations of feats (legendary abilities) and saving throws (those three skills I can't remember the name of). Cheers, Ash --- Jim Bickmeyer wrote: > > Yeah, the playtest experience could have been > better. > > Attention to what the playtesters were saying > could > > have generated a better game, much quicker and > with > > much less effort. > > Lev > > > Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, > that they can not let go or see something different. > And that is not only with game development. > Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored > because of contradictory input from those higher up > the food chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of > possiblities. > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Thu Aug 2 19:29:18 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:29:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 10:17:51: > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > > Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats > general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: > A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of > 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily > relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met > someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). > Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it > were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a > similar understanding to the base example above. The RQIII Players book specifically says that APP is for ones own species and that for example a high Human APP will cut no ice with a Troll. The effective -10 between species however was an RQII rule IIRC > But cross species? Does > the human male: > A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? By the rules as written, no. Personally, I like the -10 rule - it allows a troll to make distinctions between an APP 18 human and an APP 12 human. Depending on setting, I might draw up a table of modifiers between species, based on both species and culture - so humans and Elves for example might have no modifier (indeed, Elves might have an APP modifier with respect to Humans, but Humans have an APP penalty with respect to Elves), but Dwarves would have 10 wrt to Elves, but only -5 wrtr to Humans... > B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP > the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? Personally I think that would be a little to contrived - that one species judgement of APP is the _exact_ inversion of another's. But if it works for the setting / game why not? > C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh > sorry, wrong system, :) > The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better > the subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one would > appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback moth > eaten nag (low APP). That's why I like the inter-species penalty - Humans can judge a fine looking horse as a fine looking horse, but they are applying different criteria. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 21:22:41 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: The Deeper meaning of APP Message-ID: <387989.28709.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tony: > Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) Aw, shame. > A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of > 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily > relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met > someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). Only in my dreams .... > Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it > were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a > similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does > the human male: > A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? Probably, "for an Orc". > B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP > the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? No, because orcs and humans are similar enough to share common ideas of what is physically attractive. > The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better > teh subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one would > appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback moth > eaten nag (low APP). Yes, that sounds right to me. So, a comely orc wench would still be comely to a human, but the tusks might put him off a bit. "Bag on the head" time. But, I'd apply a simple penalty/bonus to APP to give a relative APP. This might not be the same both ways. So, an Orc might have a -5 APP when viewed by humans (smelly, big teeth, aggressive) and a human would have a -5 when viewed by orcs (no smell, tiny useless teeth, weak). A beautiful Orc (APP 18) would be seen by a human as APP 13, not especially beautiful, but still worth a go. You could make it a bit more complicated and say that Orc Males regard human females as attractive (+5 APP) but orc females regard human males as unattractive (-5 APP, weak). So, an orc male looking at an APP 12 human woman might regard her as APP 17 and would see an APP 18 human woman as APP 23, but an orc woman might view a good-looking human male (APP 18) as just APP 13. You could even set up a table with relative APP modifiers, for each of the species in a campaign. So, someone might find Ugbag the Troll more attractive than a fellow party member, for instance. Of course, they all look the same in the dark .... See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/9e6a9dd8/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Aug 2 21:28:05 2007 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:28:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: <387989.28709.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <626798.18623.qm@web86112.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Simon Said: "Of course, they all look the same in the dark ...." Not to a Troll, you've got that Darksense thing going on. Hmmm, wonder if it's tingly and you can feel them pinging you? Cheers, Ashley (Unisex name, and you can't tell as it's dark...) --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Tony: > > Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been > done before) > > Aw, shame. > > > A character is a human male and meets a NPC human > female with an APP of > > 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most > players can easily > > relate to as it draws on true life experiences. > (Am sure everyone has met > > someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP > in real life). > > Only in my dreams .... > > > Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its > an orc female. Now if it > > were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it > would be pretty much a > > similar understanding to the base example above. > But cross species? Does > > the human male: > > > A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? > > Probably, "for an Orc". > > > B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, > i.e. the lower an orcs APP > > the more "human" they look and therefore the more > agreeable on the eyes? > > No, because orcs and humans are similar enough to > share common ideas of what is physically attractive. > > > The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter > what species, the better > > teh subject can be appreciated as an excellent > specimen. Much as one would > > appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high > APP) vs a swayback moth > > eaten nag (low APP). > > Yes, that sounds right to me. So, a comely orc wench > would still be comely to a human, but the tusks > might put him off a bit. "Bag on the head" time. > > But, I'd apply a simple penalty/bonus to APP to give > a relative APP. This might not be the same both > ways. So, an Orc might have a -5 APP when viewed by > humans (smelly, big teeth, aggressive) and a human > would have a -5 when viewed by orcs (no smell, tiny > useless teeth, weak). A beautiful Orc (APP 18) would > be seen by a human as APP 13, not especially > beautiful, but still worth a go. > > You could make it a bit more complicated and say > that Orc Males regard human females as attractive > (+5 APP) but orc females regard human males as > unattractive (-5 APP, weak). So, an orc male looking > at an APP 12 human woman might regard her as APP 17 > and would see an APP 18 human woman as APP 23, but > an orc woman might view a good-looking human male > (APP 18) as just APP 13. > > You could even set up a table with relative APP > modifiers, for each of the species in a campaign. > So, someone might find Ugbag the Troll more > attractive than a fellow party member, for instance. > > Of course, they all look the same in the dark .... > > See Ya > > Simon> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Thu Aug 2 22:11:26 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:11:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 01/08/2007 15:07:48: > God, I'm going to love that book when it gets > published! > Tick, tick, tick... You might find this of interest: http://catalog.chaosium.com/pages.php?CDpath=3&pID=38 Which looks pretty close, but not identical to the last draft of the Intro Jason showed the playtest group... :D Nick Middleton 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 diadochi at bigfoot.com Thu Aug 2 22:59:46 2007 From: diadochi at bigfoot.com (David Ford) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:59:46 +0100 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: <20070802091306.3F63917E6AD@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070802091306.3F63917E6AD@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20070802125935.IJGE17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@matthew.bigfoot.com> > >Message: 5 >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:17:51 +0200 (SAST) >From: postmaster at runequest.za.org >Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Message-ID: > <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel at wwm.runequest.za.org> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > >---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > > >Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats >general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: > >A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of >18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily >relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met >someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). > >Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it >were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a >similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does >the human male: > >A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? >B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP >the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? >C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh >sorry, wrong system, :) > >The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better >teh subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one would >appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback moth >eaten nag (low APP). > >Thoughts? >Tony > Its a judgement call for you the world designer/game referee depending on how you see orcs. No pun intended. If you assume orcs are like normal animals (and I include humans here) then things like strength, symmetry, graceful lines, healthy skin, lots of healthy hair or feathers, are* universally beautiful so a human can appreciate that a young fit orc female could be more attractive than an older fat one eyed orc hag, even if he or she doesn't like orcs. * caveat: we tend to find mammals and birds most attractive but even humans can appreciate a good looking fish or snake, etc. However, If you assume that orcs are unnatural, a perversion of nature, then your inverse rule could work, so symmetry, healthy skin, sparkling alert eyes would be ugly to orcs but more attractive to non-orcs. It all depends on whether orcs are another type of creature, or if orcs are inherently an insult to the world of nature (like Tolkien orcs) Dave From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Aug 2 23:51:01 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:51:01 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: <20070802125935.IJGE17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@matthew.bigfoot.com> Message-ID: In my personal opinion this is too much focus on 'rules'; which are really only guidelines (parler?). APP is only an afterthough kind of stat without a lot of though and modeling, you can tell just by seeing the whole sentence or paragraph dedicated to it. I think that it is simply the 'how good do I look' stat in purely human terms with no deeper thought. This is really a totally relative thing. What species we think are beautiful or horrid varies from culture to cultrue. So none of those criteria work as a 'rule'. Also, beauty is seen differently between races within the same species. IMO, this is one for the GM to decide and not a rule book. Its your story and your environment so you decide how interspecies/interracial interactions are determined and leave APP to just be a measure of looks within species or even race or culture. If you think humans in your world are discusted by orcs, it isn't going to make a bit of difference what its APP is. Also, while you might think a horse is a beautiful animal, you probably aren't going to fall in love with it and get married to it. >---------------------------- Original Message >Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats >general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: > >A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of >18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily >relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met >someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). > >Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it >were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a >similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does >the human male: > >A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? >B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP >the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? >C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh >sorry, wrong system, :) _________________________________________________________________ Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 3 00:14:40 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:14:40 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9741.196.8.104.27.1186064080.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Simon wrote: > I think Mongoose have brought out 20 supplements, of which only 8 are > Gloranthan, which means 11 are generic or non-Gloranthan, including the > Eternal Champion books. Other publishers have around 10 supplements out, > none of which are Gloranthan. That's an awful lot, compared with how much > came out in the preceeding 10 years. In fact, I'd like them to slow down a > bit, to allow me to save my pennies. > Is anyone keeping a list of publishers producing RQ gear under the OGL? Could be a handy reference point. who knows, maybe some of the small press lads will come up with some fantastic ideas/adventures. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 3 00:22:22 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:22:22 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> You are better off just lurking on eBay. Sooner or later what you want will come up for a price you can manage. Thats how I did the bulk of my RQ collection. > Interesting, Peter - I didn't know that they were selling those. What's > damn sad is that they want (for these 4 books) $57, which is ridiculous, > IMO. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 00:24:22 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: I agree that the price for the set is way too high - but then, I don't know the economics of producing them. Still, I doubt that they make a lot of sales on those books. I wish they'd produce an omnibus edition, something like the perfect-bound RQ3 book (and in a more reasonable price range). Somehow that doesn't seem likely. In fact, it just occurred to me that they might stop selling the monograph editions completely once D100 is out! ->Peter On 8/2/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > You are better off just lurking on eBay. Sooner or later what you want > will come up for a price you can manage. Thats how I did the bulk of my RQ > collection. > > > Interesting, Peter - I didn't know that they were selling those. > What's > > damn sad is that they want (for these 4 books) $57, which is ridiculous, > > IMO. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- 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/20070802/535caafb/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 3 00:34:45 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:34:45 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: References: <38661.196.8.104.27.1186046271.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <37674.196.8.104.27.1186065285.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Thanks nick I like the table idea, specially as one coudl apply it in different areas. So in an area where there is a diverse mix of orcs and humans and they get on well together etc and understand each others cultures better, then the perceptions will be different to another area where the two species bareley meet. Hmm, A troll would also say its a fine horse (for eating :) > rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 10:17:51: >> ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- >> >> Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats >> general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: > >> A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of >> 18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily >> relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has >> met >> someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). > >> Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if >> it >> were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a >> similar understanding to the base example above. > > The RQIII Players book specifically says that APP is for ones own species > and that for example a high Human APP will cut no ice with a Troll. The > effective -10 between species however was an RQII rule IIRC > >> But cross species? Does >> the human male: > >> A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? > > By the rules as written, no. Personally, I like the -10 rule - it allows > a > troll to make distinctions between an APP 18 human and an APP 12 human. > Depending on setting, I might draw up a table of modifiers between > species, > based on both species and culture - so humans and Elves for example might > have no modifier (indeed, Elves might have an APP modifier with respect > to > Humans, but Humans have an APP penalty with respect to Elves), but > Dwarves > would have 10 wrt to Elves, but only -5 wrtr to Humans... > >> B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs >> APP >> the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the >> eyes? > > Personally I think that would be a little to contrived - that one species > judgement of APP is the _exact_ inversion of another's. But if it works > for > the setting / game why not? > >> C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure >> (Oh >> sorry, wrong system, :) > >> The way I see it The higher the APP, no matter what species, the better >> the subject can be appreciated as an excellent specimen. Much as one > would >> appreciate a thoroughbread race winner horse (high APP) vs a swayback > moth >> eaten nag (low APP). > > That's why I like the inter-species penalty - Humans can judge a fine > looking horse as a fine looking horse, but they are applying different > criteria. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Aug 3 00:34:14 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:34:14 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I agree that the price for the set is way too high - but then, I > don't know the economics of producing them. Still, I doubt that they > make a lot of sales on those books. Minor observation (an d not to dispute that the BRP Monographs could be better priced) - but there list price translates to less than ?30, which is considerably less than the AH Deluxe Boxed set, and speaking from experience (I own both), the monographs are considerably more robust than the flimsy pamphlets that made up the AH Deluxe boxed set... > I wish they'd produce an omnibus edition, something like the > perfect-bound RQ3 book (and in a more reasonable price range). > Somehow that doesn't seem likely. Funnily enough, I was thinking roughly the same thing on my way to work this morning. They did web site exclusive hardback editions of Malleus Monstrorum, Beyond the Mountains of Madness and Masks of Nyarlathotep (all for Call of Cthulhu) last year via PoD - they could easily do something similar with the BRP monographs (soft or hardback) and they'd probably get good sales... > In fact, it just occurred to me > that they might stop selling the monograph editions completely once > D100 is out! I doubt it - they are still selling very old versions of Call of Cthulhu in PDF via DTR, can't see any reason to drop the BRP monographs - sales may drop a bit, but one of the reason Chaosium like s the monographs is that they are such low risk items from their point of view. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 3 00:41:12 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:41:12 +0200 (SAST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***[Rq-rules] The Deeper meaning of APP In-Reply-To: References: <20070802125935.IJGE17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@matthew.bigfoot.com> Message-ID: <46352.196.8.104.27.1186065672.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Good points all. Main reason I posed this is I have a sesh coming up where I plan to introduce a rocking female orc NPC and I just know an APP debate will be sparked around the table, so want a bit of ammo/research so as to avoid being too sidetracked. Cheers tony > In my personal opinion this is too much focus on 'rules'; which are really > only guidelines (parler?). APP is only an afterthough kind of stat without > a > lot of though and modeling, you can tell just by seeing the whole sentence > or paragraph dedicated to it. > > I think that it is simply the 'how good do I look' stat in purely human > terms with no deeper thought. This is really a totally relative thing. > What species we think are beautiful or horrid varies from culture to > cultrue. So none of those criteria work as a 'rule'. Also, beauty is > seen > differently between races within the same species. > > IMO, this is one for the GM to decide and not a rule book. Its your story > and your environment so you decide how interspecies/interracial > interactions > are determined and leave APP to just be a measure of looks within species > or > even race or culture. If you think humans in your world are discusted by > orcs, it isn't going to make a bit of difference what its APP is. Also, > while you might think a horse is a beautiful animal, you probably aren't > going to fall in love with it and get married to it. > >>---------------------------- Original Message > >>Not to start an APP vs CHA debate here (Its been done before) but whats >>general understanding of APP. I have an examle I would like to explore: >> >>A character is a human male and meets a NPC human female with an APP of >>18. This is the kind of thing that I am sure most players can easily >>relate to as it draws on true life experiences. (Am sure everyone has met >>someone of opposite gender who has a very high APP in real life). >> >>Anyway, here's the twist. Same scenario, but its an orc female. Now if it >>were an orc mae meeting an orc female, well it would be pretty much a >>similar understanding to the base example above. But cross species? Does >>the human male: >> >>A - Still percieve the orc as handsome? >>B - Percieve orcs in an inverse way to humans, i.e. the lower an orcs APP >>the more "human" they look and therefore the more agreeable on the eyes? >>C - Whip out sword and slay orc and gain 133 XP and 2 gp in treasure (Oh >>sorry, wrong system, :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served > daily. > Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From parejf63 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 02:06:52 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:06:52 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It was steep, but I just ordered them. Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the Glorantha book. John >From: "Peter Maranci" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:24:22 -0400 > >I agree that the price for the set is way too high - but then, I don't know >the economics of producing them. Still, I doubt that they make a lot of >sales on those books. > >I wish they'd produce an omnibus edition, something like the perfect-bound >RQ3 book (and in a more reasonable price range). Somehow that doesn't seem >likely. In fact, it just occurred to me that they might stop selling the >monograph editions completely once D100 is out! > >->Peter > >On 8/2/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > > You are better off just lurking on eBay. Sooner or later what you want > > will come up for a price you can manage. Thats how I did the bulk of my >RQ > > collection. > > > > > Interesting, Peter - I didn't know that they were selling those. > > What's > > > damn sad is that they want (for these 4 books) $57, which is >ridiculous, > > > IMO. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > >-- >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 _________________________________________________________________ A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Aug 3 02:11:04 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > It was steep, but I just ordered them. ~?30 - bit high, but less than the ?45 the AH Deluxe Boxed set went for in 1984... ;-) > Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the Glorantha book. Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses of the words "Glorantha" and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or substituted by "Basi Role Playing", as appropriate. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 02:50:24 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:50:24 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <46B20B50.7090908@gmail.com> I believe they use the same printer in Thaland as Fantasy Imperium did. Fantasy Imperium is done with color cover & insets, lots of high end drawings and about 440 pages. It is priced at $34.95 (about ?16 & change). A heck of a value difference. skal, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > I agree that the price for the set is way too high - but then, I don't > know the economics of producing them. Still, I doubt that they make a > lot of sales on those books. > > I wish they'd produce an omnibus edition, something like the > perfect-bound RQ3 book (and in a more reasonable price range). Somehow > that doesn't seem likely. In fact, it just occurred to me that they > might stop selling the monograph editions completely once D100 is out! > > ->Peter > > On 8/2/07, *postmaster at runequest.za.org > * > wrote: > > You are better off just lurking on eBay. Sooner or later what you want > will come up for a price you can manage. Thats how I did the bulk > of my RQ > collection. > > > Interesting, Peter - I didn't know that they were selling > those. What's > > damn sad is that they want (for these 4 books) $57, which is > ridiculous, > > IMO. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/9a58e16c/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 03:01:47 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:01:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: References: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708021001p4c2fbbdch581e48504556eeeb@mail.gmail.com> On 8/1/07, John Pare' wrote: > > > Come to think of it, no one I know of was even offered money or the book > for > doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in the book.. > I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller supplement for Steve Jackson Games and was give a free copy of the published supplement in thanks. But I haven't received anything from any other group I playtested for other than an honorable mention, as you said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/11b295f3/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:19:51 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:19:51 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Nick, Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from Chaosium (if it gets released) is going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists on them, or are they more on the lines of COC. John >From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 > >rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > > It was steep, but I just ordered them. > >~??30 - bit high, but less than the ??45 the AH Deluxe Boxed set went for >in >1984... ;-) > > > Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the Glorantha >book. > >Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses of the words "Glorantha" >and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or substituted by "Basi Role Playing", >as appropriate. > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > > > >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. >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:27:53 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Neither, and both. I probably should sit back and let Jason respond to this, if he's following this thread. But basically D100 is an amalgamation of the best rules from all previous iterations of BRP/D100 - including Ringworld, Stormbringer, CoC, SuperWorld, that sort of thing. The D100 system is multi-genre; it uses rule sets to allow it to reproduce pretty much any BRP/RQ system (I suppose MRQ might be an exception, but I'd guess that it wouldn't be hard to make the two interoperable). So by using a particular set of rules, you can pretty closely duplicate RQ, or CoC, or any other BRP-related system. The system has been cleaned up nicely (for example, the RQ3 Dodge glitch was fixed). I haven't yet heard of a playtester who wasn't really pleased with the process and the design choices that were made, overall. I'm looking forward to seeing the final published work. ->Peter On 8/2/07, John Pare' wrote: > > Thanks Nick, > > Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from Chaosium (if it gets released) > is > going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists on them, or are they more > on > the lines of COC. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. > >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 > > > >rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > > > It was steep, but I just ordered them. > > > >~??30 - bit high, but less than the ??45 the AH Deluxe Boxed set went for > >in > >1984... ;-) > > > > > Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the Glorantha > >book. > > > >Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses of the words "Glorantha" > >and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or substituted by "Basi Role Playing", > >as appropriate. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Nick Middleton > > > > > > > >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. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best > route! > > http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070802/d67965cd/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:33:59 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:33:59 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46B22397.6040301@gmail.com> Very succinctly put, Peter! It is a ruleset that will please both the most dyed-in-the-wool Runequest Grognard and have that easy to learn facility for the BRP newcomer. Everyone I talked to during the play-testing process was really happy about the way playtesting was handled and the final result. Skal, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > Neither, and both. > > I probably should sit back and let Jason respond to this, if he's > following this thread. But basically D100 is an amalgamation of the > best rules from all previous iterations of BRP/D100 - including > Ringworld, Stormbringer, CoC, SuperWorld, that sort of thing. > > The D100 system is multi-genre; it uses rule sets to allow it to > reproduce pretty much any BRP/RQ system (I suppose MRQ might be an > exception, but I'd guess that it wouldn't be hard to make the two > interoperable). So by using a particular set of rules, you can pretty > closely duplicate RQ, or CoC, or any other BRP-related system. > > The system has been cleaned up nicely (for example, the RQ3 Dodge > glitch was fixed). I haven't yet heard of a playtester who wasn't > really pleased with the process and the design choices that were made, > overall. > > I'm looking forward to seeing the final published work. > > ->Peter > > On 8/2/07, *John Pare'* > wrote: > > Thanks Nick, > > Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from Chaosium (if it gets > released) is > going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists on them, or are > they more on > the lines of COC. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." < > rq-rules at crashbox.com > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. > >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 > > > >rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote on 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > > > It was steep, but I just ordered them. > > > >~??30 - bit high, but less than the ??45 the AH Deluxe Boxed set > went for > >in > >1984... ;-) > > > > > Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the > Glorantha > >book. > > > >Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses of the words > "Glorantha" > >and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or substituted by "Basi Role > Playing", > >as appropriate. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Nick Middleton > > > > > > > >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. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the > best route! > http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/f0ed45d4/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 3 05:27:01 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:27:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] list of RQ publishers References: <460856.61307.qm@web51009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9741.196.8.104.27.1186064080.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <008901c7d53b$1a15ede0$753f9656@sickboy> Tony, The greenback clan: http://www.runequest.info/ Have got a fairly good list of publishers, I think a couple more may have surfaced since they last updated their links section, but it's a good place to start ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents > Simon wrote: >> I think Mongoose have brought out 20 supplements, of which only 8 are >> Gloranthan, which means 11 are generic or non-Gloranthan, including the >> Eternal Champion books. Other publishers have around 10 supplements out, >> none of which are Gloranthan. That's an awful lot, compared with how much >> came out in the preceeding 10 years. In fact, I'd like them to slow down >> a >> bit, to allow me to save my pennies. >> > Is anyone keeping a list of publishers producing RQ gear under the OGL? > Could be a handy reference point. who knows, maybe some of the small press > lads will come up with some fantastic ideas/adventures. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 05:44:33 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: <46B22397.6040301@gmail.com> References: <46B22397.6040301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708021244m27018345p7ea5c8d1e12862ba@mail.gmail.com> I'll throw in a "me, too" here. Best playtest group experience I've ever had and I'm proud of what was turned in for final review. Jason and the gang are aces in my book. David On 8/2/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Very succinctly put, Peter! It is a ruleset that will please both the > most dyed-in-the-wool Runequest Grognard and have that easy to learn > facility for the BRP newcomer. Everyone I talked to during the play-testing > process was really happy about the way playtesting was handled and the final > result. > Skal, > Sven > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > Neither, and both. > > I probably should sit back and let Jason respond to this, if he's > following this thread. But basically D100 is an amalgamation of the best > rules from all previous iterations of BRP/D100 - including Ringworld, > Stormbringer, CoC, SuperWorld, that sort of thing. > > The D100 system is multi-genre; it uses rule sets to allow it to reproduce > pretty much any BRP/RQ system (I suppose MRQ might be an exception, but I'd > guess that it wouldn't be hard to make the two interoperable). So by using a > particular set of rules, you can pretty closely duplicate RQ, or CoC, or any > other BRP-related system. > > The system has been cleaned up nicely (for example, the RQ3 Dodge glitch > was fixed). I haven't yet heard of a playtester who wasn't really pleased > with the process and the design choices that were made, overall. > > I'm looking forward to seeing the final published work. > > ->Peter > > On 8/2/07, John Pare' wrote: > > > > Thanks Nick, > > > > Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from Chaosium (if it gets released) > > is > > going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists on them, or are they more > > on > > the lines of COC. > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." < rq-rules at crashbox.com> > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. > > >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 > > > > > >rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > > > > It was steep, but I just ordered them. > > > > > >~??30 - bit high, but less than the ??45 the AH Deluxe Boxed set went > > for > > >in > > >1984... ;-) > > > > > > > Did they take out ALL references to Glornantha or just the Glorantha > > >book. > > > > > >Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses of the words > > "Glorantha" > > >and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or substituted by "Basi Role > > Playing", > > >as appropriate. > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >Nick Middleton > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >RQ-Rules mailing list > > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best > > route! > > > > http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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.comhttp://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070802/b64c5703/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 05:57:45 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708021244m27018345p7ea5c8d1e12862ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <782045.45867.qm@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Absolutely! The test was an excellent experience, and we all felt like our suggestions were listened to and considered. Gregory --- David Smart wrote: > I'll throw in a "me, too" here. Best playtest group > experience I've ever had > and I'm proud of what was turned in for final > review. Jason and the gang are > aces in my book. > > David > > On 8/2/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > > > Very succinctly put, Peter! It is a ruleset that > will please both the > > most dyed-in-the-wool Runequest Grognard and have > that easy to learn > > facility for the BRP newcomer. Everyone I talked > to during the play-testing > > process was really happy about the way playtesting > was handled and the final > > result. > > Skal, > > Sven > > > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > Neither, and both. > > > > I probably should sit back and let Jason respond > to this, if he's > > following this thread. But basically D100 is an > amalgamation of the best > > rules from all previous iterations of BRP/D100 - > including Ringworld, > > Stormbringer, CoC, SuperWorld, that sort of thing. > > > > The D100 system is multi-genre; it uses rule sets > to allow it to reproduce > > pretty much any BRP/RQ system (I suppose MRQ might > be an exception, but I'd > > guess that it wouldn't be hard to make the two > interoperable). So by using a > > particular set of rules, you can pretty closely > duplicate RQ, or CoC, or any > > other BRP-related system. > > > > The system has been cleaned up nicely (for > example, the RQ3 Dodge glitch > > was fixed). I haven't yet heard of a playtester > who wasn't really pleased > > with the process and the design choices that were > made, overall. > > > > I'm looking forward to seeing the final published > work. > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 8/2/07, John Pare' > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Nick, > > > > > > Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from > Chaosium (if it gets released) > > > is > > > going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists > on them, or are they more > > > on > > > the lines of COC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > > > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." < > rq-rules at crashbox.com> > > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. > > > >Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:11:04 +0100 > > > > > > > >rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on > 02/08/2007 17:06:52: > > > > > It was steep, but I just ordered them. > > > > > > > >~??30 - bit high, but less than the ??45 the AH > Deluxe Boxed set went > > > for > > > >in > > > >1984... ;-) > > > > > > > > > Did they take out ALL references to > Glornantha or just the Glorantha > > > >book. > > > > > > > >Yes - all references to Glorantha, and all uses > of the words > > > "Glorantha" > > > >and "RuneQuest" have been removed, or > substituted by "Basi Role > > > Playing", > > > >as appropriate. > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > > > >Nick Middleton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >RQ-Rules mailing list > > > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and > more .then map the best > > > route! > > > > > > > http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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.comhttp://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 > "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 shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 09:59:32 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:59:32 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE0 50C070D@comcast.net> References: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802165845.03451198@caprica.com> At 05:44 PM 8/1/2007, you wrote: > > Yeah, the playtest experience could have been better. > > Attention to what the playtesters were saying could > > have generated a better game, much quicker and with > > much less effort. > > Lev > > >Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, that they can >not let go or see something different. And that is not only with >game development. Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored >because of contradictory input from those higher up the food >chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of possiblities. Again, if you're going to _completely_ ignore the playtesters, what's the point of playtesting? If all you're doing is wanting a Greek chorus, you could save everyone a lot of time. From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 09:58:30 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:58:30 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <558024.85642.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070801114328.03424008@caprica.com> <558024.85642.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802165712.033b8110@caprica.com> >Do you remember the time when the author/designer just >disappeared off the list without warning? It was for >over a month.. Absolute classic that one, a real door >prize. Well, honestly, from the time I joined there was almost _no_ feedback that I saw, so that wasn't that noticeable to me. >Yeah, the playtest experience could have been better. >Attention to what the playtesters were saying could >have generated a better game, much quicker and with >much less effort. Or at least indicated some reasoning why we were being ignored. The complete blow-off left rather a bad taste in my mouth toward Mongoose (not, admittedly, that I didn't already have some strikes against them). From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 10:01:07 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:01:07 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <080220070044.12495.46B128D70004FDAC000030CF2216566276CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802165959.03404d68@caprica.com> >Whilst trying really hard not to play favourites on >the issue, the playtest of DBRP was *much* better. >There was clarity from the start on what was up for >debate (and what wasn't), there was continious >interaction from the designer (even with some pretty >significant lifestyle changes!) and there was a good >sense that we really were being listened to and that >our opinions had an effect on the design of the game. Yeah. I've been involved in a lot of playtests over the years, including the majority of products done for Eden's Unisystem lines, and to be honest, I've never been on a playtest list that got as little feedback from above as that MRQ playtest did. From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 10:02:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:02:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: References: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170146.03444ac0@caprica.com> At 07:13 PM 8/1/2007, you wrote: >When a company creates a game, they WANT/NEED playtestors. I may >for publication reasons or because they want to know if it is >playable, getting a third party conference. > >They normally personally choose them from people they know or from >people they know will swing a certain way. Playtestors are not >necessarily a part in the scheme and creation of a game. > >The company knows what they want to do with it, and then regardless >of input from the playtestors, THEY DO IT... Actually, this couldn't have less to do with most playtests I've seen; companies don't always listen to all the playtesters, but if they're just going to do what they want, they usually don't bother to playtest at all outside their personal groups (and I think that's almost always a mistake, but at least its consistent). From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 10:03:31 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:03:31 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <220676.38439.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <220676.38439.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170317.033c4bc0@caprica.com> >Or, in other words, the entire playtest may as well >not happened and competent designer could have been >left to design the product without input. It sure >would have saved a lot of time and energy. Yup. From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 10:06:25 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:06:25 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708021001p4c2fbbdch581e48504556eeeb@mail.gmail.co m> References: <608595.11502.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1c92296e0708021001p4c2fbbdch581e48504556eeeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170614.033be178@caprica.com> At 10:01 AM 8/2/2007, you wrote: >On 8/1/07, John Pare' ><parejf63 at hotmail.com> wrote: > >Come to think of it, no one I know of was even offered money or the book for >doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in the book.. > > > >I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller supplement for Steve Jackson >Games and was give a free copy of the published supplement in >thanks. But I haven't received anything from any other group I >playtested for other than an honorable mention, as you said. The economics rarely support it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/bbbde2e9/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Aug 3 10:20:02 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170614.033be178@caprica.com> Message-ID: <15671.34091.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 10:01 AM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > >On 8/1/07, John Pare' > ><parejf63 at hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > >Come to think of it, no one I know of was even > offered money or the book for > >doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in > the book.. > > > >I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller supplement > for Steve Jackson > >Games and was give a free copy of the published > supplement in > >thanks. But I haven't received anything from any > other group I > >playtested for other than an honorable mention, as > you said. > > The economics rarely support it. When I received my author's copies for RoCo VI I made sure I gave all my playtesters a copy. It only seemed fair. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 3 12:03:43 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:03:43 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <15671.34091.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170614.033be178@caprica.com> <15671.34091.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802190238.0345c270@caprica.com> At 05:20 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > At 10:01 AM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > > >On 8/1/07, John Pare' > > ><parejf63 at hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >Come to think of it, no one I know of was even > > offered money or the book for > > >doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in > > the book.. > > > > > >I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller supplement > > for Steve Jackson > > >Games and was give a free copy of the published > > supplement in > > >thanks. But I haven't received anything from any > > other group I > > >playtested for other than an honorable mention, as > > you said. > > > > The economics rarely support it. > >When I received my author's copies for RoCo VI I made >sure I gave all my playtesters a copy. It only seemed >fair. Yes, but remember that most serious playtesting samples involve at least a few dozen playtesters between GMs and players; 60-120 copies of most games adds up to more material budget than most companies can afford to throw at playtesting. From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 12:03:26 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802190238.0345c270@caprica.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170614.033be178@caprica.com> <15671.34091.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070802190238.0345c270@caprica.com> Message-ID: Does anyone playtest with actual paper copies any more? I thought PDFs were standard, these days. Heck, if I recall correctly we got our playtest copies of RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha in electronic form. MS Word, I think. ->Peter PS - if I posted a Chaos Project template for a bestiary (both animals and sapient races) would anyone write anything for it? Just wondering. ->PM On 8/2/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 05:20 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > > >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > > > At 10:01 AM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > > > >On 8/1/07, John Pare' > > > ><parejf63 at hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Come to think of it, no one I know of was even > > > offered money or the book for > > > >doing it. All they got was there name mentioned in > > > the book.. > > > > > > > >I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller supplement > > > for Steve Jackson > > > >Games and was give a free copy of the published > > > supplement in > > > >thanks. But I haven't received anything from any > > > other group I > > > >playtested for other than an honorable mention, as > > > you said. > > > > > > The economics rarely support it. > > > >When I received my author's copies for RoCo VI I made > >sure I gave all my playtesters a copy. It only seemed > >fair. > > Yes, but remember that most serious playtesting samples involve at > least a few dozen playtesters between GMs and players; 60-120 copies > of most games adds up to more material budget than most companies can > afford to throw at playtesting. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070802/7307bc51/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Fri Aug 3 12:17:14 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:17:14 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way Message-ID: In a message dated 8/2/2007 7:04:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pmaranci at gmail.com writes: Does anyone playtest with actual paper copies any more? I thought PDFs were standard, these days. Heck, if I recall correctly we got our playtest copies of RuneQuest: Adventures In Glorantha in electronic form. MS Word, I think. . . . My RQ AiG was paper. Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/084e2a21/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Aug 3 14:16:41 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:16:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <46B2AC29.4010709@inetnebr.com> Peter Maranci wrote: > might stop selling the monograph editions completely once D100 is out! If D100 is what it sounds like it is... and has good production value... that I will buy. From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Aug 3 15:50:43 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:43 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents References: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> <008701c7d4d2$1fc45650$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <005401c7d592$3b4c5bf0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Sorry folks, I thought this was going straight to Peter Maranci in response to his message to me that he should really buy my SPQR rules... Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Perrin To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Yes, you should. :) Thanks, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:33 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Thanks for answering my question, Steve; I wasn't sure if it was out of line. I'll admit that I'm also wondering if you'll be getting anything from sales of D100! Which reminds me that as soon as I have some money, I should buy SPQR. :D ->Peter On 7/31/07, steve wrote: What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the infrastructure to be supported the way Mongoose can support MRQ. Mongoose is a growing company with a lot of employees. Chaosium has had the same six employees for almost a decade, and has had periods when it had less than that. It was up to ten employees when Tadashi Ehara and I left, and I don't think it has ever reached that number again. And I think the only "creative" employees are Lynn and Charlie. Consider how long it is taking to get DBRP printed... So don't expect much support. Even if everyone on this list, and the BRP list, sent in a printable scenario and was willing to defer payment, it would still take 3 years or more to print them all. That's just the way it is. Steve Perrin, who, to answer Peter Maranci's request, gets no money from MRQ -----Original Message----- From: lev _lafayette at yahoo.com.au To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Personally, I have no problems with the so-called > provenance of RQM. I wish the quality was better and > that they had more scenario packs and better maps > and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ > is better than no RQ. WTF? If the RQ trademark fell into the hands of morons and they published the worst roleplaying game in the history of gaming you think that would be better than RQ not being in print? > I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes > out", but I can't see DBRP getting the kind of > support or publishing the number of suppl ements that > RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit > bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. Why not? Chaosium has produced quite a lot of games in the past with excellent circulation. DBRP may be just the shot in the arm they need. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/r q-rules _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070802/1becea2a/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 16:05:50 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:05:50 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <005401c7d592$3b4c5bf0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> <008701c7d4d2$1fc45650$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <005401c7d592$3b4c5bf0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <46B2C5BE.2060904@gmail.com> Well for my part I can say SPQR are really great rules & deserve more fleshing out. I recommend that everyone here get a copy as they are very worth while. Skal, Sven Steve Perrin wrote: > Sorry folks, I thought this was going straight to Peter Maranci in > response to his message to me that he should really buy my SPQR rules... > > Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steve Perrin > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:55 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents > > Yes, you should. :) > > Thanks, > > > Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:33 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents > > Thanks for answering my question, Steve; I wasn't sure if it > was out of line. I'll admit that I'm also wondering if you'll > be getting anything from sales of D100! > > Which reminds me that as soon as I have some money, I should > buy SPQR. :D > > ->Peter > > On 7/31/07, *steve* > wrote: > > What Simon means is that DBRP just doesn't have the > infrastructure to be supported the way Mongoose can > support MRQ. Mongoose is a growing company with a lot of > employees. Chaosium has had the same six employees for > almost a decade, and has had periods when it had less than > that. It was up to ten employees when Tadashi Ehara and I > left, and I don't think it has ever reached that number > again. > > And I think the only "creative" employees are Lynn and > Charlie. > > Consider how long it is taking to get DBRP printed... > > So don't expect much support. Even if everyone on this > list, and the BRP list, sent in a printable scenario and > was willing to defer payment, it would still take 3 years > or more to print them all. > > That's just the way it is. > > Steve Perrin, who, to answer Peter Maranci's request, gets > no money from MRQ > > > > > > > > > > > *-----Original Message-----* > From: lev _lafayette at yahoo.com.au > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > --- Simon Phipp > wrote: > > > Personally, I have no problems with the so-called > > provenance of RQM. I wish the quality was better and > > that they had more scenario packs and better maps > > and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ > > is better than no RQ. > > WTF? If the RQ trademark fell into the hands of morons > and they published the worst roleplaying game in the > history of gaming you think that would be better than > RQ not being in print? > > > I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes > > out", but I can't see DBRP getting the kind of > > support or publishing the number of suppl ements that > > RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit > > bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM. > > Why not? Chaosium has produced quite a lot of games in > the past with excellent circulation. DBRP may be just > the shot in the arm they need. > > All the best, > > > Lev > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from > someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/r q-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070802/31069058/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 3 16:38:43 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:38:43 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ "A Real Runequest Game" In-Reply-To: References: <27771.75411.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708010052g197c9205i8967d6494536dd8b@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708010713v30e9ca80s84f282d46f62f937@mail.gmail.com> <20824.196.8.104.27.1186064542.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <22445.196.8.104.27.1186123123.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Peter wrote: > > I wish they'd produce an omnibus edition, something like the perfect-bound > RQ3 book (and in a more reasonable price range). Somehow that doesn't seem > likely. In fact, it just occurred to me that they might stop selling the > monograph editions completely once D100 is out! > I would say that "Perfect" bound is very misleading, because mine is falling to bits. Ideally a hard back would be best, but thats pricy. Another nice alternative is the HarnMaster way of card stock punched pages, but once again that could be pricy. From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Aug 3 17:29:30 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:29:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaosium Monographs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 02/08/2007 19:19:51: > Now, I am to assume the upcoming BRP from Chaosium (if it gets released) is > going to be Runequest rules, with a few twists on them, or are they more on > the lines of COC. The baseline system (i.e. the system as described without any of the optional rules) is closest to _Stormbringer_ 5th edition (SAN and EDU are optional rules). But as I said previously, pick the right optional rules (hit locations, Strike Ranks, Skill Category Modifiers) and you get a game virtually indistinguishable from RQIII, bar the Magic, but if you have the BRP Magic monograph, that will work pretty much sleeplessly with the BRP core book I believe. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Aug 3 19:04:00 2007 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:04:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way Message-ID: <752208.33523.qm@web27715.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Though the whole MRQ playtest experience was a bitter one for all those involved, it is not true to say that playtesters comments were ignored in MRQ playtest. In the early stages of playtest, a lot of ideas coming from us were integrated in the draft versions. The very first MRQ draft was a joke and a big disappointment for me, with completely different and inconsistent rules for combat and non-combat skills. Without playtesters comments, MRQ would have been a laughable piece of junk. The problem is that not ALL playtesters concerns received proper attention. ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Wayne Shaw ? : Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Envoy? le : Vendredi, 3 Ao?t 2007, 1h59mn 32s Objet : Re: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way At 05:44 PM 8/1/2007, you wrote: > > Yeah, the playtest experience could have been better. > > Attention to what the playtesters were saying could > > have generated a better game, much quicker and with > > much less effort. > > Lev > > >Sometimes people become so invested in their ideas, that they can >not let go or see something different. And that is not only with >game development. Another thought. Playtesters might be ignored >because of contradictory input from those higher up the food >chain. I'm just throwing out a couple of possiblities. Again, if you're going to _completely_ ignore the playtesters, what's the point of playtesting? If all you're doing is wanting a Greek chorus, you could save everyone a lot of time. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ___________________________________________________________________________ Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. T?l?chargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/19e10924/attachment.html From mason.bruce at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 22:25:10 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:25:10 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> On 02/08/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > You might find this of interest: > > http://catalog.chaosium.com/pages.php?CDpath=3&pID=38 OK, I'm going to point out what's wrong with this introduction. First the caveats: I've bought some MRQ and will buy Chaosium Basic Roleplaying. Have not been involved in playtesting either but have a bit of a worry about the playtesting of the latter being prone to groupthink. Now most of the intro is fine if overly wordy. The main problem is that it is not obvious who the intro is written for. Is it for new players who have never roleplayed? For roleplayers who have never played any form of BRP? For long-standing players of BRP systems? It veers all over the place. This leads to the totally pointless section "An Introduction to the Basic Roleplaying System." At best this should be in appendix.* New players do not need to know about Worlds of Wonder, returning players already know about it. Similarly the "why play this game" is a press-release not a part of a rulebook. Finally, why front and centre do the authors spend time discussing the difference between 5% increment systems and 1% increment systems? Such material if it had to be included would go in modular rules and/or any sections about using pre-existing BRP versions. I've a nagging feeling that this game has exactly the opposite problem that MRQ has. MRQ paid too little attention to "grognards" while I've a suspicion that BRP has paid too much attention to them. I'm sure I'll find the book as comfortable as a pair of old slippers and I suspect, sadly, that MRQ will outsell it in droves. Naturally, I could be wrong but I do worry about the decision making because I have a lot of residual affection for Chaosium and would love to see the game succeed. Bruce *Really this could be precisely 1 paragraph long. Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying grew out of fantasy role-playing game RuneQuest, the first game that allowed players to customise their characters the way they wanted to without being forced into levels and character classes. Over the years it has been used in such popular games as Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer. Now, for the first time, it has been collected into one book that will allow you to use it in all of those games and more. From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 22:53:21 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:53:21 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bruce, I have to say that you've made some good points. I hope you're wrong about the game itself, but by definition (since I'm a grognard) I can't be sure if that's the case. However, I was surprised at the level of detail in the intro; it was material that interested me, but I remember thinking that it might put off a newbie and should probably not be in the introduction. Putting it in an appendix is a good idea, though. ->Peter On 8/3/07, Bruce Mason wrote: > > On 02/08/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > > > > You might find this of interest: > > > > http://catalog.chaosium.com/pages.php?CDpath=3&pID=38 > OK, I'm going to point out what's wrong with this introduction. First > the caveats: I've bought some MRQ and will buy Chaosium Basic > Roleplaying. Have not been involved in playtesting either but have a > bit of a worry about the playtesting of the latter being prone to > groupthink. > > Now most of the intro is fine if overly wordy. The main problem is > that it is not obvious who the intro is written for. Is it for new > players who have never roleplayed? For roleplayers who have never > played any form of BRP? For long-standing players of BRP systems? It > veers all over the place. This leads to the totally pointless section > "An Introduction to the Basic Roleplaying System." At best this should > be in appendix.* New players do not need to know about Worlds of > Wonder, returning players already know about it. Similarly the "why > play this game" is a press-release not a part of a rulebook. Finally, > why front and centre do the authors spend time discussing the > difference between 5% increment systems and 1% increment systems? Such > material if it had to be included would go in modular rules and/or any > sections about using pre-existing BRP versions. > > I've a nagging feeling that this game has exactly the opposite problem > that MRQ has. MRQ paid too little attention to "grognards" while I've > a suspicion that BRP has paid too much attention to them. I'm sure > I'll find the book as comfortable as a pair of old slippers and I > suspect, sadly, that MRQ will outsell it in droves. > > Naturally, I could be wrong but I do worry about the decision making > because I have a lot of residual affection for Chaosium and would love > to see the game succeed. > Bruce > > *Really this could be precisely 1 paragraph long. > Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying grew out of fantasy role-playing game > RuneQuest, the first game that allowed players to customise their > characters the way they wanted to without being forced into levels and > character classes. Over the years it has been used in such popular > games as Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer. Now, for the first time, it > has been collected into one book that will allow you to use it in all > of those games and more. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070803/d33d7f41/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:56:21 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802190238.0345c270@caprica.com> Message-ID: <495663.89670.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 05:20 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > > >--- Wayne Shaw wrote: > > > > > At 10:01 AM 8/2/2007, you wrote: > > > >On 8/1/07, John Pare' > > > > ><parejf63 at hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Come to think of it, no one I know of was even > > > offered money or the book for > > > >doing it. All they got was there name > mentioned in > > > the book.. > > > > > > > >I did. I playtested a Gurps Traveller > supplement > > > for Steve Jackson > > > >Games and was give a free copy of the published > > > supplement in > > > >thanks. But I haven't received anything from > any > > > other group I > > > >playtested for other than an honorable mention, > as > > > you said. > > > > > > The economics rarely support it. > > > >When I received my author's copies for RoCo VI I > made > >sure I gave all my playtesters a copy. It only > seemed > >fair. > > Yes, but remember that most serious playtesting > samples involve at > least a few dozen playtesters between GMs and > players; 60-120 copies > of most games adds up to more material budget than > most companies can > afford to throw at playtesting. > I didn't even get my name mentioned, but did get permission to use the Gloranthan critters in the Mythworld Bestiary. I also got a photocopied version of RQ3 without all the artwork when I volunteered to give the first public demonstration at Origins (the day before I did the same for the then-unpublished Mythworld). Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 23:59:11 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47316.49453.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Does anyone playtest with actual paper copies any > more? I thought PDFs were > standard, these days. > > Heck, if I recall correctly we got our playtest > copies of RuneQuest: > Adventures In Glorantha in electronic form. MS Word, > I think. > > ->Peter Both the original and the current revision playtesting are done from paper copies. However, we are still debating whether the final version should be paper or PDF. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 02:07:30 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:07:30 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> Being a Grognard myself, part of the playtesting I did was hand a copy to someone had never played an RPG before in their life. They were really intrigued & found it an easy go to comprehend. Since I moved up north, they have started playing D&D because that's what her friends play & she thinks D&D is "sucky" & "hard to learn.". She can't wait for BRP, got the monographs & is scheduled to play GM using those rules sometime in September. So my conclusion is that the rules are for beginners as well as Grognards. Skal, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > Bruce, I have to say that you've made some good points. > > I hope you're wrong about the game itself, but by definition (since > I'm a grognard) I can't be sure if that's the case. However, I was > surprised at the level of detail in the intro; it was material that > interested me, but I remember thinking that it might put off a newbie > and should probably not be in the introduction. Putting it in an > appendix is a good idea, though. > > ->Peter > > On 8/3/07, *Bruce Mason* > wrote: > > On 02/08/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > < Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com > > wrote: > > > > > You might find this of interest: > > > > http://catalog.chaosium.com/pages.php?CDpath=3&pID=38 > > OK, I'm going to point out what's wrong with this introduction. First > the caveats: I've bought some MRQ and will buy Chaosium Basic > Roleplaying. Have not been involved in playtesting either but have a > bit of a worry about the playtesting of the latter being prone to > groupthink. > > Now most of the intro is fine if overly wordy. The main problem is > that it is not obvious who the intro is written for. Is it for new > players who have never roleplayed? For roleplayers who have never > played any form of BRP? For long-standing players of BRP systems? It > veers all over the place. This leads to the totally pointless section > "An Introduction to the Basic Roleplaying System." At best this > should > be in appendix.* New players do not need to know about Worlds of > Wonder, returning players already know about it. Similarly the "why > play this game" is a press-release not a part of a rulebook. Finally, > why front and centre do the authors spend time discussing the > difference between 5% increment systems and 1% increment systems? Such > material if it had to be included would go in modular rules and/or any > sections about using pre-existing BRP versions. > > I've a nagging feeling that this game has exactly the opposite problem > that MRQ has. MRQ paid too little attention to "grognards" while I've > a suspicion that BRP has paid too much attention to them. I'm sure > I'll find the book as comfortable as a pair of old slippers and I > suspect, sadly, that MRQ will outsell it in droves. > > Naturally, I could be wrong but I do worry about the decision making > because I have a lot of residual affection for Chaosium and would > love > to see the game succeed. > Bruce > > *Really this could be precisely 1 paragraph long. > Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying grew out of fantasy role-playing game > RuneQuest, the first game that allowed players to customise their > characters the way they wanted to without being forced into levels and > character classes. Over the years it has been used in such popular > games as Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer. Now, for the first time, it > has been collected into one book that will allow you to use it in all > of those games and more. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/d599b0a3/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 04:15:10 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:15:10 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <005401c7d592$3b4c5bf0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <20070731162046.90606.qmail@ibusy.com> <008701c7d4d2$1fc45650$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <005401c7d592$3b4c5bf0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803111439.033c4c80@caprica.com> At 10:50 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: >Sorry folks, I thought this was going straight to Peter Maranci in >response to his message to me that he should really buy my SPQR rules... I suspect most people on this list aren't going to get bent about you doing a little pimping of SPQR, Steve. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/4e3f3191/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 04:19:52 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:19:52 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070802170614.033be178@caprica.com> <15671.34091.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070802190238.0345c270@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803111840.033b4918@caprica.com> At 07:03 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: >Does anyone playtest with actual paper copies any more? I thought >PDFs were standard, these days. I was refering to getting a copy as a benefit at the end. >Heck, if I recall correctly we got our playtest copies of RuneQuest: >Adventures In Glorantha in electronic form. MS Word, I think. I got a paper copy of the final draft at least; in fact I had to hunt around quite a bit to find an electronic copy, and only managed to do so within the last few months. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 04:21:20 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:21:20 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] The new One True Way In-Reply-To: <752208.33523.qm@web27715.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <752208.33523.qm@web27715.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112057.033c5bd0@caprica.com> At 02:04 AM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >Though the whole MRQ playtest experience was a bitter one for all >those involved, it is not true to say that playtesters comments were >ignored in MRQ playtest. >In the early stages of playtest, a lot of ideas coming from us were >integrated in the draft versions. >The very first MRQ draft was a joke and a big disappointment for me, >with completely different and inconsistent rules for combat and >non-combat skills. Without playtesters comments, MRQ would have been >a laughable piece of junk. > >The problem is that not ALL playtesters concerns received proper attention. I stand corrected; I came in halfway through, and only know what seemed to happen from that point on. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 04:25:12 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:25:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> At 09:07 AM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >Being a Grognard myself, part of the playtesting I did was hand a >copy to someone had never played an RPG before in their life. They >were really intrigued & found it an easy go to comprehend. Since I >moved up north, they have started playing D&D because that's what >her friends play & she thinks D&D is "sucky" & "hard to learn.". She >can't wait for BRP, got the monographs & is scheduled to play GM >using those rules sometime in September. I think the most basic elements of BRP are very intuitive; counter to some, I don't think the roll low element does much harm to actual newbies (as compared to those used to other games). I don't even think hit locations are hard to understand. Though I think strike ranks are basically sound, they're a bit of a different story, as can the resistance table, but the most core elements of the system aren't counterintuitive. From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 04:35:58 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:58 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> Wayne Shaw wrote: > ...snip... they're a bit of a different story, as can the resistance > table,...snip... Hej! I resemble that remark!!!!!! LOL Sven (aka Mr Resistance Table --- named thus by Steve Perrin --- so if you don't like it blame me or at least my attempt to simplify Steve's math - admittedly Steve got away from the Resistance table in SPQR & Black9 Ops - The computer geek in me still reduced several of your in game calculations to spreadsheet/charts, so "Nyah!" Steve, LOL) From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 04:59:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:59:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> At 11:35 AM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >Wayne Shaw wrote: >>...snip... they're a bit of a different story, as can the >>resistance table,...snip... >Hej! I resemble that remark!!!!!! LOL >Sven (aka Mr Resistance Table --- named thus by Steve Perrin --- so >if you don't like it blame me or at least my attempt to simplify >Steve's math - admittedly Steve got away from the Resistance table >in SPQR & Black9 Ops - The computer geek in me still reduced several >of your in game calculations to spreadsheet/charts, so "Nyah!" Steve, LOL) Hey, I think the resistance table serves a valuable function; its just not one of the more intuitive parts of the system. From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Aug 4 04:58:54 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:58:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803111439.033c4c80@caprica.com> Message-ID: <961894.60205.qm@web28005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Do you have any plans for fleshing out SPQR Steve? I've got a copy and I like what I read, but it felt kindoff like a unfinished draft. SGL. Wayne Shaw skrev: At 10:50 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: Sorry folks, I thought this was going straight to Peter Maranci in response to his message to me that he should really buy my SPQR rules... I suspect most people on this list aren't going to get bent about you doing a little pimping of SPQR, Steve. :) _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/51fbd460/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 05:40:35 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:40:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> Message-ID: <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> Don't worry about it, I like Resistance Tables too, It's just something Steve has teased me about for years since I came up with the darn thing or rather I just codified the in-game math for skill vs skill into a table. I like tables/spreadsheets. As I worked on Aetherschiff Mars! I started from a spreadsheet & turned it into text. I think its the organization-Computer geek in me that does it. I just laugh about the whole thing, it's kind of part of my personality like my Finnish grey-wool M36 cap that I always wear, or my puns. Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 11:35 AM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >> Wayne Shaw wrote: >>> ...snip... they're a bit of a different story, as can the resistance >>> table,...snip... >> Hej! I resemble that remark!!!!!! LOL >> Sven (aka Mr Resistance Table --- named thus by Steve Perrin --- so >> if you don't like it blame me or at least my attempt to simplify >> Steve's math - admittedly Steve got away from the Resistance table in >> SPQR & Black9 Ops - The computer geek in me still reduced several of >> your in game calculations to spreadsheet/charts, so "Nyah!" Steve, LOL) > > Hey, I think the resistance table serves a valuable function; its just > not one of the more intuitive parts of the system. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 06:35:53 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> Ha! And my group derived the math from the chart so we could calculate the Resistance rolls in our heads on the fly. Funny! David On 8/3/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Don't worry about it, I like Resistance Tables too, It's just something > Steve has teased me about for years since I came up with the darn thing > or rather I just codified the in-game math for skill vs skill into a > table. I like tables/spreadsheets. As I worked on Aetherschiff Mars! I > started from a spreadsheet & turned it into text. I think its the > organization-Computer geek in me that does it. I just laugh about the > whole thing, it's kind of part of my personality like my Finnish > grey-wool M36 cap that I always wear, or my puns. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/1266df6c/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 07:37:56 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:37:56 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> It's really simple 5% difference for every 1 point of difference in the compared scores. Thus 10 vs 10 is 50%, 10 vs 9 is 55%, 11 vs 9 is 60%, etc. I think it even says so in the books. Skal, Sven David Smart wrote: > Ha! And my group derived the math from the chart so we could calculate > the Resistance rolls in our heads on the fly. > > Funny! > > David > > On 8/3/07, *Sven Lugar * > wrote: > > Don't worry about it, I like Resistance Tables too, It's just > something > Steve has teased me about for years since I came up with the darn > thing > or rather I just codified the in-game math for skill vs skill into a > table. I like tables/spreadsheets. As I worked on Aetherschiff > Mars! I > started from a spreadsheet & turned it into text. I think its the > organization-Computer geek in me that does it. I just laugh about the > whole thing, it's kind of part of my personality like my Finnish > grey-wool M36 cap that I always wear, or my puns. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070803/02ad389d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 07:53:15 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:53:15 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708031453v7b18447auf569422b9a70a4dd@mail.gmail.com> That's what we derived alright. Heh. I stopped referencing the book years ago. On 8/3/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > It's really simple 5% difference for every 1 point of difference in the > compared scores. Thus 10 vs 10 is 50%, 10 vs 9 is 55%, 11 vs 9 is 60%, etc. > I think it even says so in the books. > Skal, > Sven > > David Smart wrote: > > Ha! And my group derived the math from the chart so we could calculate the > Resistance rolls in our heads on the fly. > > Funny! > > David > > On 8/3/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > > > Don't worry about it, I like Resistance Tables too, It's just something > > Steve has teased me about for years since I came up with the darn thing > > or rather I just codified the in-game math for skill vs skill into a > > table. I like tables/spreadsheets. As I worked on Aetherschiff Mars! I > > started from a spreadsheet & turned it into text. I think its the > > organization-Computer geek in me that does it. I just laugh about the > > whole thing, it's kind of part of my personality like my Finnish > > grey-wool M36 cap that I always wear, or my puns. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.comhttp://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070803/2ad128e1/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 08:44:05 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:44:05 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Addendum - RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer Message-ID: <1c92296e0708031544i41fb5778i1aae9b76c16c64c5@mail.gmail.com> For those of you who wanted a copy of Kevin Spencer's chargen software for RQIII, I've found the companion software utility for modifying the chargen database records. You can use it to change existing records or add your own armor, weapons, and character occupations for use by the chargen software. Let me know if you'd like a copy of the install executable and I'll email it from my Verizon account. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070803/68d7583c/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Aug 4 10:03:43 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> Message-ID: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> True, the heuristic is easier to explain to some than the equation. c% = ((a - p)*5) + 50 Where c = chance of success, a = active force, p = passive force. I quite like the Resistance Table; there's an article in an old Different Worlds [1] which recommended using it (with a d20 no less!) for *everything*. 1] Universal Resolution Matrix, by Harry White #24, pg 30-31 --- Sven Lugar wrote: > It's really simple 5% difference for every 1 point > of difference in the > compared scores. Thus 10 vs 10 is 50%, 10 vs 9 is > 55%, 11 vs 9 is 60%, > etc. I think it even says so in the books. > Skal, > Sven > > David Smart wrote: > > Ha! And my group derived the math from the chart > so we could calculate > > the Resistance rolls in our heads on the fly. > > > > Funny! > > > > David > > > > On 8/3/07, *Sven Lugar * > > wrote: > > > > Don't worry about it, I like Resistance Tables > too, It's just > > something > > Steve has teased me about for years since I > came up with the darn > > thing > > or rather I just codified the in-game math for > skill vs skill into a > > table. I like tables/spreadsheets. As I worked > on Aetherschiff > > Mars! I > > started from a spreadsheet & turned it into > text. I think its the > > organization-Computer geek in me that does it. > I just laugh about the > > whole thing, it's kind of part of my > personality like my Finnish > > grey-wool M36 cap that I always wear, or my > puns. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 11:50:28 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:50:28 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708031453v7b18447auf569422b9a70a4dd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031453v7b18447auf569422b9a70a4dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803184952.0344b428@caprica.com> At 02:53 PM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >That's what we derived alright. Heh. I stopped referencing the book years ago. I suspect most experienced players and GMs do; its not that hard. But its still slightly less intuitive than the straighforward skill rolls. From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 4 11:51:26 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:51:26 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Addendum - RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708031544i41fb5778i1aae9b76c16c64c5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1c92296e0708031544i41fb5778i1aae9b76c16c64c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070803185113.03411c88@caprica.com> At 03:44 PM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >For those of you who wanted a copy of Kevin Spencer's chargen >software for RQIII, I've found the companion software utility for >modifying the chargen database records. You can use it to change >existing records or add your own armor, weapons, and character >occupations for use by the chargen software. > >Let me know if you'd like a copy of the install executable and I'll >email it from my Verizon account. Please? From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 12:10:06 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:10:06 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B3DFFE.4080505@gmail.com> People often seem to forget KAP which in part was derived from RQ uses d20. Since some variants of BRP used 5% increments & the Resistance table is in 5% increments it is easy to make the jump to d20. ----- Sven Lev Lafayette wrote: > True, the heuristic is easier to explain to some than > the equation. > > c% = ((a - p)*5) + 50 > > Where c = chance of success, a = active force, p = > passive force. > > I quite like the Resistance Table; there's an article > in an old Different Worlds [1] which recommended using > it (with a d20 no less!) for *everything*. > > 1] Universal Resolution Matrix, by Harry White #24, > pg 30-31 > > --- Sven Lugar wrote: > > ...snip... > From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 21:21:07 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:21:07 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood Message-ID: I just noticed that someone is once again doing an Avalon Hill RQ flood over in alt.binaries.e-book.rpg. Is that person a member of this list? I'm curious! ->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/20070804/3f4260d5/attachment.html From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 21:54:25 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:54:25 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore Message-ID: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will have someone making various types of potions and salves, mostly healing probably. Are there any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/af7b77d8/attachment.bin From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sat Aug 4 22:10:29 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 08:10:29 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master more than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Bo Ros?n Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 7:54 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will have someone making various types of potions and salves, mostly healing probably. Are there any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. -- Bo Ros?n From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 22:44:16 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:44:16 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 08:10 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) Yes, that's probably a good way to do it. It's not alchemy really, nor magic I'm looking for, but something that uses plants (as well as other ingredients) and makes their natural properties a bit better. Finding a good balance between one skill for each recipe to one skill for all of them isn't easy. Maybe I'll just use one skill and apply different penalties on the different recipes and keep notes on who knows which recipe. Thanks -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/2fa53bbb/attachment.bin From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sat Aug 4 23:01:17 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:01:17 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <000601c7d697$8c3e08f0$0201a8c0@laptop2> If it's just for healing, then why not just require "Treat Disease" or "Treat Poison" rolls, and give bonuses to the roll if the players can come up with creative potions (Ceremony rolls?). Just brainstorming. Good luck! -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Bo Ros?n Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 8:44 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Herblore l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 08:10 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) Yes, that's probably a good way to do it. It's not alchemy really, nor magic I'm looking for, but something that uses plants (as well as other ingredients) and makes their natural properties a bit better. Finding a good balance between one skill for each recipe to one skill for all of them isn't easy. Maybe I'll just use one skill and apply different penalties on the different recipes and keep notes on who knows which recipe. Thanks -- Bo Ros?n From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Aug 4 23:38:07 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:38:07 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> The Resistance Table, as suggested in that DW article, is actually a totally diferent system to the core d100 system. As such it could easily be used to build an entire game system on. Indeed I think TSR did play with such relativist systems in their Marvel Super Hero game but that is only based on hearsay. From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 23:43:54 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:43:54 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <000601c7d697$8c3e08f0$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> <000601c7d697$8c3e08f0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1186235034.5940.53.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 09:01 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > If it's just for healing, then why not just require "Treat Disease" or > "Treat Poison" rolls, and give bonuses to the roll if the players can come Good ideas. I've only been thinking about this for an hour so now, but I think something along these lines will work. I will probably make use of a new Lore skill, Healing Lore (or Drug Lore) as a working title, which will encompass both knowledge of and production of various substances (though I might split it up into two skills). Most of these would be health related but some might have other effects (e.g., scents for bonuses to social skills). Each player will have a list of recipes he or she knows and each recipe will have two modifiers. The first to it's production and the second to the Treat Disease/Poison/Wound or First Aid roll when it's used. Healing Lore will also allow for the invention of new recipes. Learning new ones can be done with the normal training rules, but instead of a new skill or sorcery spell you add a new one to your book. > Just brainstorming. Good luck! Thanks! -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/3de2ca68/attachment.bin From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 5 00:29:36 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <160385.70150.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think the articles in Different Worlds #21 is pretty good... Of course, finding said 'zine could be an adventure in its own right! Healing Plants and Other Herbs, by Robin Wood #21 pg 10-16 --- Bo Ros?n wrote: > I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will > have someone making > various types of potions and salves, mostly healing > probably. Are there > any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? > Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. > -- > Bo Ros?n > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sun Aug 5 00:33:40 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:33:40 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186235034.5940.53.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> <000601c7d697$8c3e08f0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186235034.5940.53.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <46B48E44.9070306@brinkdata.se> There are a few rules systems that have rules for herbs and herblore. Harnmaster is one. In HM herblore is used to govern the knowledge about herbs. Alchemy is used when one wants to use a herb in a potion or such. Recipes are rated in difficulty levels ranging from 0 to 6. Each difficulty level gives a -10 percentile modification to the alchemy skill. Tradetalk #6 had an article about alchemy rules for RQ. There are of course also Alchemy supplements for the d20-system (such as for example Bastion Press's Alchemy and Herbalist, see RPG.now for a bit more info: http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5914) that might be of some use. /Peter Brink From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 02:59:33 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:59:33 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23BDA087-D9DC-48C2-BB93-203884F656C8@comcast.net> I know swordofhumakt at antiqueweird.com :-) The poster is not a member of this list On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > I just noticed that someone is once again doing an Avalon Hill RQ > flood over in alt.binaries.e-book.rpg. Is that person a member of > this list? I'm curious! > > ->Peter __________ Brad Furst umop ap!sdn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/215c823e/attachment.html From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 03:03:12 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:03:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> P.S. I don't know what's being posted, but I recommend to check it out. As often as time permits, those scans are also OCR'd for text, rather than simply images. On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > I just noticed that someone is once again doing an Avalon Hill RQ > flood over in alt.binaries.e-book.rpg. Is that person a member of > this list? I'm curious! > > ->Peter _________ Brad Furst umop ap!sdn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/dd88b644/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 03:26:30 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Subskills In-Reply-To: <20070803213823.592BF19C826@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The recent discussion of Herblore and Healing lore triggered a question for me: Does anyone have a good system that they'd like to share for subskills? This comes up a lot with lore, but also comes up in other places too with characters who want to specialize in one aspect of a skill (and presumably advance more quickly) but not the other parts. To me, the attributes of a good subskill system are: 1) You can use either the 'master' or the 'subskill' to do something 1a) You can add subskills over time & as needed without refiguring the skills for everyone 2) A subskill would go up more quickly (from use, training, etc) than the master skill 3) Ideally, focusing on one subskill would be a strong benefit (in that area) over focus on the master skill, but focusing on multiple subskills of the same master skill would decrease the advantages with each added subskill (focusing on a lot of subskills is the same as not focusing at all) While I'm wishlisting, I would also like: 4) Increases in the master skill to also benefit the subskill (so the master skill is never higher than the subskill) 5) Increases in the subskill would also slightly help the master skill -- I've done this in my house rules for normal skills by saying whenever the skill crosses over a 10% mark, the character gets a +1% bonus to the whole skill category. Steve Steven D. Davies PerfectJob Software 312.560.4577 mobile From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 03:39:32 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:39:32 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <46B48E44.9070306@brinkdata.se> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> <000601c7d697$8c3e08f0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186235034.5940.53.camel@delirium> <46B48E44.9070306@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1186249172.5940.61.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 16:33 +0200 skrev Peter Brink: > There are a few rules systems that have rules for herbs and herblore. > Harnmaster is one. In HM herblore is used to govern the knowledge about Right, I'd almost forgotten about that. Thanks, I'll definitely use that for inspiration if the game gets underway. Strangely enough I will probably use some of the nice maps and part of the background for Harn as well. > Tradetalk #6 had an article about alchemy rules for RQ. Thanks, I'll dig through my old stuff and see if I have that. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/2eecf925/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 03:43:00 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:43:00 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <160385.70150.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <160385.70150.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1186249380.5940.66.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 07:29 -0700 skrev Lev Lafayette: > I think the articles in Different Worlds #21 is pretty > good... Of course, finding said 'zine could be an > adventure in its own right! True :-( I think I have in total one issue of DW, possibly lost, but thanks for the tip. Something about Aztecs I think. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/5e3611bf/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 03:45:12 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:45:12 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Subskills In-Reply-To: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1186249512.5940.68.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 10:26 -0700 skrev Steve Davies: > The recent discussion of Herblore and Healing lore > triggered a question for me: Does anyone have a good > system that they'd like to share for subskills? Bordering on off-topic and not actually contributing anything but didn't Ringworld have subskills of some sort? -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/dd81c15d/attachment.bin From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Aug 5 03:43:33 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:43:33 -0700 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents References: <961894.60205.qm@web28005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00d101c7d6be$faa2ebe0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> It is definitely unfinished. It especially needs a skills section. I am actually thinking about changing one of the basic conerstones of the rules to match what I did in Black 9 Ops, which I am still willing to send to anyone who asks for it. It's a kind of cyberpulpish near future game based on a computer game than was never published. Back from the digression, I am thinking of changing the succeed/50%/10%/01%& for number of successes to B9Ops every-10%-is-a-success concept. So someone with, say 67% with a weapon would have one success with 58-67, two successes with 48-57, etc. The same limits on number of successes would apply, and the results of the successes would be the same. When I do the Skills chapter, I will write that up properly (and half to change the other chapters in appropriate places, of course. Right now I am working full time and trying to run three RP campaigns in three different systems, so my creative time is kind of taken up. But someday real soon now... BTW: If you, like Sverre, are a subscriber to SPQR, please send me a note to that effect. I had a hard drive crash and I think I have most of you from recovered material, but it doesn't hurt to have a confirmation. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: sverre larne To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents Do you have any plans for fleshing out SPQR Steve? I've got a copy and I like what I read, but it felt kindoff like a unfinished draft. SGL. Wayne Shaw skrev: At 10:50 PM 8/2/2007, you wrote: Sorry folks, I thought this was going straight to Peter Maranci in response to his message to me that he should really buy my SPQR rules... I suspect most people on this list aren't going to get bent about you doing a little pimping of SPQR, Steve. :) _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070804/0d37c857/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Aug 5 03:47:01 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:47:01 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com><5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com><46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com><46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com><7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com><46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com><1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com><46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com><1c92296e0708031453v7b18447auf569422b9a70a4dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803184952.0344b428@caprica.com> Message-ID: <00e501c7d6bf$765cf690$19407442@chaosce4015e22> And it is not really the same mechanic. I will leave it to the mathmeticians in the group to tell me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure it provides different probabilities from rolling dice against one another. In effect, it is a different resolution system from the combat resolution system. It is essentially the Hero System using a linear curve. That's why I eventually took it out of SPQR. I am a big advocate of using one system for all game resolutions these days. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 > At 02:53 PM 8/3/2007, you wrote: >>That's what we derived alright. Heh. I stopped referencing the book years >>ago. > > I suspect most experienced players and GMs do; its not that hard. But its > still slightly less intuitive than the straighforward skill rolls. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 04:02:36 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:02:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Subskills In-Reply-To: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0C7577A9-AF3E-47C4-A974-C936EFE98634@comcast.net> On Aug 4, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Steve Davies wrote: > ... Does anyone have a good system that they'd like to share for > subskills? For impromtu situations, use squares and square roots. For example, the character has Sneak = 49% and the character specializes in underground/dungeon settings, while neglecting urban settings and rural settings. Give the character 70% for underground/ dungeon settings (0.70 is the square root of 0.49), and 24% for Urban Sneak and 24% for Rural Sneak (0.24 is the square of 0.49). Using the square is equal to requiring success on _both_ of two consecutive rolls. Use this instead, if you don't like to do the arithmetic. If you don't like square roots, then another algorithm that is workable, similar but not the same, is to allow give two rolls and consider the attempt successful if either of the rolls is successful. (That probability is double the base skill, less the square root of the skill - that is, the probability of the first roll added to the probability of the second roll and the sum of those two reduced by the probability of both being successful). __________ Brad Furst umop ap!sdn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/8451c38c/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:00:04 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:00:04 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804115934.03411900@caprica.com> At 04:54 AM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will have someone making >various types of potions and salves, mostly healing probably. Are there >any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? We've got some local alchemy rules we've used for some time. I could probably send you a copy if you're interested. From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:01:11 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:01:11 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> At 05:10 AM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of >thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master more >than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add >"alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as >well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) The system we did had an Alchemy skill as the core skill, but did require various levels of Lores to use it effectively. I'm not sure I consider anything wrong with an alchemist requiring multiple skills to be good at it; its what I'd expect. From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:02:54 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:02:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120229.034035d0@caprica.com> At 05:44 AM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 08:10 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > > > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > >Yes, that's probably a good way to do it. It's not alchemy really, nor >magic I'm looking for, but something that uses plants (as well as other >ingredients) and makes their natural properties a bit better. >Finding a good balance between one skill for each recipe to one skill >for all of them isn't easy. The rules set I'm talking about would probably be overkill, then. From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:07:07 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:07:07 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120625.033ae340@caprica.com> At 06:38 AM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >The Resistance Table, as suggested in that DW article, is actually a >totally diferent system to the core d100 system. As such it could >easily be used to build an entire game system on. Indeed I think TSR >did play with such relativist systems in their Marvel Super Hero >game but that is only based on hearsay. In many respects, that's essentially what the Hero System combat system does, except with a 3D6 resolution (for historical reasons, its not implimented in the rest of the skill system though). From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 05:05:52 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:05:52 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Subskills In-Reply-To: <0C7577A9-AF3E-47C4-A974-C936EFE98634@comcast.net> References: <455097.68145.qm@web53910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0C7577A9-AF3E-47C4-A974-C936EFE98634@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708041205r3065f73p8813d1aedff5952c@mail.gmail.com> As Bo Ros?n mentioned, Ringworld has a subskill method. Essentially, the parent skill was used until a certain percentile level is reached. All skill increases past that point must be assigned to one of the subskills. Using RQ as an example... Let's assume a character has World Lore 25%. The GM decides to use World Lore for outdoor survival rolls. Taking a lesson from Ringworld, the GM can rule that anyone can use World Lore up to 30% for very basic survival in the wilderness but if the character increases World Lore past 30%, he must assign any earned percentile points to any one of the World Lore subskills of "Jungle Survival", "Mountain Survival", "Desert Survival" (making these up here). Assuming the character begins focusing on Jungle Survival by adding 2 percentiles to it, his Jungle Survival skill would be at 32% (2% plus the World Lore base of 30%) while all his other World Lore subskills remain at the World Lore cap of 30% until he chooses to improve each of them as well. Hope that makes sense. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/0ab9f8ca/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:16:58 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:16:58 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: BRP/d100 In-Reply-To: <00e501c7d6bf$765cf690$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <304173.27526.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5f3990080708030525v639e0d9dr357a6f969e8f8410@mail.gmail.com> <46B352C2.5030508@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803112310.0344b5a0@caprica.com> <46B3758E.9060607@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803115918.033dc328@caprica.com> <46B384B3.8030602@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031335lcb31e36u7c27e41a79c96a21@mail.gmail.com> <46B3A034.1000804@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708031453v7b18447auf569422b9a70a4dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070803184952.0344b428@caprica.com> <00e501c7d6bf$765cf690$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804121616.033b5698@caprica.com> At 10:47 AM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >And it is not really the same mechanic. I will leave it to the >mathmeticians in the group to tell me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty >sure it provides different probabilities from rolling dice against >one another. In effect, it is a different resolution system from the >combat resolution system. It is essentially the Hero System using a >linear curve. Oh, quite a bit different in practice; they're both percentile resolutions, but one directly factors difficulty in and the other doesn't. Which is superior is subject to debate, of course. From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 05:23:45 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:23:45 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120229.034035d0@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120229.034035d0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1186255425.16958.4.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 12:02 -0700 skrev Wayne Shaw: > The rules set I'm talking about would probably be overkill, then. I'd love to see it though, even if I don't use it as written I could probably steal some ideas. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/9118dc9d/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 05:28:38 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:28:38 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1186255718.16958.10.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 12:01 -0700 skrev Wayne Shaw: > require various levels of Lores to use it effectively. I'm not sure > I consider anything wrong with an alchemist requiring multiple skills > to be good at it; its what I'd expect. Nothing wrong with multiple skills, it's finding the right balance that's the trick I think. I haven't played any brp based games for over 15 years (and few others) so I'm generally a bit rusty on the whole DIY bit regarding rules. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/1734c582/attachment.bin From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 5 05:42:44 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:42:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186255425.16958.4.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186231456.5940.26.camel@delirium> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120229.034035d0@caprica.com> <1186255425.16958.4.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804124232.01c53328@caprica.com> At 12:23 PM 8/4/2007, you wrote: >l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 12:02 -0700 skrev Wayne Shaw: > > > The rules set I'm talking about would probably be overkill, then. > >I'd love to see it though, even if I don't use it as written I could >probably steal some ideas. Sent along seperately. From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sun Aug 5 07:47:19 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:47:19 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> Message-ID: <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> Wayne Shaw wrote: The system we did had an Alchemy skill as the core skill, but did require various levels of Lores to use it effectively. I'm not sure I consider anything wrong with an alchemist requiring multiple skills to be good at it; its what I'd expect. Me: It's just that, in comparison, not all that many skills are required for many other non-adventuring professions. A weapons smith requires "Craft: Bronze" (and maybe rarely "Craft: Iron"). A woodworker, bowyer/fletcher, warhorse trainer, lutenist, poet -- all these vocations can be accounted for with one skill, or maybe two. I'd rather make it easier, not harder, for players to invest in and have fun with non-adventuring skills. Just my take, that's all. -- Joe From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Aug 5 07:54:14 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 23:54:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] list of RQ publishers In-Reply-To: <008901c7d53b$1a15ede0$753f9656@sickboy> Message-ID: <725667.70544.qm@web28005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> And a new publisher submitted by Clive the master link hunter was just added today! www.runequest.info/the-links Choose the "Publishers" link at the left column to see the list of publishers. Anyone who know of any websites not listed, please tell me and I'll add them. Trifletraxor. Clive Wickens skrev: Tony, The greenback clan: http://www.runequest.info/ Have got a fairly good list of publishers, I think a couple more may have surfaced since they last updated their links section, but it's a good place to start ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents > Simon wrote: >> I think Mongoose have brought out 20 supplements, of which only 8 are >> Gloranthan, which means 11 are generic or non-Gloranthan, including the >> Eternal Champion books. Other publishers have around 10 supplements out, >> none of which are Gloranthan. That's an awful lot, compared with how much >> came out in the preceeding 10 years. In fact, I'd like them to slow down >> a >> bit, to allow me to save my pennies. >> > Is anyone keeping a list of publishers producing RQ gear under the OGL? > Could be a handy reference point. who knows, maybe some of the small press > lads will come up with some fantastic ideas/adventures. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > 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 GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/cedff602/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 09:36:25 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-rules] Subskills In-Reply-To: <20070804193637.6671E1AC819@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <261233.56269.qm@web53906.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Simple mechanic, which is nice. But it must really slow down higher-skill advancement. I assume one could get multiple checks, in your example for both Jungle Survival and for Mountain Survival, on the same adventure? Steve > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:05:52 -0500 > From: "David Smart" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Subskills > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Message-ID: > > <1c92296e0708041205r3065f73p8813d1aedff5952c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > As Bo Ros?n mentioned, Ringworld has a subskill > method. Essentially, the > parent skill was used until a certain percentile > level is reached. All skill > increases past that point must be assigned to one of > the subskills. Using RQ > as an example... > > Let's assume a character has World Lore 25%. The GM > decides to use World > Lore for outdoor survival rolls. Taking a lesson > from Ringworld, the GM can > rule that anyone can use World Lore up to 30% for > very basic survival in the > wilderness but if the character increases World Lore > past 30%, he must > assign any earned percentile points to any one of > the World Lore subskills > of "Jungle Survival", "Mountain Survival", "Desert > Survival" (making these > up here). Assuming the character begins focusing on > Jungle Survival by > adding 2 percentiles to it, his Jungle Survival > skill would be at 32% (2% > plus the World Lore base of 30%) while all his other > World Lore subskills > remain at the World Lore cap of 30% until he chooses > to improve each of them > as well. > > Hope that makes sense. > > David Steven D. Davies PerfectJob Software 312.560.4577 mobile From styopa1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 10:21:19 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/07, Brad Furst wrote: > > P.S. I don't know what's being posted, but I recommend to check it out. As > often as time permits, those scans are also OCR'd for text, rather than > simply images. > > On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I just noticed that someone is once again doing an Avalon Hill RQ flood > over in alt.binaries.e-book.rpg. Is that person a member of this list? I'm > curious! > > ->Peter > > _________ > Brad Furst > umop ap!sdn > > > > Anyone got a free public usenet server that carries alt.binaries.e-book.rpg? I tried about 6 and (aside from shuddering at the names of some of the alt.binaries.groups) found nothing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/2e3fa5db/attachment.html From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Sun Aug 5 10:58:41 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:58:41 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <59B4FB2B-967C-4AE2-9BC4-15AD0E513F64@comcast.net> I use easynews.com, which is a subscription service. However, they might have a free trial period.... On Aug 4, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Styopa wrote: > On 8/4/07, Brad Furst wrote: > P.S. I don't know what's being posted, but I recommend to check it > out. As often as time permits, those scans are also OCR'd for text, > rather than simply images. > > > On Aug 4, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > >> I just noticed that someone is once again doing an Avalon Hill RQ >> flood over in alt.binaries.e-book.rpg. Is that person a member of >> this list? I'm curious! >> >> ->Peter > _________ > Brad Furst > umop ap!sdn > > Anyone got a free public usenet server that carries alt.binaries.e- > book.rpg? I tried about 6 and (aside from shuddering at the names > of some of the alt.binaries.groups) found nothing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/6281bdf4/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 11:44:17 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:44:17 -0500 Subject: [RQ-rules] Subskills In-Reply-To: <261233.56269.qm@web53906.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070804193637.6671E1AC819@mini.thinbits.net> <261233.56269.qm@web53906.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708041844q12ed97f9wfef4330cc55d071d@mail.gmail.com> Yes to the multiple checks, if the adventure provides the opportunity to climb a jungle-covered mountain. On 8/4/07, Steve Davies wrote: > > Simple mechanic, which is nice. But it must really > slow down higher-skill advancement. I assume one > could get multiple checks, in your example for both > Jungle Survival and for Mountain Survival, on the same > adventure? > > Steve > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070804/373cc4d8/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Sun Aug 5 16:58:56 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 08:58:56 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <24774.41.208.48.64.1186297136.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> There is/was Alchemest career rules out there on the net, that as well as an Alchemest skill. However If its just herbs, one could perhaps open up a herbalist or apothecary skill under knowledge. Maybe start it at the same base as the characters plant lore and then go up from there. (Just dod a google search and see Simon Phipp has some rocking alchemy rules on his site) I am also sure I have some other alchemy rules I downloaded years back. Tony > I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of > thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master > more > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > > -- Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of Bo Ros?n > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 7:54 AM > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore > > I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will have someone making > various types of potions and salves, mostly healing probably. Are there > any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? > Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. > -- > Bo Ros?n > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 17:18:00 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:18:00 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <24774.41.208.48.64.1186297136.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <24774.41.208.48.64.1186297136.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <1186298280.5978.3.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 08:58 +0200 skrev postmaster at runequest.za.org: > base as the characters plant lore and then go up from there. (Just dod a > google search and see Simon Phipp has some rocking alchemy rules on his > site) I am also sure I have some other alchemy rules I downloaded years > back. Yup, I found those too and they look nice. Everyone, thanks for all your help. I probably have enough ideas and systems now for the game. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/e9b1d03e/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 18:25:23 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:25:23 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 17:47 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > Me: It's just that, in comparison, not all that many skills are required for > many other non-adventuring professions. A weapons smith requires "Craft: > Bronze" (and maybe rarely "Craft: Iron"). A woodworker, bowyer/fletcher, > warhorse trainer, lutenist, poet -- all these vocations can be accounted for > with one skill, or maybe two. Not really arguing your point, which is good but the various religious/magic professionals do need a few skills to be competent, especially sorcerers of course. I guess it comes down to how you want to present alchemy in your setting of choice, either as little more than herblore or a full-fledged alternative magic-like system. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/1db21216/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 18:29:57 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:29:57 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Martial Arts Message-ID: <1186302597.5978.24.camel@delirium> Anyone know if the new BRP will have more developed Martial Arts rules than RQIII? I don't have Land of Ninja any longer, but seem to remember it had a bit more, ki powers for example. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/f36991cf/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 19:20:32 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:20:32 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1186305632.5954.2.camel@delirium> l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 19:21 -0500 skrev Styopa: It'd be great if someone had the bandwidth and opportunity to make a torrent or two. > Anyone got a free public usenet server that carries > alt.binaries.e-book.rpg? I tried about 6 and (aside from shuddering > at the names of some of the alt.binaries.groups) found nothing. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/8d516ca1/attachment.bin From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Aug 5 19:38:31 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:38:31 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ flood ? Message-ID: <000201c7d744$cb49d530$805b8456@sickboy> So, how does this flood stuff work then ? I went over to the address provided by Pete and there were various bits and pieces of RQ stuff to download so I clicked on them and downloaded thwm to My DocumentsC Is that it ? or is there another way or form of access I'm missing ? Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/f0730409/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Aug 5 20:06:27 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:06:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <1186305632.5954.2.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <82907.59681.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> eMule have a lot of RuneQuest stuff. SGL. Bo Ros?n skrev: l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 19:21 -0500 skrev Styopa: It'd be great if someone had the bandwidth and opportunity to make a torrent or two. > Anyone got a free public usenet server that carries > alt.binaries.e-book.rpg? I tried about 6 and (aside from shuddering > at the names of some of the alt.binaries.groups) found nothing. -- Bo Ros?n _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/d550decd/attachment.html From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 20:11:28 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:11:28 +0200 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <82907.59681.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <82907.59681.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1186308688.5954.5.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 12:06 +0200 skrev Trifletraxor: > eMule have a lot of RuneQuest stuff. Behind my ISP's firewall so it's very slow unfortunately. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/2f67447f/attachment.bin From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Aug 5 21:36:10 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:36:10 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Leon's site now vanished completely ? Message-ID: <000001c7d758$7ba010d0$b8242ad9@sickboy> Leon, If you're reading this your Godlearner site now seems to have vanished completely, please don't say you've taken it down as it's a great site ! Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/1c4d533a/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Aug 5 22:21:42 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Leon's site now vanished completely ? In-Reply-To: <000001c7d758$7ba010d0$b8242ad9@sickboy> Message-ID: <722232.20370.qm@web28007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Michael O'Brian and Dr. Moose's sites have also been down for some time now. The horrible online entropy! I've downloaded all the english sites on the link list to my computer now to keep the information from getting lost. SGL. Clive Wickens skrev: Leon, If you're reading this your Godlearner site now seems to have vanished completely, please don't say you've taken it down as it's a great site ! Cheers, Clive _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RQ & Glorantha: www.runequest.info - Ef plest master, this very fine grub! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/b5ab27ac/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 23:40:35 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 08:40:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Martial Arts In-Reply-To: <1186302597.5978.24.camel@delirium> References: <1186302597.5978.24.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708050640r4f427214jdc5f7420cee72ac0@mail.gmail.com> We didn't expand it greatly during the playtest as I recall. David On 8/5/07, Bo Ros?n wrote: > > Anyone know if the new BRP will have more developed Martial Arts rules > than RQIII? I don't have Land of Ninja any longer, but seem to remember > it had a bit more, ki powers for example. > -- > Bo Ros?n > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070805/d318794d/attachment.html From bo.rosen at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 23:56:38 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:56:38 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Martial Arts In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708050640r4f427214jdc5f7420cee72ac0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1186302597.5978.24.camel@delirium> <1c92296e0708050640r4f427214jdc5f7420cee72ac0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1186322198.5954.13.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 08:40 -0500 skrev David Smart: > We didn't expand it greatly during the playtest as I recall. Oh well. Maybe Chaosium will make a new "Land of Ninja" down the road. Maybe the soon to be released GURPS book can be used for inspiration at least. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/9327473e/attachment.bin From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 01:17:11 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:17:11 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Licensed D100 game Message-ID: I'm passing this announcement on from Chris Helton of Seraphim Guard; I thought it would be of interest here. Chris isn't on this list (I've suggested that he join it, for obvious reasons), so if you have any questions, I'd imagine that you should be able to reach him through the Seraphim Guard website. > I just wanted to let you people know, even though a couple of you > already do, that Seraphim Guard is going to produce the first game to > license the new BRP rules. Around this time next year we will be > publishing a standalone game using BRP based on the Deadworld comic, > published formerly by Caliber Comics and currently distributed through > Image Comics. > > The debut of the game will, most likely, be at next year's Wizard > World Chicago. The formal announcement of this game will be made next > week at this year's Wizard World Chicago. ->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/20070805/4256fa8c/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Mon Aug 6 01:34:28 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. [Rq-rules] Licensed D100 game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <232365.56105.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Oh man! BRP will be spreading all over. Quite a good buisness move by Chaosium I think. :-) SGL. Peter Maranci skrev: I'm passing this announcement on from Chris Helton of Seraphim Guard; I thought it would be of interest here. Chris isn't on this list (I've suggested that he join it, for obvious reasons), so if you have any questions, I'd imagine that you should be able to reach him through the Seraphim Guard website. > I just wanted to let you people know, even though a couple of you > already do, that Seraphim Guard is going to produce the first game to > license the new BRP rules. Around this time next year we will be > publishing a standalone game using BRP based on the Deadworld comic, > published formerly by Caliber Comics and currently distributed through > Image Comics. > > The debut of the game will, most likely, be at next year's Wizard > World Chicago. The formal announcement of this game will be made next > week at this year's Wizard World Chicago. ->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/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to RuneQuest & Glorantha - fan art, links, resources & powsie! Basic Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - Chaosiums upcoming d100 system for fall 2007 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/28c65743/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 6 03:37:35 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:37:35 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium><001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2><7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com><002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <000f01c7d787$57ce1970$ba628456@sickboy> Bo, Another supplement you might want to look out for is the old MERP book 'Hands of the Healer'. It had chapters looking at the various healing schools or disciplines of middle earth, but if memory serves me right it also had sections on herbal medicines ie: preparation, storage, potency, format ( eg ointment, potion, tisane etc ) and gave an extensive list of Middle earth plants and their medicinial uses. Easily adaptable to RQ I'd of thought. As mentioned the Bastion Press book Alchemy and Herbalism is quite good it's D20 in format but has lots of good ideas. Bastion Press also have a book on Druids and Druidism which has stuff about herbal potions etc. I think both are available as fairly cheap PDF downloads Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bo Ros?n" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Herblore > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:50:18 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <24774.41.208.48.64.1186297136.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <873401.98672.qm@web51705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> These are the rules I have been using for a while. They are a combination of my stuff and things I stole from other source on the web and elsewhere: Alchemy Magic potions require sacrifice of magic points or power and enchantments rolls during the manufacturing process. Alchemy (00) Lore Skill (Medium) Alchemy is the theoretical skill associated with potions and their ingredients. A successful check in this skill will allow a character to identify proper ingredients and determine the general effect that a particular set of ingredients may have on a subject. It may also be used to determine as to what ingredients maybe substituted to achieve the same or similar result. Alchemy is a Lore Skill that can be acquired by training as per normal rules. A character can become an apprentice to a Master Alchemist. If done during previous experience this gives the normal benefits plus 6 weeks of tuition per year. To be accepted as an apprentice a character must have positive Knowledge, and Magic modifiers. Learning a Recipe Each recipe is a separate Knowledge skill (medium) and must be learned separately. The potion's skill percentage/5 determines the POT of the potion which can be manufactured by the Alchemist. An Alchemical recipe must be learned in a process similar to learning a sorcery spell and is checkable, but does not require free intelligence. A character may know as many recipes as he wishes. Potion cost As a general rule the standard price for magical potions starts at 5L and increases at each POT. The price varies of course based on ingredients and location. The cost of manufacturing is for a batch, irrespective of the number of potions created at one time. 1 - 5L 2 - 10L 3 - 25L 4 - 50L 5 - 100L 6 - 150L 7 - 200L 8 - 300L 9 - 400L 10 - 650L +250L /POT to 20 A 'potion' is not necessarily a liquid in a bottle; it could be a pill, powder or ointment, whatever. To change a potion into a paste requires reduction of 3 doses = 1 paste, reduction to powder is 6 doses = 1 powder, reduction to solid is 9 doses = 1 solid. It takes a full day to manufacture a potion in liquid form. Potions are indivisible in strength. Putting a Heal 4 potion into two smaller bottles gives two bottles of colored water, not two Heal 2's. Apothecary Mundane potions are non-magical concoctions, which derive their effect thought the base properties of the ingredients. Apothecary (10) Craft Skill (Medium) This is the skill used in preparing, brewing, reducing, etc. of various compounds. This is the skill used to manufacture both magical and mundane concoctions. The level of success determines if the proper ingredients have been successfully combined to yield the desired results. Assuming an abundance of ingredients a normal success will produce 2d6 doses, a special 1d6+6 doses, a critical will yield 1d6+6 doses at 1d6 POT higher, a failure 1d6 doses and -1 POT, a fumble will waste the ingredients with no benefit and may cause other damage. Learning a mundane recipe. Mundane recipe does not have a separate skill associated with it. Once the proper recipe is found and the ingredients are acquired a successful Apothecary Craft check is all what is necessary to create the potion. The potion can be made weaker or stronger with the appropriate adjustment to the amount of ingredients used. This may or may not have stronger or weaker effects. Mundane potion cost. The cost of a mundane potion is based strictly on the availability of the ingredients and the skill of the Alchemist. Alchemist Equipment Some handy tools for alchemists to have include: Small Bottles Pouches Parchment and Pen Gloves Recipe Book Flasks (all sizes) Mixing Stick Food Color Wood Bowls or Plates Mortar and Pestle Overall Rules for Alchemical, Herbal, and Poison Compounds: 1 Vial = 1 Ounce = 1 Hit Point = 10 Seconds to collect. You may collect 1 Vial of blood from a creature for each 10 hit points the creature has. (This assumes most blood is spoiled during combat or the collection process, so only a small amount is actually useful as a component.) Blood and other simple bodily fluids can be collected provided the character makes his Animal Lore roll. Any non-liquid body parts require the Butchery skill to collect. Some Rare components are gathered from living beings (blood, body parts, etc.). These components must be "First Grown", which means they must be the original part the person was born with. If a creature has a body part removed, then regenerated, that re-grown part is not eligible for a component. If a creature dies, and is resurrected, the whole body is considered "original" and any body parts may be harvested again. Any component that is biological in nature (Blood, teeth, leaf, bark, etc.) will gradually lose its properties unless preserved. A component will become useless one hour after being removed from the creature, or the creature's death, or being removed from its source. Taste Analysis (00) Perception (Medium) This skill is used to identify alchemical potions and other substances by means of tasting or smelling a very small, harmless amount of the sample. It cannot be increased through experience, it must be taught or researched. The user can only identify substances that he has previously encountered, otherwise he can only hazard an educated guess at what the substance is. If he succeeds in the skill and has not met the substance before the GM must tell him that it is probably a particular substance, but he is not sure. It is up to the GM or to other PCs, if they are doing the training, to determine what substances have been encountered. Most training will cover standard potions, poisons and substances as those are the most frequently encountered. The user can only identify the potency of the substance within a certain range, giving an idea of the strength of the potion. I play that a normal success gives ranges of very strong, strong, normal, weak, very weak etc., special success gives potency in the ranges of 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 and so on, a critical success gives the exact potency. A fumble with the skill means that the user is affected by the potion - he swallowed the Hydra Venom or the Impotency Potion. --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > There is/was Alchemest career rules out there on the > net, that as well as > an Alchemest skill. However If its just herbs, one > could perhaps open up a > herbalist or apothecary skill under knowledge. Maybe > start it at the same > base as the characters plant lore and then go up > from there. (Just dod a > google search and see Simon Phipp has some rocking > alchemy rules on his > site) I am also sure I have some other alchemy rules > I downloaded years > back. > Tony > > > I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of > rules for that sort of > > thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the > character has to master > > more > > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. > Why not just add > > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or > Mineral Lore roll as > > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > > > > -- Joe > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > > On Behalf Of Bo Ros?n > > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 7:54 AM > > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore > > > > I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which > will have someone making > > various types of potions and salves, mostly > healing probably. Are there > > any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? > > Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. > > -- > > Bo Ros?n > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 From rog_benham at hotmail.com Mon Aug 6 05:29:39 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:29:39 +0100 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <00d101c7d6be$faa2ebe0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/58184d6c/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Mon Aug 6 07:22:19 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:22:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142144.033cb988@caprica.com> >Me: It's just that, in comparison, not all that many skills are required for >many other non-adventuring professions. A weapons smith requires "Craft: >Bronze" (and maybe rarely "Craft: Iron"). A woodworker, bowyer/fletcher, >warhorse trainer, lutenist, poet -- all these vocations can be accounted for >with one skill, or maybe two. Yeah, but the issue was Alchemy wasn't non-adventuring; it was more like a non-tactical magic system, and needed to be managed accordingly. From shaw at caprica.com Mon Aug 6 07:23:51 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:23:51 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142334.03410980@caprica.com> At 01:25 AM 8/5/2007, you wrote: >l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 17:47 -0400 skrev Joe Mills: > > > Me: It's just that, in comparison, not all > that many skills are required for > > many other non-adventuring professions. A weapons smith requires "Craft: > > Bronze" (and maybe rarely "Craft: Iron"). A woodworker, bowyer/fletcher, > > warhorse trainer, lutenist, poet -- all these > vocations can be accounted for > > with one skill, or maybe two. > >Not really arguing your point, which is good but the various >religious/magic professionals do need a few skills to be competent, >especially sorcerers of course. I guess it comes down to how you want to >present alchemy in your setting of choice, either as little more than >herblore or a full-fledged alternative magic-like system. Which as you can see if you got what I sent you, was more like what we did. From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 07:57:14 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:57:14 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents Message-ID: I've noticed that a number of interesting RQ-related documents have been offered for email on the list lately. I hope I'm not out of place in saying that if any author would like to have any of their RQ-related works available permanently online, I'm certainly willing to host them on my server and post a link to them on my site. Obviously I'm making this offer purely out of self-interest. Or mostly, anyway. :D ->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/20070805/864746c8/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 13:28:15 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:28:15 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? Message-ID: Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any acknowledgment of the original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ books? I need to know because I'm updating some of the articles on my site. Thanks! ->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/20070805/19aa37d5/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Aug 6 13:33:29 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > acknowledgment of the > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > books? > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > articles on my site. Thanks! > > ->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/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 13:36:25 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:36:25 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? In-Reply-To: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest *system*? I thought he only supplied Glorantha. ->Peter On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > > acknowledgment of the > > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > > books? > > > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > > articles on my site. Thanks! > > > > ->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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070805/6180c1d4/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 13:47:30 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:47:30 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? In-Reply-To: References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B699D2.6070805@gmail.com> No, I don't recall Greg doing any work on the rules other than playtesting as a GM occasionally, & "Gregging" rules on the spur of the moment only to change his mind on the next instance. Don't get me wrong though and think I'm maligning him; Greg could host a really fun game. The work was almost entirely Steve Perrin's with contributions from a few others. IMHO: MRQ is merely a poor attempt to acquire a historical legitimacy for their company, a supplement driven testament to greed, & is an insult to Steve, Runequest players, & even Mongooses. But I'm shy and retiring and don't make my feelings and opinions known, LOL! Skal, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: > How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest > *system*? > > I thought he only supplied Glorantha. > > ->Peter > > On 8/5/07, *Lev Lafayette * > wrote: > > > Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. > > --- Peter Maranci > > wrote: > > > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > > acknowledgment of the > > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > > books? > > > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > > articles on my site. Thanks! > > > > ->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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your > pocket: mail, news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070805/bef6f3d9/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 6 16:08:10 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 07:08:10 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B699D2.6070805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001c01c7d7f0$2c0841d0$87648456@sickboy> It's strange that someone should mention this as I was thinking about over the weekend. I can understand that Greg Stafford owns the trademark and is mentioned as such, but since the authors of the game are clearly mentioned as such on my old copies of RQ how do Mongoose get away with only mentioning Greg Stafford as the writer of the original game in the current version ? Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Sven Lugar To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? No, I don't recall Greg doing any work on the rules other than playtesting as a GM occasionally, & "Gregging" rules on the spur of the moment only to change his mind on the next instance. Don't get me wrong though and think I'm maligning him; Greg could host a really fun game. The work was almost entirely Steve Perrin's with contributions from a few others. IMHO: MRQ is merely a poor attempt to acquire a historical legitimacy for their company, a supplement driven testament to greed, & is an insult to Steve, Runequest players, & even Mongooses. But I'm shy and retiring and don't make my feelings and opinions known, LOL! Skal, Sven Peter Maranci wrote: How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest *system*? I thought he only supplied Glorantha. ->Peter On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > acknowledgment of the > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > books? > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > articles on my site. Thanks! > > ->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/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070806/fe50ec03/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Aug 6 17:21:29 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:21:29 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] 2nd Ed RQ on eBay Message-ID: <25682.196.8.104.27.1186384889.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Looks like a reasonable offer, USD5 for a span of 2nd ed ear. http://cgi.ebay.com/Runequest-Collection-RPG-Lot_W0QQitemZ290146500688QQihZ019QQcategoryZ1183QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem From bo.rosen at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 17:54:30 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:54:30 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <000f01c7d787$57ce1970$ba628456@sickboy> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> <000f01c7d787$57ce1970$ba628456@sickboy> Message-ID: <1186386870.6041.0.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 18:37 +0100 skrev Clive Wickens: > Another supplement you might want to look out for is the old MERP book > 'Hands of the Healer'. It had chapters looking at the various healing Thanks for the tip, I'll check these out. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/f6884a30/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 17:58:32 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:58:32 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <873401.98672.qm@web51705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <873401.98672.qm@web51705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1186387112.6041.4.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 10:50 -0700 skrev Leon Kirshtein: > These are the rules I have been using for a while. > They are a combination of my stuff and things I stole > from other source on the web and elsewhere: Thanks, this was useful. I'm really spoiled for choice now, with everyone being so helpful. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/c28c9899/attachment.bin From bo.rosen at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 18:11:34 2007 From: bo.rosen at gmail.com (Bo =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ros=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:11:34 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142334.03410980@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142334.03410980@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1186387894.6041.15.camel@delirium> s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 14:23 -0700 skrev Wayne Shaw: > Which as you can see if you got what I sent you, was more like what we did. I did get it, thanks. My Internet connection was acting up a bit yesterday so you may not have gotten my "thank you" mail. -- Bo Ros?n -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/e7ce875e/attachment.bin From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Aug 6 18:54:40 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:54:40 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <160385.70150.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <160385.70150.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B6E1D0.40703@zunder.org.uk> Ironically I sold it on ebay 2 months ago.. Lev Lafayette wrote: > I think the articles in Different Worlds #21 is pretty > good... Of course, finding said 'zine could be an > adventure in its own right! > > Healing Plants and Other Herbs, by Robin Wood #21 pg > 10-16 > > --- Bo Ros?n wrote: > > >> I may be setting up a RQIII/BRP campaign which will >> have someone making >> various types of potions and salves, mostly healing >> probably. Are there >> any good rules for that kind of thing somewhere? >> Think Rebecka the daughter of Isaac of Yorke. >> -- >> Bo Ros?n >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > From joemills at columbus.rr.com Mon Aug 6 19:15:21 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 05:15:21 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142144.033cb988@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142144.033cb988@caprica.com> Message-ID: <004e01c7d80a$511cc120$0201a8c0@laptop2> Oh, well, you got somebody lobbing detonating flasks and the like, that'd be different. We call those 'Molotov Cocktails' and they don't require as much Alchemy skill to create as you'd think. Just quick hands and a good arm. :) -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Shaw Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 5:22 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Herblore >Me: It's just that, in comparison, not all that many skills are required for >many other non-adventuring professions. A weapons smith requires "Craft: >Bronze" (and maybe rarely "Craft: Iron"). A woodworker, bowyer/fletcher, >warhorse trainer, lutenist, poet -- all these vocations can be accounted for >with one skill, or maybe two. Yeah, but the issue was Alchemy wasn't non-adventuring; it was more like a non-tactical magic system, and needed to be managed accordingly. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 20:59:28 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:59:28 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <1186305632.5954.2.camel@delirium> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> <1186305632.5954.2.camel@delirium> Message-ID: Interestingly enough, they're now flooding RQ2 stuff. The thing that annoys me is that the only book that I don't have, Foes, is the one file that's corrupt! :( ->Peter On 8/5/07, Bo Ros?n wrote: > > l?r 2007-08-04 klockan 19:21 -0500 skrev Styopa: > > It'd be great if someone had the bandwidth and opportunity to make a > torrent or two. > > > Anyone got a free public usenet server that carries > > alt.binaries.e-book.rpg? I tried about 6 and (aside from shuddering > > at the names of some of the alt.binaries.groups) found nothing. > > > -- > Bo Ros?n > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/cef9981f/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 00:56:20 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] 2nd Ed RQ on eBay In-Reply-To: <25682.196.8.104.27.1186384889.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <25682.196.8.104.27.1186384889.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708060756y3f50ad27obe9146b3696cb62e@mail.gmail.com> That was quick. It's over $20 now. On 8/6/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Looks like a reasonable offer, USD5 for a span of 2nd ed ear. > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Runequest-Collection-RPG-Lot_W0QQitemZ290146500688QQihZ019QQcategoryZ1183QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/08187cec/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 01:07:14 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/07, Joe Mills wrote: > > I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of > thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master > more > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > > -- Joe > The problem then being that perhaps the character can pass his rolls today "Hey, I can make a basic healing potion!" but not tomorrow "Damn, I've forgotten how to do that again". IMVHO Alchemy - like enchantment, frankly - would be more like another magical-style skill. The various potions would be learned as per spells individually. But then again, I think I'm the only person on the planet who LIKED 3rd Ed sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write down his mixes in his recipe book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of potion recipes = INT. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/fac68b92/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 01:13:07 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:13:07 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <59B4FB2B-967C-4AE2-9BC4-15AD0E513F64@comcast.net> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> <59B4FB2B-967C-4AE2-9BC4-15AD0E513F64@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708060813o693846c8h3be27e9f0dac523f@mail.gmail.com> On 8/4/07, Brad Furst wrote: > > I use easynews.com, which is a subscription service. However, they might > have a free trial period.... > > Thanks Brad, but easynews.com discontinued their free trial, too many people were scamming them with bad cc#. So now you can pay for it, and get a refund within a week and <1Gb of download. That would be fine, but I'm guessing I'd hit 1Gb so quick it's not worth it. :( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/fa5ad682/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 01:16:51 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Licensed D100 game In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0708060816lbaadfao161944ab0d59780e@mail.gmail.com> Awesome! On 8/5/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I'm passing this announcement on from Chris Helton of Seraphim Guard; I > thought it would be of interest here. Chris isn't on this list (I've > suggested that he join it, for obvious reasons), so if you have any > questions, I'd imagine that you should be able to reach him through the > Seraphim Guard website. > > > I just wanted to let you people know, even though a couple of you > > already do, that Seraphim Guard is going to produce the first game to > > license the new BRP rules. Around this time next year we will be > > publishing a standalone game using BRP based on the Deadworld comic, > > published formerly by Caliber Comics and currently distributed through > > Image Comics. > > > > The debut of the game will, most likely, be at next year's Wizard > > World Chicago. The formal announcement of this game will be made next > > week at this year's Wizard World Chicago. > > ->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/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/c200383e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 01:21:49 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:21:49 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0708060821j5e87c9f5l6ec2651115e1f3e7@mail.gmail.com> You're not out of place at all, Peter, IMO. It's a gracious offer. David On 8/5/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I've noticed that a number of interesting RQ-related documents have been > offered for email on the list lately. I hope I'm not out of place in saying > that if any author would like to have any of their RQ-related works > available permanently online, I'm certainly willing to host them on my > server and post a link to them on my site. > > Obviously I'm making this offer purely out of self-interest. Or mostly, > anyway. :D > > ->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/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/2e2aa619/attachment.html From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 03:15:22 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:15:22 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708060813o693846c8h3be27e9f0dac523f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> <59B4FB2B-967C-4AE2-9BC4-15AD0E513F64@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708060813o693846c8h3be27e9f0dac523f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6FAC5C01-2FEA-4C8E-A9FD-A18D05FAEF58@comcast.net> That recent RQ3 flood was about 1.2 gigabytes. On Aug 6, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Styopa wrote: > On 8/4/07, Brad Furst wrote: > I use easynews.com, which is a subscription service. However, they > might have a free trial period.... > > Thanks Brad, but easynews.com discontinued their free trial, too > many people were scamming them with bad cc#. So now you can pay > for it, and get a refund within a week and <1Gb of download. > That would be fine, but I'm guessing I'd hit 1Gb so quick it's not > worth it. :( ____ Brad There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who speak binary and those who don't. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/4fd81ff5/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 03:28:24 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:28:24 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806102736.034424b8@caprica.com> At 02:57 PM 8/5/2007, you wrote: >I've noticed that a number of interesting RQ-related documents have >been offered for email on the list lately. I hope I'm not out of >place in saying that if any author would like to have any of their >RQ-related works available permanently online, I'm certainly willing >to host them on my server and post a link to them on my site. > >Obviously I'm making this offer purely out of self-interest. Or >mostly, anyway. :D If I remember I'll ask the original author of the Alchemy rules I refered to if its okay; I don't doubt he'd not care about offering it to individuals, but if its going to be posted to a website, I should probably ask first. From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 03:30:18 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:30:18 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1186387894.6041.15.camel@delirium> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1186302323.5978.19.camel@delirium> <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142334.03410980@caprica.com> <1186387894.6041.15.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806102954.0341e878@caprica.com> At 01:11 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: >s?n 2007-08-05 klockan 14:23 -0700 skrev Wayne Shaw: > > > Which as you can see if you got what I sent you, was more like what we did. > >I did get it, thanks. My Internet connection was acting up a bit >yesterday so you may not have gotten my "thank you" mail. I get a lot of spam in the Caprica account too, so I might have just lost it in the clutter. From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 03:31:15 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <004e01c7d80a$511cc120$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070804120017.033f4978@caprica.com> <002301c7d6e1$0891ff80$0201a8c0@laptop2> <7.0.1.0.1.20070805142144.033cb988@caprica.com> <004e01c7d80a$511cc120$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806103034.03407670@caprica.com> At 02:15 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: >Oh, well, you got somebody lobbing detonating flasks and the like, that'd be >different. We call those 'Molotov Cocktails' and they don't require as much >Alchemy skill to create as you'd think. Just quick hands and a good arm. :) There's a variety of things, from poisons, acid, magic point restorative potions, spells in potions, alchemical "gunpoweder" and more. From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 03:32:38 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:32:38 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com > References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806103156.033f4820@caprica.com> At 08:07 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: >On 8/4/07, Joe Mills ><joemills at columbus.rr.com> wrote: >I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of >thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master more >than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add >"alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as >well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > >-- Joe > > >The problem then being that perhaps the character can pass his rolls >today "Hey, I can make a basic healing potion!" but not tomorrow >"Damn, I've forgotten how to do that again". > >IMVHO Alchemy - like enchantment, frankly - would be more like >another magical-style skill. The various potions would be learned >as per spells individually. >But then again, I think I'm the only person on the planet who LIKED >3rd Ed sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write down his >mixes in his recipe book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points >of potion recipes = INT. I have to note you could fail at spells, too; any craft style skill suffers from a certain inconsistency of output in a linear die roll system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/475f829d/attachment.html From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Tue Aug 7 03:56:05 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:56:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Flood In-Reply-To: References: <8C3CF529-78A2-45B3-9F50-DAF71B9BF223@comcast.net> <56e64e7a0708041721p7a9c973fwd3f53c4616b8a879@mail.gmail.com> <1186305632.5954.2.camel@delirium> Message-ID: <509D73FD-CD55-4CA5-9B45-3715689E7F3E@comcast.net> On Aug 6, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Peter Maranci wrote: > Interestingly enough, they're now flooding RQ2 stuff. > The thing that annoys me is that the only book that I don't have, > Foes, is the one file that's corrupt! :( > ->Peter You must be referring to some other flood than the one this week, right? I think _Foes_ was not posted among these. Brad Furst umop ap!sdn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/b3e57045/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Aug 7 04:25:42 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:25:42 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806102736.034424b8@caprica.com> Message-ID: If anyone wants, I'd be glad to send out an attachment of my redaction of the Alchemy Rules that appeared in Tradetalk 6. I made a few modifications, but it's still fairly close to the rules in that right-up. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 8/6/07 12:28 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 02:57 PM 8/5/2007, you wrote: >> I've noticed that a number of interesting RQ-related documents have >> been offered for email on the list lately. I hope I'm not out of >> place in saying that if any author would like to have any of their >> RQ-related works available permanently online, I'm certainly willing >> to host them on my server and post a link to them on my site. >> >> Obviously I'm making this offer purely out of self-interest. Or >> mostly, anyway. :D > > If I remember I'll ask the original author of the Alchemy rules I > refered to if its okay; I don't doubt he'd not care about offering it > to individuals, but if its going to be posted to a website, I should > probably ask first. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 05:17:42 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:17:42 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708061217t4dfbf80blacd34b3cc759695e@mail.gmail.com> You're not; I like it as well. *grin* David On 8/6/07, Styopa wrote: > > > But then again, I think I'm the only person on the planet who LIKED 3rd Ed > sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write down his mixes in his recipe > book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of potion recipes = INT. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/d4f865dc/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 05:19:29 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:19:29 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806102736.034424b8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708061219w36b83e03sab6879cd61db84b1@mail.gmail.com> Post away! David On 8/6/07, Andrew Larsen wrote: > > If anyone wants, I'd be glad to send out an attachment of my redaction of > the Alchemy Rules that appeared in Tradetalk 6. I made a few > modifications, > but it's still fairly close to the rules in that right-up. > > Andrew E. Larsen > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > > On 8/6/07 12:28 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > > > At 02:57 PM 8/5/2007, you wrote: > >> I've noticed that a number of interesting RQ-related documents have > >> been offered for email on the list lately. I hope I'm not out of > >> place in saying that if any author would like to have any of their > >> RQ-related works available permanently online, I'm certainly willing > >> to host them on my server and post a link to them on my site. > >> > >> Obviously I'm making this offer purely out of self-interest. Or > >> mostly, anyway. :D > > > > If I remember I'll ask the original author of the Alchemy rules I > > refered to if its okay; I don't doubt he'd not care about offering it > > to individuals, but if its going to be posted to a website, I should > > probably ask first. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/357e542e/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 05:30:25 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:30:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806103156.033f4820@caprica.com> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070806103156.033f4820@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708061230m40072207q562d7d6cf388b164@mail.gmail.com> On 8/6/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 08:07 AM 8/6/2007, you wrote: > > On 8/4/07, *Joe Mills* wrote: > I've never seen a completely satisfactoy set of rules for that sort of > thing. Most try to make it too detailed, so the character has to master > more > than two or three skills to be a decent alchemist. Why not just add > "alchemy" as a skill, then require a Plant Lore or Mineral Lore roll as > well? (or Treat Disease, etc.) > > The problem then being that perhaps the character can pass his rolls today > "Hey, I can make a basic healing potion!" but not tomorrow "Damn, I've > forgotten how to do that again". > > > I have to note you could fail at spells, too; any craft style skill > suffers from a certain inconsistency of output in a linear die roll system. > Absolutely true, but there's inherently *more* consistency and a little firmer rationalization to individualized % chances to succeed to make potion X, potion Y, and potion Z, compared to a flat % chance to make *any* potion. YMMV, depending on how much you want to put into it, obviously. From my PoV, it's the same reason we have individualized attack skills instead of just a generic 'attack' skill - we perceive that granuarity is interesting. If your & your players' perception is that a flat "Alchemy" skill is detailed enough, more power to you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/8c39efe6/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 05:55:27 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:55:27 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708061230m40072207q562d7d6cf388b164@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1186228465.5940.6.camel@delirium> <001e01c7d690$73478490$0201a8c0@laptop2> <56e64e7a0708060807h55b54418rc7e20dbacac94d0@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070806103156.033f4820@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708061230m40072207q562d7d6cf388b164@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806125235.03407400@caprica.com> >Absolutely true, but there's inherently *more* consistency and a >little firmer rationalization to individualized % chances to succeed >to make potion X, potion Y, and potion Z, compared to a flat % >chance to make *any* potion. Same thing applies to difficult and easy craft results, though. >YMMV, depending on how much you want to put into it, >obviously. From my PoV, it's the same reason we have individualized >attack skills instead of just a generic 'attack' skill - we perceive >that granuarity is interesting. > >If your & your players' perception is that a flat "Alchemy" skill is >detailed enough, more power to you. Well, again, remember the skill we had interacted with other skills, so there was more involved than just one skill; you could have an alchemist who wasn't knowledgeable about magic and could only make relatively mundane things like poisons and chemicals, and a different one who was magically capable but not too knowledgeable in Lores who could make magical types of potions but not much in the way of incindiaries and the like. We never saw it as any worse than the fact a Spirit Mage could cast his Heal 2 no better than his Bladesharp 6. From aluban at yahoo.fr Tue Aug 7 06:06:47 2007 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:06:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table Message-ID: <559389.22366.qm@web27708.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> A french game publisher actually created a game based on Resistance table, named EW-System. ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Thomas Zunder ? : Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Envoy? le : Samedi, 4 Ao?t 2007, 15h38mn 07s Objet : [Rq-rules] Resistance Table The Resistance Table, as suggested in that DW article, is actually a totally diferent system to the core d100 system. As such it could easily be used to build an entire game system on. Indeed I think TSR did play with such relativist systems in their Marvel Super Hero game but that is only based on hearsay. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ___________________________________________________________________________ Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. T?l?chargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/bb1d9498/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 7 07:03:06 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708061217t4dfbf80blacd34b3cc759695e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Me three. --- David Smart wrote: > You're not; I like it as well. *grin* > > David > > On 8/6/07, Styopa wrote: > > > > > > But then again, I think I'm the only person on the > planet who LIKED 3rd Ed > > sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write > down his mixes in his recipe > > book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of > potion recipes = INT. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz From vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 07:09:35 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:09:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46B78E0F.6050908@gmail.com> Me quarte! It was a great launching point for many adventures. Lev Lafayette wrote: > Me three. > > --- David Smart wrote: > > >> You're not; I like it as well. *grin* >> >> David >> >> On 8/6/07, Styopa wrote: >> >>> >>> But then again, I think I'm the only person on the >>> >> planet who LIKED 3rd Ed >> >>> sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write >>> >> down his mixes in his recipe >> >>> book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of >>> >> potion recipes = INT. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/7e4e0433/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 7 07:26:05 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:26:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <46B78E0F.6050908@gmail.com> References: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B78E0F.6050908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806142432.033bdb40@caprica.com> At 02:09 PM 8/6/2007, you wrote: >Me quarte! It was a great launching point for many adventures. I didn't dislike sorcery as a whole; I disliked two aspects of it: 1. Duration was seriously broken for even a moderately advanced sorcerer; 2. Low end sorcery using characters had so little chance of success it was rarely worth the time to try. I wasn't in love with some aspects of Free INT either, but those two were the real sticky points. From DevinC at aol.com Tue Aug 7 07:22:44 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:22:44 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore Message-ID: In a message dated 8/6/2007 2:03:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au writes: But then again, I think I'm the only person on the > planet who LIKED 3rd Ed . . . I liked 3rd edition sorcery quite alot! Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/d847ac0d/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Aug 7 07:30:43 2007 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:30:43 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <322915.79741.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <57c503c20b8f1cd891ec3c3515430d28@incentre.net> I also like it a lot. That's not to say there aren't some problems in the execution, but the basic concept had an enormous influence on me in the various magic and alchemy systems I've designed for other games. On 6-Aug-07, at 3:03 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Me three. > > --- David Smart wrote: > >> You're not; I like it as well. *grin* >> >> David >> >> On 8/6/07, Styopa wrote: >>> >>> >>> But then again, I think I'm the only person on the >> planet who LIKED 3rd Ed >>> sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write >> down his mixes in his recipe >>> book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of >> potion recipes = INT. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _____________ > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search? > fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmj at comhem.se Tue Aug 7 07:50:14 2007 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:50:14 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> Back in the 80:s, our game group actually developed our own RPG system based on the resistance table. We used it to compare Skills with Difficulty to get the % to roll for a success. We also used a kind of strike rank system modified by ideas from Aftermath if I remember correctly. I guess I owe Sven a big thank you for the inspiration so here's to you Sven: Thanks for the resistance table (or maybe Sk?l is more appropriate). :-) Thanks also to Thomas Z for reminding me through his mail below. Maybe I should try to dig up the old papers. :-) Cheers, /Peter J Thomas Zunder wrote: > The Resistance Table, as suggested in that DW article, is actually a > totally diferent system to the core d100 system. As such it could > easily be used to build an entire game system on. Indeed I think TSR > did play with such relativist systems in their Marvel Super Hero game > but that is only based on hearsay. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Tue Aug 7 08:27:50 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:27:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Herblore In-Reply-To: <57c503c20b8f1cd891ec3c3515430d28@incentre.net> Message-ID: <492645.63832.qm@web28007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> 3rd edition sorcery was great for NPCs. Not something for a starting character though. To be a great sorceror, you had to the be old, and have spent your life studying. I felt that was fine though. Made sorcerors a bit more mysterious when the players didn't know all their spells by heart (like spirit & most divine). SGL. Tom Cantine skrev: I also like it a lot. That's not to say there aren't some problems in the execution, but the basic concept had an enormous influence on me in the various magic and alchemy systems I've designed for other games. On 6-Aug-07, at 3:03 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Me three. > > --- David Smart wrote: > >> You're not; I like it as well. *grin* >> >> David >> >> On 8/6/07, Styopa wrote: >>> >>> >>> But then again, I think I'm the only person on the >> planet who LIKED 3rd Ed >>> sorcery. Like sorcery, the alchemist can write >> down his mixes in his recipe >>> book, and can 'remember' at any moment X points of >> potion recipes = INT. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > _____________ > Got a little couch potato? > Check out fun summer activities for kids. > http://search.yahoo.com/search? > fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz > _______________________________________________ > 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 GBC's Portal to RuneQuest & Glorantha - fan art, links, resources & powsie! Basic Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - Chaosiums upcoming d100 system for fall 2007 basicroleplaying.com - fan page for the new system to be developed later -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070807/5db36030/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 10:28:12 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:28:12 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> Message-ID: <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> Awh Shucks, I'm blushing & slightly misty-eyed. Thank you very much for your kind words. I really am proud of the Resistance table being a cornerstone of RQ though admittedly I created it just as a easy tool for an all ready existing game mechanic. Most of us in the group could rapidly do the math in our heads but it was obvious that there would be people who couldn't. I just wanted everyone to be comfortable & enjoy the game. I had no thought of creating anything significant beyond just helping out folks. I'm still using the Resistance table in the game I'm developing currently as it makes a nice visual simplification. To all of you the old viking toast: Drekk heil, elsk heil, lif heil, deyja heil, fara heil, ves heil! (drink well, love well, live well, die well, journey well, be well!) Sven Peter Johansson wrote: > Back in the 80:s, our game group actually developed our own RPG system > based on the resistance table. We used it to compare Skills with > Difficulty to get the % to roll for a success. We also used a kind of > strike rank system modified by ideas from Aftermath if I remember > correctly. > > I guess I owe Sven a big thank you for the inspiration so here's to > you Sven: Thanks for the resistance table (or maybe Sk?l is more > appropriate). :-) > > Thanks also to Thomas Z for reminding me through his mail below. Maybe > I should try to dig up the old papers. :-) > > Cheers, > > /Peter J > > > > Thomas Zunder wrote: >> The Resistance Table, as suggested in that DW article, is actually a >> totally diferent system to the core d100 system. As such it could >> easily be used to build an entire game system on. Indeed I think TSR >> did play with such relativist systems in their Marvel Super Hero game >> but that is only based on hearsay. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Aug 7 13:14:49 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:14:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <018601c7d8a1$3aa6c250$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Original RuneQuest system was purely me, Ray Turney (magic), Steve Henderson (general editing), and Warren James (some monsters). For 2nd ed we got some input from people like John Sapienza. Greg added material in RQIII. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest *system*? I thought he only supplied Glorantha. ->Peter On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > acknowledgment of the > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > books? > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > articles on my site. Thanks! > > ->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/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/f3cc7689/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:36:31 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 23:36:31 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? In-Reply-To: <018601c7d8a1$3aa6c250$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <018601c7d8a1$3aa6c250$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: Interesting. Weren't you involved in some way with the original 1980 edition of Basic Role-Playing? It says "by Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis" in large letters on the cover. I don't remember if I asked before, but do you happen to know if the 1980 BRP derived from RQ1 or RQ2? I've been thinking of working up a RuneQuest family tree chart for the "History of RuneQuest" on my site, and I'm not sure which version should have a line drawn to BRP. It would be a very complicated chart, that's for sure! :D ->Peter On 8/6/07, Steve Perrin wrote: > > Original RuneQuest system was purely me, Ray Turney (magic), Steve > Henderson (general editing), and Warren James (some monsters). For 2nd ed we > got some input from people like John Sapienza. Greg added material in RQIII. > > Steve Perrin > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? > > How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest > *system*? > > I thought he only supplied Glorantha. > > ->Peter > > On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > > > Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. > > > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > > > acknowledgment of the > > > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > > > books? > > > > > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > > > articles on my site. Thanks! > > > > > > ->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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: > > mail, news, photos & more. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070806/77cdf508/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Aug 7 13:48:05 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:48:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com><018601c7d8a1$3aa6c250$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <003901c7d8a5$c31364a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Everything pretty much derives from RQII. RQII came out before I joined Chaosium as an employee and BRP came out just as I was joining. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? Interesting. Weren't you involved in some way with the original 1980 edition of Basic Role-Playing? It says "by Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis" in large letters on the cover. I don't remember if I asked before, but do you happen to know if the 1980 BRP derived from RQ1 or RQ2? I've been thinking of working up a RuneQuest family tree chart for the "History of RuneQuest" on my site, and I'm not sure which version should have a line drawn to BRP. It would be a very complicated chart, that's for sure! :D ->Peter On 8/6/07, Steve Perrin < steve at perrinworlds.com> wrote: Original RuneQuest system was purely me, Ray Turney (magic), Steve Henderson (general editing), and Warren James (some monsters). For 2nd ed we got some input from people like John Sapienza. Greg added material in RQIII. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest *system*? I thought he only supplied Glorantha. ->Peter On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > acknowledgment of the > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > books? > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > articles on my site. Thanks! > > ->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/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070806/87509df0/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 7 17:17:46 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:17:46 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Documents In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070806102736.034424b8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <59919.196.8.104.27.1186471066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Yes please! I would love to read them. > If anyone wants, I'd be glad to send out an attachment of my redaction of > the Alchemy Rules that appeared in Tradetalk 6. I made a few > modifications, > but it's still fairly close to the rules in that right-up. > > Andrew E. Larsen > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 7 21:15:16 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:15:16 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B85444.7090407@zunder.org.uk> The table/algorithm scales well for linear settings. If I was building a game I'd be careful to make sure that skill/attribute levels of 1-5 were the norm, so there was some headroom for the game. Oh and I thought RQ3 sorcery was ok, never used it much though. From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 22:18:38 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B85444.7090407@zunder.org.uk> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> <46B85444.7090407@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: Chalk me up as another who thought that RQ3 sorcery was unfairly maligned. It wasn't perfect, and I found the Free INT mechanism to be counterintuitive, but all in all I liked it. The relatively powerful effect of long-term spells made up for the comparatively poor chance of success with offensive spells in combat. The one possible glitch was that sorcerers would tend to gain POW much less often than spirit magicians, unless they had some other means of getting POW gain rolls. But I've always been an advocate for allowing POW gains for *resisting* a spell or spirit attack from a credible opponent, as well as overcoming one. Frankly, that makes more sense to me than getting POW gain rolls for religious activities. ->Peter On 8/7/07, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > The table/algorithm scales well for linear settings. > If I was building a game I'd be careful to make sure that > skill/attribute levels of 1-5 were the norm, so there was some headroom > for the game. > > Oh and I thought RQ3 sorcery was ok, never used it much though. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070807/cbfdd76d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 00:27:55 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:27:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708070727y62f479cfq96bf55042e11b6ae@mail.gmail.com> Sven, you and everyone else who worked on bringing RQ into the world deserve all the kudos you get. The game has provided me years of enjoyment and helped me make some good friends along the way. It even helped a high school student playing in one of my university campaigns turn his failing grades around and make his first "A". I'd buy you a drink and a fine dinner if you were nearby just for that. "Drekk heil, elsk heil, lif heil, deyja heil, fara heil, ves heil!" indeed. How do you say "good gaming"? David On 8/6/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Awh Shucks, I'm blushing & slightly misty-eyed. Thank you very much for > your kind words. I really am proud of the Resistance table being a > cornerstone of RQ though admittedly I created it just as a easy tool for > an all ready existing game mechanic. Most of us in the group could > rapidly do the math in our heads but it was obvious that there would be > people who couldn't. I just wanted everyone to be comfortable & enjoy > the game. I had no thought of creating anything significant beyond just > helping out folks. I'm still using the Resistance table in the game I'm > developing currently as it makes a nice visual simplification. > To all of you the old viking toast: Drekk heil, elsk heil, lif heil, > deyja heil, fara heil, ves heil! (drink well, love well, live well, die > well, journey well, be well!) > Sven > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070807/5b527bfb/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 02:37:23 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:37:23 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? In-Reply-To: <003901c7d8a5$c31364a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <929614.55058.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <018601c7d8a1$3aa6c250$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <003901c7d8a5$c31364a0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: But - just checking here - you freelanced RQ1 and RQ2, right? Did you actually work on the original BRP at all? Sorry to ask, but I'm proofreading re-writes of some of the articles on my site and I want to be accurate. ->Peter On 8/6/07, Steve Perrin wrote: > Everything pretty much derives from RQII. RQII came out before I joined > Chaosium as an employee and BRP came out just as I was joining. > > Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2007 8:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? > > > Interesting. Weren't you involved in some way with the original 1980 > edition of Basic Role-Playing? It says "by Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis" in > large letters on the cover. > > I don't remember if I asked before, but do you happen to know if the 1980 > BRP derived from RQ1 or RQ2? I've been thinking of working up a RuneQuest > family tree chart for the "History of RuneQuest" on my site, and I'm not > sure which version should have a line drawn to BRP. > > It would be a very complicated chart, that's for sure! :D > > ->Peter > > On 8/6/07, Steve Perrin < steve at perrinworlds.com> wrote: > > > > Original RuneQuest system was purely me, Ray Turney (magic), Steve > > Henderson (general editing), and Warren James (some monsters). For 2nd ed we > > got some input from people like John Sapienza. Greg added material in RQIII. > > > > Steve Perrin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Peter Maranci > > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > *Sent:* Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:36 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Quick MRQ question: acknowledgment? > > > > > > How odd, did Stafford actually do any work on the original RuneQuest > > *system*? > > > > I thought he only supplied Glorantha. > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 8/5/07, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes to Stafford, no for anyone else. > > > > > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > > > > Can anyone who owns MRQ tell me if there is any > > > > acknowledgment of the > > > > original creators of the RuneQuest system in the MRQ > > > > books? > > > > > > > > I need to know because I'm updating some of the > > > > articles on my site. Thanks! > > > > > > > > ->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/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: > > > mail, news, photos & more. > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070807/b3168808/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 8 05:38:54 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:38:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> <46B85444.7090407@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807123527.0340cde8@caprica.com> >The relatively powerful effect of long-term spells made up for the >comparatively poor chance of success with offensive spells in >combat. The one possible glitch was that sorcerers would tend to >gain POW much less often than spirit magicians, unless they had some >other means of getting POW gain rolls. The problem was it made it way too easy to amp up a whole party; when you can put Damage Boosting on all your buddies weapons, and make it last for weeks at a time, there's little reason not to, and that could create some significant balance issues. As to offensive spells--well, it wasn't like the spirit magic offensive spells were exactly overwhelming, either; Befuddle and Demoralize were helpful, but it tended to turn on the magic points of the target, and until you had spare magic points, quickly got hard to make work. It wasn't until you were getting into divine magic you got serious offensive punch, and then only if you were of the right religions. > >But I've always been an advocate for allowing POW gains for >*resisting* a spell or spirit attack from a credible opponent, as >well as overcoming one. Frankly, that makes more sense to me than >getting POW gain rolls for religious activities. In the end, I ended up giving less power and less frequently, but gave it for just using magic in general. From vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 06:25:19 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:25:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708070727y62f479cfq96bf55042e11b6ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <940879.5460.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46B4813F.1030609@zunder.org.uk> <46B79796.40004@comhem.se> <46B7BC9C.7080106@gmail.com> <1c92296e0708070727y62f479cfq96bf55042e11b6ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B8D52F.3010902@gmail.com> Thank you, though to be honest, I feel Steve deserves all the credit. I just played a minor part and enjoy Steve's teasing me about it all these years. My Old Norse is not all that great & the dictionaries I can consult don't have gaming but working from Cleasby/Vigfusson I could get "hoping for a good competition' would be " v?nn Kapp" -- Kapp is related to the word kamph (competition/struggle) Skal, Sven David Smart wrote: > Sven, you and everyone else who worked on bringing RQ into the world > deserve all the kudos you get. > > The game has provided me years of enjoyment and helped me make some > good friends along the way. It even helped a high school student > playing in one of my university campaigns turn his failing grades > around and make his first "A". I'd buy you a drink and a fine dinner > if you were nearby just for that. > > "Drekk heil, elsk heil, lif heil, deyja heil, fara heil, ves heil!" > indeed. > > How do you say "good gaming"? > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From darthvogel at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 15:05:40 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807123527.0340cde8@caprica.com> Message-ID: >From: Wayne Shaw >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table >Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:38:54 -0700 > >The problem was it made it way too easy to amp up a whole party; when you >can put Damage Boosting on all your buddies weapons, and make it last for >weeks at a time, there's little reason not to, and that could create some >significant balance issues. As to offensive spells--well, it wasn't like >the spirit magic offensive spells were exactly overwhelming, either; >Befuddle and Demoralize were helpful, but it tended to turn on the magic >points of the target, and until you had spare magic points, quickly got >hard to make work. It wasn't until you were getting into divine magic you >got serious offensive punch, and then only if you were of the right >religions. I never understood anything about all this talk with balance in games. Nature always finds its own balance. What goes around comes around and if PCs think they are the only people in the universe that can do such things, they may be surprised. I always assume PCs, as adventurers in a story, are extra-ordinary in one or more ways compared the the John Q. Public NPCs; however, adventurers have a tendency to encounter other adventurers as opponents. Assuming that average PC would be within the normal curve of adventurers in general, they would find a lot of their encounters were against opponents with similar capabilities. Also, while there is damage boost, there is also resist damage, and other defensive spells and enchantments that can protect against boosted weapons. Players will also tend to seek out what is a challenge, as the greater challenge should provide greater reward if successful and greater cost if not successful. If a GM is burdened with petty players who get glee from being bullies that like to pick on lesser opponents, they aren't very good players; but more importantly in such a scenario the more advanced opponents would seek the PCs out to conquer them as the players whould have unwittingly juxtaposed themselves into being what typically PCs would go after. Fred _________________________________________________________________ A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 8 15:12:05 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 22:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <652372.28718.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Fred Vogel wrote: > > I never understood anything about all this talk with > balance in games. > Nature always finds its own balance. What goes > around comes around and if > PCs think they are the only people in the universe > that can do such things, > they may be surprised. A little off-topic for the thread, but 'balance' is simply a game agenda to ensure that challenges are appropriate and characters are roughly "equal but different" to each other. I'm not saying that unbalanced games can't work or can't be fun, but having a layperson PC when the rest of the party are Rune Lord-Priests could lead to said PC sitting the corner and not being able to contribute on the same level. Likewise if a PC group encounters challenges which are far greater or far weaker than their capacity. HTH HAND, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 8 15:35:19 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:35:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807123527.0340cde8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> At 10:05 PM 8/7/2007, you wrote: >>From: Wayne Shaw >>Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table >>Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:38:54 -0700 >> >>The problem was it made it way too easy to amp up a whole party; >>when you can put Damage Boosting on all your buddies weapons, and >>make it last for weeks at a time, there's little reason not to, and >>that could create some significant balance issues. As to offensive >>spells--well, it wasn't like the spirit magic offensive spells were >>exactly overwhelming, either; Befuddle and Demoralize were helpful, >>but it tended to turn on the magic points of the target, and until >>you had spare magic points, quickly got hard to make work. It >>wasn't until you were getting into divine magic you got serious >>offensive punch, and then only if you were of the right religions. > > >I never understood anything about all this talk with balance in games. >Nature always finds its own balance. What goes around comes around >and if PCs think they are the only people in the universe that can >do such things, they may be surprised. False dichotomy; even if there are NPCs that can do the same thing, it still makes some character types superior to others, and makes some classes of opposition simply not as dangerous as they could be. Not all races and cultures use sorcery, so in practice, they just aren't going to do as well here. In addition, you're only going to run into so many sorcerers in the weight class to do this. On the other hand, you only need one amidst the PCs to cause the problem. >I always assume PCs, as adventurers in a story, are extra-ordinary >in one or more ways compared the the John Q. Public NPCs; however, >adventurers have a tendency to encounter other adventurers as >opponents. Assuming that average PC would be within the normal >curve of adventurers in general, they would find a lot of their >encounters were against opponents with similar capabilities. But not the _same_ capabilities. >Also, while there is damage boost, there is also resist damage, and >other defensive spells and enchantments that can protect against >boosted weapons. Which only matters if every set of opponents has a sorcerer, and one as good as the PCs. The need for that by itself says that sorcerery is unbalanced; you didn't need to have spirit mages to counter the presence of spirit magic. >Players will also tend to seek out what is a challenge, as the >greater challenge should provide greater reward if successful and >greater cost if not successful. If a GM is burdened with petty >players who get glee from being bullies that like to pick on lesser That doesn't always follow; a lesser reward that can be more reliably acquired is sometimes plenty. And not all opposition needs to be respected; you're not a bully for mowing down bandits like cordwood. From darthvogel at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 15:32:50 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:32:50 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balance [was Re: Resistance Table] In-Reply-To: <652372.28718.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >A little off-topic for the thread, but 'balance' is >simply a game agenda to ensure that challenges are >appropriate and characters are roughly "equal but >different" to each other. > >I'm not saying that unbalanced games can't work or >can't be fun, but having a layperson PC when the rest >of the party are Rune Lord-Priests could lead to said >PC sitting the corner and not being able to contribute >on the same level. > >Likewise if a PC group encounters challenges which are >far greater or far weaker than their capacity. > >HTH HAND, >Lev I have changed the subject in an effort to not hijack the other thread. Yes I very easily agree with this. But when I see the word balance come out is is usually associated with sweeping rules to avoid 'pc's becoming too powerful' rather than intraparty inbalance. We have a current game where we have a group of experienced PCs that have been going on for 3-4 years now. A new player is coming into the group and we have discussed that brining him in as a starting character is completely unrealistic. His PC will have to be leap frogged to a point that there is some parity with the group or he might as well not come to play. We will be looking for bigger fish than he can fry as an entry character. But just like real life, we wouldn't elect to have a person that was unqualified to be on our team. Therefore, this has more to do with the GM and how he runs the game rather than the mechanics and modeling of the game. On point 2, you are very correct that a group of NPCs could nuke a group of players pretty easily if they were the right group of people. There are 2 things here. The first is simply under the GMs control. Unless the GM is a saddist, PCs won't be coming around the vorpal bunny on casual random encounters. However, that being said; it is entirely possible that PCs could pursue or incur the wrath of NPCs that they have no business messing with. I see no reason to put curbs in if PCs decide to throw caution to the wind. caio, Fred _________________________________________________________________ A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 8 15:49:18 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:49:18 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balance [was Re: Resistance Table] In-Reply-To: References: <652372.28718.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807224802.03448c60@caprica.com> >But when I see the word balance come out is is usually associated >with sweeping rules to avoid 'pc's becoming too powerful' rather >than intraparty inbalance. We have a current game where we have a >group of experienced PCs that have been going on for 3-4 I use it for both; there's power relative to other PCs, and power relative to the expected norms of other options in the system. Sorcery broke both tests (in fact it broke it at both ends; it was too weak at the bottom and too strong near the top, a D&D like tendency that was rather foreign to the general RQ ethic). From darthvogel at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 15:51:01 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> Message-ID: >False dichotomy; even if there are NPCs that can do the same thing, it >still makes some character types superior to others, and makes some classes >of opposition simply not as dangerous as they could be. Not all races and >cultures use sorcery, so in practice, they just aren't going to do as well >here. In addition, you're only going to run into so many sorcerers in the >weight class to do this. On the other hand, you only need one amidst the >PCs to cause the problem. 1) Our soldiers with m16's would make pretty easy work of a bunch natives hidden deep in the amazon jungle that still lived in the stone ages. That is pretty unbalanced but I don't see either God or physics doing a thing to stop it. 2) "Only need one PC to cause a problem." This is basically putting the idea into the game that the GM is a socialistic government that sees itself as the one who controls the world and punishes the PC when they do not conform to his idea of creativity. This is GM vs. PCs. As GM I personally don't care what the PC's can do and still don't know why that would cause problems. If some race/culture/etc can't cope then Darwin says they will probably make an ungraceful exit if they don't find a way to stay out of the way. > >>I always assume PCs, as adventurers in a story, are extra-ordinary in one >>or more ways compared the the John Q. Public NPCs; however, adventurers >>have a tendency to encounter other adventurers as opponents. Assuming >>that average PC would be within the normal curve of adventurers in >>general, they would find a lot of their encounters were against opponents >>with similar capabilities. > >But not the _same_ capabilities. But so what? If you cant compete you loose. If I have a great weapon why do you deserve one too. The PCs and the world will adapt to a form of equilibrium somewhere. HOWEVER, as GM, it is always your story. If some set of modeling and mechanics don't fit your story then it is very legitimat to change the modeling to work for your game. Just to change it becaue you don't like clevar PCs is IMO not legitimate but rather lazy (no, i'm not calling you lazy, i'm just saying that it is a lazy approach so don't take it that way this is not a hostile post). >Which only matters if every set of opponents has a sorcerer, and one as >good as the PCs. The need for that by itself says that sorcerery is >unbalanced; you didn't need to have spirit mages to counter the presence of >spirit magic. Again parity doesn't exist in real life why do you need it to exist in your game? What in life is balanced in this way? > >>Players will also tend to seek out what is a challenge, as the greater >>challenge should provide greater reward if successful and greater cost if >>not successful. If a GM is burdened with petty players who get glee from >>being bullies that like to pick on lesser > >That doesn't always follow; a lesser reward that can be more reliably >acquired is sometimes plenty. And not all opposition needs to be >respected; you're not a bully for mowing down bandits like cordwood. Maybe. I guess different things motivate different people; but if the PC just want to sit around picking off easy 'unrespectable' targets, it will get boring and there isn't much of a game. But then why are they playing in the first place. If you want that just play doom and run around killing things and picking up ammo boxes from the dead. If i were GMing that game, I would think the petty thieves of the area would get thinned out quickly and the more professional theives/thugs/whatever would be around and would decide they needed to form some kind of coalition or hire some one(s) to come kill the party or at least drive them away from thier cheese. Fred _________________________________________________________________ See what you?re getting into?before you go there http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507 From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 17:10:11 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:10:11 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> On 08/08/07, Fred Vogel wrote: > 1) Our soldiers with m16's would make pretty easy work of a bunch natives > hidden deep in the amazon jungle that still lived in the stone ages. > That is pretty unbalanced but I don't see either God or physics doing a > thing to stop it. God's a lousy GM. So is physics. > 2) "Only need one PC to cause a problem." This is basically putting the > idea into the game that the GM is a socialistic government that sees > itself as the one who controls the world and punishes the PC when they > do not conform to his idea of creativity. This is GM vs. PCs. No, not at all. No GM cares about NPCs - they are, in the main, disposable. It's more a relative balance of the PCs situation. Take something like the comic team Avengers, in the era when both Thor and Captain America were in the team. Thor is a better fighter, he's stronger, he can take more punishment, and he has a scad more powers than Captain America. Within the context of a comic book that's OK, since writers can arrange for both Thor and Cap to do stuff. Within the context of an RPG it's harder; the guy playing Thor can do anything that Cap can do better than he can do it, and can do more - if you're not careful, Cap's player will feel frustrated that he lacks an appropriate "schtick". I'm not saying it can't be handled in an RPG, but that's the reason you don't have Rune Lord-Priests and 16 year old farmers in the same party - it's harder to make everyone feel useful, and enormously easier if they are all roughly equivalent (though not equal) in capability. The contention is that sorcery has the following issues: - If you're not at least Apprentice level, then your magic is very weak compared to someone with a couple of spirit magic spells or an Initiate. So in that case you feel useless compared to the other members of the party. - If you are Adept or greater in power, then your abilities are tremendously useful (long term buffs FTW!) to the extent that they arguably overshadow what the Shaman and Rune Lords can do. So in that case they feel useless compared to you. > If some set of modelling and mechanics don't fit your story then it is > very legitimate to change the modelling to work for your game. That is known as the "Rule0" defence: "It isn't broken, because the GM can arrange things so that it isn't overbalanced" in this case by having lots of NPC sorcerers to minimise the effects of the PC, having sorcerers lack opportunities to learn spells, or whatever. If a GM has to make such adaptions that is tantamount to conceding the point that the rules as written are damaged. > Again parity doesn't exist in real life why do you need it to exist in > your game? What in life is balanced in this way? I just don't comprehend this argument. Is it really necessary to point out that games AREN'T real life, and that if your game contains things like magic then it isn't even a simulation thereof? What possible relevance does "it doesn't happen in real life" have? Balance isn't a "holy grail" by any means; you CAN run and play in games that contain Gandalf and Bilbo as PCs. But many gamers dislike playing sidekicks - they want their PC to be able to do stuff just as cool as the other PCs can do. Balanced rule sets are a necessary but not sufficient condition for this. -- GAZZA From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 01:01:35 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:01:35 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaos Project Google doc link Message-ID: The new Chaos Project isn't up yet, and the old one is hard to reach at best - so I've put up a copy of the full spreadsheet on Google. You can view it at: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ4aD_ujcB3hSGNIxyILqTQ It contains ALL valid entries from past editions - both the archives and the active sections. It also has worksheets for all five categories, including the new NPC and Bestiary ones. If you'd like editing privileges, let me know and I'll gladly add you to the list. ->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/20070808/54670a25/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 9 02:43:48 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:43:48 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070808093151.033d8b50@caprica.com> At 10:51 PM 8/7/2007, you wrote: >>False dichotomy; even if there are NPCs that can do the same thing, >>it still makes some character types superior to others, and makes >>some classes of opposition simply not as dangerous as they could >>be. Not all races and cultures use sorcery, so in practice, they >>just aren't going to do as well here. In addition, you're only >>going to run into so many sorcerers in the weight class to do >>this. On the other hand, you only need one amidst the PCs to cause >>the problem. > >1) Our soldiers with m16's would make pretty easy work of a bunch >natives hidden deep in the amazon jungle that still lived in the >stone ages. That is pretty unbalanced but I don't see either God or >physics doing a thing to stop it. And you notice that the people with the M16's more or less rule the world, and I don't see many games that put characters with spears and hatchets in the same party with guys with M16's. Reality and what make a good game have no direct relationship. >2) "Only need one PC to cause a problem." This is basically putting >the idea into the game that the GM is a socialistic government that >sees itself as the one who controls the world and punishes the PC >when they do not conform to his idea of creativity. This is GM vs. >PCs. As GM I personally don't care what the PC's can do and still >don't know why that would cause No, it puts the GM into the position of deciding what sort of game he's trying to run, and to try and make sure that's the kind of game he gets. In addition, he's the one who has to make sure the world makes coherent sense. A single magical system that's not supposed to be dominant over all others breaks the second, and a single option that throws off attempts to produce a variety of reasonably balanced encounters throws off the first. >problems. If some race/culture/etc can't cope then Darwin says they >will probably make an ungraceful exit if they don't find a way to >stay out of the way. And if that's not what you want, then why in the world would you consider sorcery a good thing? Why would such cultures even still exist as anything but isolated corners of the world. Sorcery as written was not a logical counterpart to the other magic systems; it did not look like it belonged in the same world as them. >>>I always assume PCs, as adventurers in a story, are extra-ordinary >>>in one or more ways compared the the John Q. Public NPCs; however, >>>adventurers have a tendency to encounter other adventurers as >>>opponents. Assuming that average PC would be within the normal >>>curve of adventurers in general, they would find a lot of their >>>encounters were against opponents with similar capabilities. >> >>But not the _same_ capabilities. > >But so what? If you cant compete you loose. If I have a great >weapon why do you deserve one too. The PCs and the world will adapt >to a form of equilibrium somewhere. HOWEVER, as GM, it is always >your story. If some set of modeling and mechanics don't fit your >story then it is very legitimat to change the modeling to work for >your game. Just to change it becaue you don't like clevar PCs is >IMO not legitimate but rather lazy (no, i'm not calling you lazy, >i'm just saying that it is a lazy approach so don't take it that way >this is not a hostile post). I don't think its a legitimate comparison; it wasn't the PCs being clever, it was the PCs using a mechanic that was overpowered from the getgo, and simply didn't belong in the game. >>Which only matters if every set of opponents has a sorcerer, and >>one as good as the PCs. The need for that by itself says that >>sorcerery is unbalanced; you didn't need to have spirit mages to >>counter the presence of spirit magic. > >Again parity doesn't exist in real life why do you need it to exist >in your game? What in life is balanced in this way? Who cares? I'm not running a fantasy simulation here. I might want some realistic elements (which is usually why people like RuneQuest) but if realism was the be-all and end-all, a lot of things would be different in the game, and I doubt almost anyone would actually want to play it. >>>Players will also tend to seek out what is a challenge, as the >>>greater challenge should provide greater reward if successful and >>>greater cost if not successful. If a GM is burdened with petty >>>players who get glee from being bullies that like to pick on lesser >> >>That doesn't always follow; a lesser reward that can be more >>reliably acquired is sometimes plenty. And not all opposition >>needs to be respected; you're not a bully for mowing down bandits >>like cordwood. > >Maybe. I guess different things motivate different people; but if >the PC just want to sit around picking off easy 'unrespectable' >targets, it will get boring and there isn't much of a game. But then >why are they playing in the first place. If you want that just play >doom and run around killing things and picking up ammo boxes from >the dead. If i were GMing that game, I would think the petty >thieves of the area would get thinned out quickly and the more >professional theives/thugs/whatever would be around and would decide >they needed to form some kind of coalition or hire some one(s) to >come kill the party or at least drive them away from thier cheese. And most likely lose unless they had overwhelming numbers, or a high end sorcerer. That's part of the problem. When you have a single game element that dominates as much as high Duration sorcery spells could, it starts to distort the whole game; unless you want to and have built the whole game around it as an assumption, it ends up narrowing the range of things you can do enormously. If something is going to be pretty much a given, it should be normative; sorcery wasn't normative, especially in the ranges involved; it required a moderately high end sorcerer, but once you had one, every encounter had to account for it in a way not true with virtually any other singular option in RQ3 (you had some issues with runic gusting in earlier editions and potentially RQ3, but that _was_ normative; it applied to a wide range of opposition and to a large extent would apply to every PC, not just a subset of them). From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 9 02:51:19 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:51:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> >The contention is that sorcery has the following issues: > >- If you're not at least Apprentice level, then your magic is very >weak compared to someone with a couple of spirit magic spells or an >Initiate. So in that case you feel useless compared to the other >members of the party. Yup. Unlike Spirit Magic, starting magic for non-specialists was almost unusable. >- If you are Adept or greater in power, then your abilities are >tremendously useful (long term buffs FTW!) to the extent that they >arguably overshadow what the Shaman and Rune Lords can do. So in that >case they feel useless compared to you. I think in the case of at least some of them, there's no question they overshadow it. If sorcery defensive magic and healing was up with its attribute and offensive boosts, there'd be no reason to bother with spirit magic at all at higher levels; even though it doesn't add to hit chance like Bladesharp, its all too easy to get a long duration Damage Boost that exceeds any Bladesharp you're likely to find. > > If some set of modelling and mechanics don't fit your story then it is > > very legitimate to change the modelling to work for your game. > >That is known as the "Rule0" defence: "It isn't broken, because the GM >can arrange things so that it isn't overbalanced" in this case by >having lots of NPC sorcerers to minimise the effects of the PC, having >sorcerers lack opportunities to learn spells, or whatever. > >If a GM has to make such adaptions that is tantamount to conceding the >point that the rules as written are damaged. Yup. > > Again parity doesn't exist in real life why do you need it to exist in > > your game? What in life is balanced in this way? > >I just don't comprehend this argument. Is it really necessary to point >out that games AREN'T real life, and that if your game contains things >like magic then it isn't even a simulation thereof? What possible >relevance does "it doesn't happen in real life" have? RQ has had a certain simulationist element from day one, and attracts a certain number of people who like that ethic; however I think trying to use it as the all purpose defense is dubious. >Balance isn't a "holy grail" by any means; you CAN run and play in >games that contain Gandalf and Bilbo as PCs. But many gamers dislike >playing sidekicks - they want their PC to be able to do stuff just as >cool as the other PCs can do. Balanced rule sets are a necessary but >not sufficient condition for this. Its not like I'm expecting precision here; RQ is not manic about balance in the way some RPGs are. However when something is quite as out of the curve as the two ends of sorcery are, I don't think its being unreasonable to say that the subsystem design doesn't fit right with the rest of the system (and frankly, that its probably a bad idea in general). It doesn't take too much to fix it; deal with the excessive vigor of Duration, and set it up so starting sorcery using types have a halfway decent percentage in their spells is all that's needed ( a few individual spells could also use some work, but that's a side issue). From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 05:39:56 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:39:56 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> "And you notice that the people with the M16's more or less rule the world, and I don't see many games that put characters with spears and hatchets in the same party with guys with M16's. Reality and what make a good game have no direct relationship." Bad example. SE Asia from 1954-1973...how'd the guys with the advanced weapons do against the guys with the primitive culture? Actually, it's a good example: what happened when a primitive culture was faced by vastly superior technology? They quickly adapted it, and used it against the invaders. Couple this with a universe where local gods are REAL, immanent, and take a vested interest in their worshippers? No, sorcery is no more overpowered than any other magic system in RQ. Sure it is open to abuse, but no more than any other. YGMV, obviously. You think sorcery is too weak to start and too strong after a while? You're the GM, feel free to mess with it or exclude it entirely. I like it, and it took some serious mucking before I'm happy about the power level it occupies in my game.* * changes including but not limited to: - adopting the rule about the limit on manipulation = skill % / 10. - allowing dispels to work across genres - 1 mp of Sorcery = 1 point of Spirit = 1/2 point of divine, and remembering that a long-duration spell is NOT the same as an enchantment, that long duration resist damage that buffs your warrior really won't last that long against a magically competent opponent, once they realize what's up. Actually, I find that Sorcery is UNDERPOWERED in this context, if anything, and so I've implemented in my world fixed spells that can be developed that have a net cost less than the sum of their parts, so for example a classic fireball might take a 'create fire' (1mp), add 6 points of range, add 2 points for AoE = would cost 9 mp to cast as a flexible spell. But the player might find in the School of Exalted Pyromancy in Sog City they have a spell with that particular effect that only costs 6mp, and a casting time of 4 - useful, but amusingly inflexible at the worst of moments. (grin). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070808/a5510640/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Aug 9 06:06:53 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:06:53 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese society is/was primitive is sadly all too much the norm. Technologically outfaced by the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In many ways the Viet Minh were not that outmatched by the French, since the VietMinh had access to modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a stand up fight kind of war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the logical way, learnt from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular occupier with overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with the US Army and the Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit at huge casualty rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, no. END of OT. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 9 06:22:19 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:22:19 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Resistance Table In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070808131417.0342d008@caprica.com> At 12:39 PM 8/8/2007, you wrote: >"And you notice that the people with the M16's more or less rule the >world, and I don't see many games that put characters with spears and >hatchets in the same party with guys with M16's. Reality and what >make a good game have no direct relationship." > >Bad example. SE Asia from 1954-1973...how'd the guys with the >advanced weapons do against the guys with the primitive culture? Notice the guys with the primitive culture got guns pretty quick, and on small scale, the advanced culture did just fine. For the most >Actually, it's a good example: what happened when a primitive >culture was faced by vastly superior technology? They quickly >adapted it, and used it against the invaders. Couple this with a >universe where local gods are REAL, immanent, and take a vested >interest in their worshippers? Doesn't help if the gods can't effectively change the nature of their magic, and in an RQ style system, they can't. >No, sorcery is no more overpowered than any other magic system in >RQ. Sure it is open to abuse, but no more than any other. I disagree completely. I don't know a single spirit spell that caused this sort of problem, and few divine spells (and those that did were _also_ misdesigned). Certainly nothing systematic in either subsystem did so the way it does here. >YGMV, obviously. You think sorcery is too weak to start and too >strong after a while? You're the GM, feel free to mess with it or >exclude it entirely. I like it, and it took some serious mucking >before I'm happy about the power level it occupies in my game.* And so I did. However, your disagreement does not require me to acknowledge our positions as equal, as all evidence I have is that sorcery was problematic in _most_ games. >* changes including but not limited to: >- adopting the rule about the limit on manipulation = skill % / 10. That just moves the target; the fundamental problem was that the duration effect simply ramped up too fast and once it exceeded the duration of the magic point recovery, there was little reason _not_ to do it. >- allowing dispels to work across genres - 1 mp of Sorcery = 1 point >of Spirit = 1/2 point of divine, and remembering that a >long-duration spell is NOT the same as an enchantment, that long >duration resist damage that buffs your warrior really won't last >that long against a magically competent opponent, once they realize what's up. They already do work across, but since the total magic points of Duration boosted effects were so large, almost no spirit magic user could make that work, and few Divine ones. This even assuming you have the time to spend dispelling their spells while they are chopping you to slaw. >Actually, I find that Sorcery is UNDERPOWERED in this context, if >anything, and so I've implemented in my world fixed spells that If you'll note, I've said sorcery is both overpowered in places and underpowered in others. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 9 07:36:51 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:36:51 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070808143629.0343ee58@caprica.com> At 01:06 PM 8/8/2007, you wrote: >OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese society is/was >primitive is sadly all too much the norm. Technologically outfaced And I apologize if I contributed to that. From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 08:57:59 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:57:59 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070807223144.0342ca60@caprica.com> <9ebd81400708080010u49815875gea8e7b7bf2c211bb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070808094431.033cc880@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708081239m39cdebeaq7a078700768ac863@mail.gmail.com> <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708081557k6f341eafldefcb6b21144db3b@mail.gmail.com> On 8/8/07, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese society is/was > primitive is sadly all too much the norm. Technologically outfaced by > the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In many ways the Viet Minh > were not that outmatched by the French, since the VietMinh had access to > modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a stand up fight kind of > war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the logical way, learnt > from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular occupier with > overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with the US Army and the > Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit at huge casualty > rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, no. END of OT. > _______________________________________________ Nobody said the Vietnamese were "barbarians", "backwards", or any sort of pejorative. Please don't infer that I did. Primitive is an objective word that describes the Vietnamese culture succinctly? In a relative sense, compared to the Western (French/American) troops they faced? The Vietnamese were undoubtedly "primitive". Objectively? Tribal culture: check. Simple, low level economy: check. Lack of 'technology' at all levels of society: check. How do you NOT describe that as "primitive"? Primitive doesn't mean ineffective, either, as the US Army learned at its peril. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070808/5dee04d1/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 9 09:22:07 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708081557k6f341eafldefcb6b21144db3b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <917231.90994.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > On 8/8/07, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > > > OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese > society is/was > > primitive is sadly all too much the norm. > Technologically outfaced by > > the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In > many ways the Viet Minh > > were not that outmatched by the French, since the > VietMinh had access to > > modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a > stand up fight kind of > > war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the > logical way, learnt > > from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular > occupier with > > overwhelming air power. In some straight fights > with the US Army and the > > Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, > albeit at huge casualty > > rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, > primitive, no. END of OT. > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Nobody said the Vietnamese were "barbarians", > "backwards", or any sort of > pejorative. Please don't infer that I did. > > Primitive is an objective word that describes the > Vietnamese culture > succinctly? > In a relative sense, compared to the Western > (French/American) troops they > faced? The Vietnamese were undoubtedly "primitive". > Objectively? Tribal culture: check. Simple, low > level economy: check. > Lack of 'technology' at all levels of society: > check. How do you NOT > describe that as "primitive"? > I think Jurgen Habermas' pithy outline in the opening chapters of "Legitimation Crisis" (1971 iirc) gives probably the best description of social formations. The distinction he makes is between primitive, traditional, modern and hypothetical postmodern societies. Each of these have their own dominant means of production, mode of consciousness, institutional and systematic differentiation and so on. Viet Nam was certainly not 'primitive', but most probably 'traditional' under this criteria. All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 01:19:11 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <972300.92807.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just Russian equipment? They had quite a bit of captured French and US equipment as well. Let's remember that Ho Chi Mien was a US Army captain in WW-II and so there was quite a bit of US equipment available to them without the cost of capturing it. I am not sure they got even tactics from the Chinese - their traditional enemy. One could argue just as well that it came from Maquis, Apache, or Spanish against Napoleon (the original "guerilla" "little war"). It is the only way a people can fight an occupier without being exterminated by massive firepower and no concern for the rights of others. A "stand-up" battle is essentially the coup de grace after the war is basically over (Dien Bien Phu, Tet Offensive, etc.). Paul Cardwell --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese > society is/was > primitive is sadly all too much the norm. > Technologically outfaced by > the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In > many ways the Viet Minh > were not that outmatched by the French, since the > VietMinh had access to > modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a > stand up fight kind of > war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the > logical way, learnt > from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular > occupier with > overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with > the US Army and the > Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit > at huge casualty > rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, > no. END of OT. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Aug 10 04:14:17 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom at zunder.org.uk) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam In-Reply-To: <972300.92807.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <46BA225D.9090703@zunder.org.uk> <972300.92807.qm@web33514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1162.217.41.237.80.1186683257.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> I agree with you totally. The majority of their kit by the time of the "American War" was Russian or Chinese versions thereof. You are right that Vietnam was always more friendly with Russia than China, as now. Whilst I also agree that guerilla tactics are new, but in a Communist sense and in Asia, Mao did get quite a trademark on it. Of course the Russians did it as well in Europe in WW2 and the VietMinh had used it against the Japanese. I didn't finesse the arguement since it really was OT. > Just Russian equipment? > > They had quite a bit of captured French and US > equipment as well. Let's remember that Ho Chi Mien > was a US Army captain in WW-II and so there was quite > a bit of US equipment available to them without the > cost of capturing it. > > I am not sure they got even tactics from the Chinese - > their traditional enemy. One could argue just as well > that it came from Maquis, Apache, or Spanish against > Napoleon (the original "guerilla" "little war"). It > is the only way a people can fight an occupier without > being exterminated by massive firepower and no concern > for the rights of others. A "stand-up" battle is > essentially the coup de grace after the war is > basically over (Dien Bien Phu, Tet Offensive, etc.). > > Paul Cardwell > > > --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > >> OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese >> society is/was >> primitive is sadly all too much the norm. >> Technologically outfaced by >> the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In >> many ways the Viet Minh >> were not that outmatched by the French, since the >> VietMinh had access to >> modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a >> stand up fight kind of >> war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the >> logical way, learnt >> from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular >> occupier with >> overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with >> the US Army and the >> Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit >> at huge casualty >> rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, >> no. END of OT. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! > FareChase. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Aug 10 04:14:25 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom at zunder.org.uk) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam Message-ID: <1164.217.41.237.80.1186683265.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> I agree with you totally. The majority of their kit by the time of the "American War" was Russian or Chinese versions thereof. You are right that Vietnam was always more friendly with Russia than China, as now. Whilst I also agree that guerilla tactics are new, but in a Communist sense and in Asia, Mao did get quite a trademark on it. Of course the Russians did it as well in Europe in WW2 and the VietMinh had used it against the Japanese. I didn't finesse the arguement since it really was OT. > Just Russian equipment? > > They had quite a bit of captured French and US > equipment as well. Let's remember that Ho Chi Mien > was a US Army captain in WW-II and so there was quite > a bit of US equipment available to them without the > cost of capturing it. > > I am not sure they got even tactics from the Chinese - > their traditional enemy. One could argue just as well > that it came from Maquis, Apache, or Spanish against > Napoleon (the original "guerilla" "little war"). It > is the only way a people can fight an occupier without > being exterminated by massive firepower and no concern > for the rights of others. A "stand-up" battle is > essentially the coup de grace after the war is > basically over (Dien Bien Phu, Tet Offensive, etc.). > > Paul Cardwell > > > --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > >> OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese >> society is/was >> primitive is sadly all too much the norm. >> Technologically outfaced by >> the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In >> many ways the Viet Minh >> were not that outmatched by the French, since the >> VietMinh had access to >> modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a >> stand up fight kind of >> war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the >> logical way, learnt >> from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular >> occupier with >> overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with >> the US Army and the >> Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit >> at huge casualty >> rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, >> no. END of OT. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! > FareChase. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Aug 10 04:14:33 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom at zunder.org.uk) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT: Vietnam Message-ID: <1165.217.41.237.80.1186683273.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> I agree with you totally. The majority of their kit by the time of the "American War" was Russian or Chinese versions thereof. You are right that Vietnam was always more friendly with Russia than China, as now. Whilst I also agree that guerilla tactics are not new, but in a Communist sense and in Asia, Mao did get quite a trademark on it. Of course the Russians did it as well in Europe in WW2 and the VietMinh had used it against the Japanese. I didn't finesse the arguement since it really was OT. > Just Russian equipment? > > They had quite a bit of captured French and US > equipment as well. Let's remember that Ho Chi Mien > was a US Army captain in WW-II and so there was quite > a bit of US equipment available to them without the > cost of capturing it. > > I am not sure they got even tactics from the Chinese - > their traditional enemy. One could argue just as well > that it came from Maquis, Apache, or Spanish against > Napoleon (the original "guerilla" "little war"). It > is the only way a people can fight an occupier without > being exterminated by massive firepower and no concern > for the rights of others. A "stand-up" battle is > essentially the coup de grace after the war is > basically over (Dien Bien Phu, Tet Offensive, etc.). > > Paul Cardwell > > > --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > >> OT: Stating that the highly civilised Vietnamese >> society is/was >> primitive is sadly all too much the norm. >> Technologically outfaced by >> the USA the Vietnamese maybe, primitive, no. In >> many ways the Viet Minh >> were not that outmatched by the French, since the >> VietMinh had access to >> modern Russian equipment, and they beat them in a >> stand up fight kind of >> war. They resorted more to guerilla tactics as the >> logical way, learnt >> from the Chinese Communists, to fight an unpopular >> occupier with >> overwhelming air power. In some straight fights with >> the US Army and the >> Marines the NVA aquitted itself pretty well, albeit >> at huge casualty >> rates. At a technical disadvantage, yes, primitive, >> no. END of OT. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! > FareChase. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From sunwolfek12 at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 11 01:31:42 2007 From: sunwolfek12 at sbcglobal.net (Andre Powell) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:31:42 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Ceremony Ritual Question Message-ID: <003501c7db63$8e078050$4101a8c0@home> Hi, all: Simple question: According to RQ III, "A Ceremony ritual augments the skill at casting ritual and non-ritual spells" and later, "...can be used in conjunction with Ceremony Ritual spells in the same manner as other rituals; or it can be used to augment a magician's chances to successfully cast any spell in exchange for time" (Perrin 136-137). I want to make sure I'm reading this right...so a magician can use the Ceremony Ritual to augment any ritual spell: Summoning, Enchanting or Ceremony? Thanks in advance, Andre' Perrin, Steve, et all. RuneQuest Deluxe Edition. Baltimore: Avalon Hill. 1993. For Bushido, the three qualities of Loyalty, Right Conduct and Bravery are essential. We speak of the loyal warrior, the righteous warrior, and the valiant warrior, and it is he who is endowed with all three of these virtues who is the truest warrior. "Budo Shoshinshu" --Daidoji Yuzan 17th century -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070810/3bbef61a/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 01:44:30 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:44:30 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Ceremony Ritual Question In-Reply-To: <003501c7db63$8e078050$4101a8c0@home> References: <003501c7db63$8e078050$4101a8c0@home> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708100844q32fcc2bah6997e555691fcdfe@mail.gmail.com> On 8/10/07, Andre Powell wrote: > > Hi, all: > > Simple question: > > According to RQ III, "A Ceremony ritual augments the skill at casting > ritual and non-ritual spells" > and later, > "...can be used in conjunction with Ceremony Ritual spells in the *same > manner as other rituals*; or it can be used to augment a magician's > chances to successfully cast any spell in exchange for time" (Perrin > 136-137). > > I want to make sure I'm reading this right...so a magician can use the > Ceremony Ritual to augment *any* ritual spell: Summoning, Enchanting or > Ceremony? > That's correct, although I don't remember if it's my house rule or not but I believe that the time increments are different for nonritual and ritual spells - I think non-ritual it was in "rounds", and for ritual spells I think it was in 10 minute increments (turns). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070810/42b5f796/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sat Aug 11 03:52:10 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:52:10 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Ceremony Ritual Question In-Reply-To: <003501c7db63$8e078050$4101a8c0@home> References: <003501c7db63$8e078050$4101a8c0@home> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070810105157.0343e178@caprica.com> At 08:31 AM 8/10/2007, you wrote: >Hi, all: > >Simple question: > >According to RQ III, "A Ceremony ritual augments the skill at >casting ritual and non-ritual spells" >and later, >"...can be used in conjunction with Ceremony Ritual spells in the >same manner as other rituals; or it can be used to augment a >magician's chances to successfully cast any spell in exchange for >time" (Perrin 136-137). > >I want to make sure I'm reading this right...so a magician can use >the Ceremony Ritual to augment any ritual spell: Summoning, >Enchanting or Ceremony? That was always my understanding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070810/c9689c42/attachment.html From mechashef at emailme.net.au Sat Aug 11 10:06:34 2007 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:06:34 +1000 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Ceremony Ritual Question In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708100844q32fcc2bah6997e555691fcdfe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070811000639.3D30723072C@m0.velocity.net.au> >> That's correct, although I don't remember if it's my house rule or not but I believe that the time increments are different for nonritual and ritual spells >> I think non-ritual it was in "rounds", and for ritual spells I think it was in 10 minute increments (turns). Close. For non-ritual it is in melee rounds. For ritual magic it is in hours. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070811/27db57f2/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 14 00:19:24 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:19:24 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions Message-ID: <14607.41.208.48.64.1187014764.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> I have been getting to grips with translating an ancient D&D module (Dragon magazine module, pre dungeon adventures) to RQ but its an ardious task. Just converting to metric is taking its fair share of time. (Why on earth do some countries refuse to convert to metric?) That plus fixing all the text that wasn't properly OCR'd. Anyway, I seem to have chosen probarbly not the best adventure as its so old that a lot of rules are kind of in the text. Was wondering, sould I just exchange them there for RQ equivalents or should I just reference he rule. EG: Original Module: The chance of finding the ring is 10% times the number of party members who search? but even if a dice roll indicates success, the search must be continued for 3-6 turns to be fruitful. M y plan: A successful search roll will reveal the ring. (Not even going to mention if its a special success that player will find it first). Tony From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 14 04:09:57 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <14607.41.208.48.64.1187014764.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> References: <14607.41.208.48.64.1187014764.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070813110905.034612d8@caprica.com> >Anyway, I seem to have chosen probarbly not the best adventure as its so >old that a lot of rules are kind of in the text. Was wondering, sould I >just exchange them there for RQ equivalents or should I just reference he >rule. EG: > >Original Module: The chance of finding the ring is 10% times the number of >party members who search? but even if a dice roll indicates success, the >search must be continued for 3-6 turns to be fruitful. >M >y plan: A successful search roll will reveal the ring. (Not even going to >mention if its a special success that player will find it first). I'd convert to the RQ equivelent; a lot of old D&D modules had essentially ad-hoc rules because the game system had no consistent way to handle a lot of things RQ has embedded in the system. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 14 18:54:53 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:54:53 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions Message-ID: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> > > I'd convert to the RQ equivelent; a lot of old > D&D modules had essentially ad-hoc rules because > the game system had no consistent way to handle a > lot of things RQ has embedded in the system. > thanks, yes I saw that. This one has rules for swimming etc because D&D in tme times did not have rules for it. RQ does however, so I will prob just reference the skill necessary. Successful swim roll etc. From gazza666 at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 19:12:16 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:12:16 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708140212p19f2b3c8wc3df4d0823d8944c@mail.gmail.com> On 14/08/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > > > I'd convert to the RQ equivelent; a lot of old > > D&D modules had essentially ad-hoc rules because > > the game system had no consistent way to handle a > > lot of things RQ has embedded in the system. > > > thanks, yes I saw that. This one has rules for swimming etc because D&D in > tme times did not have rules for it. RQ does however, so I will prob just > reference the skill necessary. Successful swim roll etc. The only snag, if snag it is, is that there really isn't any well-defined mechanism for distinguishing between easy Swims and hard Swims. There are lots of possibilities, of course: - Hard swims require a special (or even a critical) success; trivial swims succeed unless you fumble. This is the easiest way, but there's not a lot of granularity there, and it tends to trivialise high Swim rolls (someone with Swim 100 only has a 15% better chance of succeeding at a hard swim than someone with Swim 25, if I've figured the numbers correctly). - Break the task into multiple parts, requiring multiple successes (with failures generally meaning some sort of setback, and fumbles meaning you lose all progress - perhaps beginning to drown in the case of Swim). This is functionally equivalent to squaring, cubing, or whatever the probability is, which means that the guy with Swim 100 isn't much affected, and the guys with Swim 25 is still very unlikely to succeed, but the guy who has Swim 60 goes to a 36% chance with two rolls needed, a 21.6% with 3, and so on. In effect, this means that only really good Swimmers are likely to succeed without setback, but that may be exactly what you want. - Impose a penalty to the roll (or add a bonus); a hard river might impose a -30, while an easy river adds +30. This tends to hurt most for median range skill levels; at -30, someone with Swim 35 has the same 5% chance that someone with Swim 1 has, while someone with Swim 70 now has only a 40% chance of success. The overall effects are somewhat similar to the multiple rolls method, and it does have the advantage that combat already imposes modifiers not unlike these (-75 for complete darkness, if I recall correctly). And there are lots more systems I've seen proposed that are interesting as well, though the above are the ones most similar to the normal task resolution system. -- GAZZA From rog_benham at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 21:57:01 2007 From: rog_benham at hotmail.com (Roger Benham) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:57:01 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708140212p19f2b3c8wc3df4d0823d8944c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/6bc7f03f/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Aug 14 23:38:33 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46C1B059.3090706@inetnebr.com> Roger Benham wrote: > > By the sound of it, the D&D module is trying to impose a penalty > anyway- I'd be tempted to keep the time penalty unless someone > specialed or criticalled it, in which case they could have it in 1/5th > or 1/20th of the time. Otherwise, apply the percentage of the skill > roll of the skill and use that as the time lost- a 50% search roll > comes up as a 25, so it takes half as much time. > Break the task up into segments and it might be fun.. a strong downstream current and a near the rocks and a shallows behind the rocks and the under tow after wards ... allow a dive perhaps off the early parts of the journey might be avoided with a good dive after climbing a nearby tree. etc. A roll that simply failed due to current speed could mean no progress this segment or being pulled down river (and loose fatigue points if you like the complexity) not necessarily drowning or you "cant" make it across. A critical might get you past two segments of the journey but that could sap some of the fun... maybe they are so unstressed due to good swimming they notice something special embeded in the rocks. A similar roll that failed when they hit the under tow part of crossing the river could result in d4 points of "drowning damage" and when it was at the rough part it would be "Scraped on Rocks" d6 Make a swimming roll versus in quiet calm waters +10% normal stream current 0% mild current it rained last night but this isnt the mountains or desert -5% Make it versus strong Current at -10% very strong current -15 at extremely strong Current at -20% having one weak swimmer failing and requiring rescue could also be exciting because a paniced person is harder to fight than strong current. Most game systems make non combat non fun.. even RQ requires the GM to work at it. From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 01:04:00 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:04:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <46C1B059.3090706@inetnebr.com> References: <46C1B059.3090706@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708140804p3ac15370ld6ffdd0e6804aa@mail.gmail.com> D&D conversion 1) I have an excel spreadsheet that serves pretty well for generating RQ stats for monsters in bulk, as well as a conversion of D&D module T1 Shrine of Tamoachan as an example of use. Email me at styopa1 at gmail.com if you want a copy. 2) imperial to metric? A yard = a meter. Not terribly hard, and I doubt any medievalist game needs to be more precise than that. I use yards in my game anyway since meters feels pretty anachronistic. Never can understand why someone's personal difficulty handling conversions is always accompanied by a slam of the imperial measurement system. (shrug) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/d3514321/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 15 01:19:30 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom_Zunder?=) Date: 14 Aug 2007 16:19:30 +0100 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[Rq-rules]_Conversions?= Message-ID: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> :-):-):-)Never can understand why someone's personal difficulty handling conversions is always accompanied by a slam of the imperial measurement system. (shrug) Because it is not very good? ---- Sent using a Sony Ericsson mobile phone From carpgachair at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 01:49:16 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Because shifting decimal places is easier than remembering all the odd multipliers to to convert between large and small dimensions. Because there is only coincidental correlation between things measured (a [US, but not Imperial] pint is a pound) versus a gram is a cubic centimeter of pure water at four degrees C. Because US and Imperial same terms meant different things. When Canada was converting to metric, there was (as is usual with any change) complaints. I suggested that what was really needed was to resolve the US/Imperial problem by changing both quarts to something in the middle. This they readily agreed since shelves were full of mixed measures. "Then", I said, "we could call it a litre." General sputtering ensued. Paul Cardwell --- Tom Zunder wrote: > :-):-):-)Never can understand why someone's personal > difficulty handling conversions > is always accompanied by a slam of the imperial > measurement system. (shrug) > Because it is not very good? > > > ---- ???Sent using a Sony Ericsson mobile phone> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:03:25 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> This is way OT, but I'll bite. What people seem to refuse to accept is that the systems were designed FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. I'll freely concede that Metric makes more sense than Imperial *now* when everyone uses calculators and computers. Metric is also far more sensible for scientific measures, since it's endpoints are just as arbitrary as Imperial, but at least they're tied to physical phenomena that are generally constant from place to place. But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the "foot" is divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Decimal? 1, 2, 5, 10. The imperial system works on fractions, instead of decimals - again, easier for humans. If you have two friends, you share 1/3 of your apple with each of them, not 0.33333 apples. An inch? About the width of most people's thumbs. Everyone's got a handy foot-measure that's relatively close, too. Temperature? Fahrenheit is based on HUMAN norms, about what people typically experience in the range of climate: 100 is the hottest, and 0 is the coldest. It's far more intuitive than Celsius. (And before the C-fans get too uppity, let's remember that Celsius originally set his scale so zero was boiling and 100 was freezing...talk about counterintuitive....) I work in international transportation, so I'm constantly flipping between metric and Imperial and y'know what? It doesn't kill me, and I don't cry about the metric system, I like it, it IS simpler for some things. But Imperial's simpler for others. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/a82995c0/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:11:14 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:11:14 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> > But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the "foot" is > divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Decimal? 1, 2, 5, > 10. That would be a fair point - IF the Imperial system used 12 as its base the same way the metric system uses 10. 12 inches to a foot? 3 feet to the yard? 1760 yards to a mile? Inconsistency is the main bane of the Imperial system. The rest of it is just what you're used to. I can assure you that in Australia we have no more problem visualising a metre than you guys have visualizing a foot, or a yard - it's just familiarity. If I'm watching some US TV program where they quote someone's weight in pounds, I mentally convert that to kilograms because I have no "feel" for how much a pound weighs - really! I have less problem visualising how much a foot is, admittedly, but I think years of experience with 5 foot squares in D&D has a lot to do with that. ;) -- GAZZA From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 15 03:21:38 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:21:38 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070814102120.03400e40@caprica.com> At 01:54 AM 8/14/2007, you wrote: > > > > I'd convert to the RQ equivelent; a lot of old > > D&D modules had essentially ad-hoc rules because > > the game system had no consistent way to handle a > > lot of things RQ has embedded in the system. > > >thanks, yes I saw that. This one has rules for swimming etc because D&D in >tme times did not have rules for it. RQ does however, so I will prob just >reference the skill necessary. Successful swim roll etc. That's certainly what I'd do with a D&D item prior to 3e. From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 15 03:23:44 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:23:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708140212p19f2b3c8wc3df4d0823d8944c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1942.41.208.48.64.1187081693.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> <9ebd81400708140212p19f2b3c8wc3df4d0823d8944c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070814102153.03403418@caprica.com> At 02:12 AM 8/14/2007, you wrote: >On 14/08/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd convert to the RQ equivelent; a lot of old > > > D&D modules had essentially ad-hoc rules because > > > the game system had no consistent way to handle a > > > lot of things RQ has embedded in the system. > > > > > thanks, yes I saw that. This one has rules for swimming etc because D&D in > > tme times did not have rules for it. RQ does however, so I will prob just > > reference the skill necessary. Successful swim roll etc. > >The only snag, if snag it is, is that there really isn't any >well-defined mechanism for distinguishing between easy Swims and hard >Swims. There are lots of possibilities, of course: Thy aren't well defined I'll agree, but its not hard to apply modifiers to fit. >- Impose a penalty to the roll (or add a bonus); a hard river might >impose a -30, while an easy river adds +30. This tends to hurt most >for median range skill levels; at -30, someone with Swim 35 has the >same 5% chance that someone with Swim 1 has, while someone with Swim >70 now has only a 40% chance of success. The overall effects are >somewhat similar to the multiple rolls method, and it does have the >advantage that combat already imposes modifiers not unlike these (-75 >for complete darkness, if I recall correctly). Well, honestly once you've got a hard swim enough to apply a -30, I suspect for anyone but the very good it is as much luck as anything the skill has to do with. Rough water drowns the skilled and unskilled alike with great frequency. From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 15 03:27:17 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:27:17 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.co m> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070814102510.0340df10@caprica.com> At 09:03 AM 8/14/2007, you wrote: >This is way OT, but I'll bite. > >What people seem to refuse to accept is that the systems were >designed FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. >I'll freely concede that Metric makes more sense than Imperial *now* >when everyone uses calculators and computers. Metric is also far >more sensible for scientific measures, since it's endpoints are just >as arbitrary as Imperial, but at least they're tied to physical >phenomena that are generally constant from place to place. > >But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the >"foot" is divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and >12. Decimal? 1, 2, 5, 10. That's a good argument for using base 12 instead of base 10 for things, but its not really a good argument for Imperial in general. >The imperial system works on fractions, instead of decimals - again, >easier for humans. >If you have two friends, you share 1/3 of your apple with each of >them, not 0.33333 apples. >An inch? About the width of most people's thumbs. >Everyone's got a handy foot-measure that's relatively close, too. Obviously you don't see the variety of foot length I do. Relatively few people have a foot long foot. Even among men its not the usual. From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Aug 15 04:00:05 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:00:05 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 35 In-Reply-To: <20070814152002.95CC22806E0@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070814152002.95CC22806E0@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550708141100o537c5e5cid4b40134dc7063e1@mail.gmail.com> > 2) imperial to metric? A yard = a meter. Not terribly hard, and I doubt > any medievalist game needs to be more precise than that. I use yards in my > game anyway since meters feels pretty anachronistic. > > Never can understand why someone's personal difficulty handling conversions > is always accompanied by a slam of the imperial measurement system. (shrug) Firstly yep I agree completely that 1m = 1 yard is good enough (indeed I also use 1 km/h = 1 knot quite happily for RPG conversions) Secondly never can understand why the first nation to throw off British imperialism is the only country still wedded to imperial measurements Thirdly IMO Imperial measurements are arse gravy Al From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Aug 15 04:05:24 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:05:24 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming Message-ID: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> One of the best optional BRP rules ever is buried in a) magic world and b) one of the cthulhu books Easy Tasks Roll against twice skill Hard Tasks Roll against half skill I use that almost exclusively in my BRP games as: I am far too lazy to either a. memorise or b. find during a game the list of task modifiers Its massively more dramatic to tell a player that her cunning plan of leaping out behind Tweedledum and burrying a rake in the fat one's head gets a roll against twice Rake skill than that they get a +10% (or whatever it is) bonus. Al From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 04:35:08 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:35:08 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> References: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hey, I like that! Come to think of it...this is totally off the cuff, but how's this for a "hard" skill mechanic? To succeed at a take that's unusually difficult, you have to roll twice and get TWO successes. That might not be good. It would make success almost impossible for low-skill people, but not be much of a handicap for those with a high skill. It would be nice to factor in time, as well. Say, allow a skill to be used in less time than is normally needed at a penalty...or, contrariwise, allow the user to take more time and get a bonus. Has anyone worked out a fully percentile-based system for something like that? ->Peter On 8/14/07, alan richards wrote: > > One of the best optional BRP rules ever is buried in a) magic world > and b) one of the cthulhu books > > Easy Tasks > Roll against twice skill > > Hard Tasks > Roll against half skill > > > I use that almost exclusively in my BRP games as: > I am far too lazy to either a. memorise or b. find during a game the > list of task modifiers > Its massively more dramatic to tell a player that her cunning plan of > leaping out behind Tweedledum and burrying a rake in the fat one's > head gets a roll against twice Rake skill than that they get a +10% > (or whatever it is) bonus. > > > > Al > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070814/aae5f200/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Wed Aug 15 04:56:09 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:56:09 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions Message-ID: In a message dated 8/13/2007 7:14:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, postmaster at runequest.za.org writes: I have been getting to grips with translating an ancient D&D module (Dragon magazine module, pre dungeon adventures) to RQ but its an ardious task. Just converting to metric is taking its fair share of time. (Why on earth do some countries refuse to convert to metric?) That plus fixing all the text that wasn't properly OCR'd. Anyway, I seem to have chosen probarbly not the best adventure as its so old that a lot of rules are kind of in the text. Was wondering, sould I just exchange them there for RQ equivalents or should I just reference he rule. EG: Original Module: The chance of finding the ring is 10% times the number of party members who search? but even if a dice roll indicates success, the search must be continued for 3-6 turns to be fruitful. M y plan: A successful search roll will reveal the ring. (Not even going to mention if its a special success that player will find it first). Tony . . . . Just curious...what module? Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/ac3e3dcb/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Aug 15 05:03:22 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It might be more interesting, depending on what the situation is, to divide the problem into separate tasks. A while ago I was running a campaign set in Sartar, and the only female PC was getting married. To give her something to do while the male PCs were doing something, I gave her a handout that talked about the process of making her wedding dress. Rather than a simple skill roll, she had to make a series of choices (fabric, cut, accessories, who to ask for help) and had her make skill rolls at each stage, with the quality of the finished dress being based on the results of several skill rolls. It took me some extra time to make the handout, but the player really enjoyed focusing on a mundane task for 15 minutes while the other players were taking center stage, and it gave her something to do with all the mundane skills that her character had points in but which obviously never come up in an adventuring setting. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 8/14/07 1:35 PM, "Peter Maranci" wrote: > Hey, I like that! > > Come to think of it...this is totally off the cuff, but how's this for a > "hard" skill mechanic? To succeed at a take that's unusually difficult, you > have to roll twice and get TWO successes. > > That might not be good. It would make success almost impossible for low-skill > people, but not be much of a handicap for those with a high skill. > > It would be nice to factor in time, as well. Say, allow a skill to be used in > less time than is normally needed at a penalty...or, contrariwise, allow the > user to take more time and get a bonus. Has anyone worked out a fully > percentile-based system for something like that? > > ->Peter > > On 8/14/07, alan richards wrote: >> One of the best optional BRP rules ever is buried in a) magic world >> and b) one of the cthulhu books >> >> Easy Tasks >> Roll against twice skill >> >> Hard Tasks >> Roll against half skill >> >> >> I use that almost exclusively in my BRP games as: >> I am far too lazy to either a. memorise or b. find during a game the >> list of task modifiers >> Its massively more dramatic to tell a player that her cunning plan of >> leaping out behind Tweedledum and burrying a rake in the fat one's >> head gets a roll against twice Rake skill than that they get a +10% >> (or whatever it is) bonus. >> >> >> >> Al >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20070814/d622cb73/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 15 05:38:05 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:38:05 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming In-Reply-To: References: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070814123706.033baa60@caprica.com> At 11:35 AM 8/14/2007, you wrote: >Hey, I like that! > >Come to think of it...this is totally off the cuff, but how's this >for a "hard" skill mechanic? To succeed at a take that's unusually >difficult, you have to roll twice and get TWO successes. > >That might not be good. It would make success almost impossible for >low-skill people, but not be much of a handicap for those with a high skill. It gets tough faster than you think; with 90% skills it only hacks off about 10%, but with an 80% skill, it gets it down to 64%. From andyl at azaal.plus.com Wed Aug 15 05:40:30 2007 From: andyl at azaal.plus.com (Andy Leighton) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:40:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070814194030.GA18922@azaal.plus.com> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:11:14AM +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote: > > But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the "foot" is > > divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Decimal? 1, 2, 5, > > 10. > > That would be a fair point - IF the Imperial system used 12 as its > base the same way the metric system uses 10. > > 12 inches to a foot? > 3 feet to the yard? > 1760 yards to a mile? You are missing a few things there 12 inches to a foot. 3 feet to a yard. 5.5 yards to a rod. 4 rods to a chain 10 chains to a furlong 8 furlongs to a mile. > Inconsistency is the main bane of the Imperial system. My full list probably makes things worse. > The rest of it is just what you're used to. I can assure you that in > Australia we have no more problem visualising a metre than you guys > have visualizing a foot, or a yard - it's just familiarity. What is the length of a cricket wicket (stump to stump)? Do Aussies say 20.12m or do they still say 22 yards (or a chain)? > If I'm watching some US TV program where they quote someone's weight in > pounds, I mentally convert that to kilograms because I have no "feel" > for how much a pound weighs - really! As a Briton I don't like the way the US does weight in pounds either. I much prefer using stones and pounds - you get two relatively small numbers. -- Andy Leighton => andyl at azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ From mason.bruce at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 06:04:30 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:04:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming In-Reply-To: References: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5f3990080708141304n1a3f6824l3e6f47bf13899a80@mail.gmail.com> On 14/08/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Hey, I like that! > > Come to think of it...this is totally off the cuff, but how's this for a > "hard" skill mechanic? To succeed at a take that's unusually difficult, you > have to roll twice and get TWO successes. > Hey, I like this. Easy skills: two chances to get it right; hard tests, must get it right twice. You could say that for a hard test, one critical or special is the equivalent of two normal successes. I've never liked doubling and halving in BRP because you always end up with questions about how it interacts with -10 and so on. A quicker way than rolling twice would be to roll 2 tens dice and one unit die at the same time. Never used this but my instinct is to really like it. Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/7a70cc84/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Aug 15 06:05:47 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:05:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <20070814194030.GA18922@azaal.plus.com> Message-ID: There's also 18 inches to the cubit. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 8/14/07 2:40 PM, "Andy Leighton" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:11:14AM +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote: >>> But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the "foot" is >>> divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Decimal? 1, 2, 5, >>> 10. >> >> That would be a fair point - IF the Imperial system used 12 as its >> base the same way the metric system uses 10. >> >> 12 inches to a foot? >> 3 feet to the yard? >> 1760 yards to a mile? > > You are missing a few things there > > 12 inches to a foot. > 3 feet to a yard. > 5.5 yards to a rod. > 4 rods to a chain > 10 chains to a furlong > 8 furlongs to a mile. > >> Inconsistency is the main bane of the Imperial system. > > My full list probably makes things worse. > >> The rest of it is just what you're used to. I can assure you that in >> Australia we have no more problem visualising a metre than you guys >> have visualizing a foot, or a yard - it's just familiarity. > > What is the length of a cricket wicket (stump to stump)? Do Aussies > say 20.12m or do they still say 22 yards (or a chain)? > >> If I'm watching some US TV program where they quote someone's weight in >> pounds, I mentally convert that to kilograms because I have no "feel" >> for how much a pound weighs - really! > > As a Briton I don't like the way the US does weight in pounds either. > I much prefer using stones and pounds - you get two relatively small > numbers. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 15 06:25:09 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:25:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions References: Message-ID: <000601c7deb1$360d7de0$ed6a8456@sickboy> And if that wasn't bad enough: Area: Sq foot = 144 sq inches Sq yard = 9 sq feet = 1296 sq inches [0.836 sq metre] Sq Pole = 30? sq yards [often simply referred to as a Pole or Perch in land measurement] Rood = ? acre = 1,210 sq yards = 40 sq poles Acre = 4 roods = 10 sq chains = 4840 sq yards = Statute acre [0.40 hectare] [eg. a good-sized football pitch - but note that a Customary (or Saxon) acre was different, and that Scottish and Irish acres were different again] Virgate = 30 acres [but varied in different districts - also called yardland] Hide = 4 virgates [but really denoted the amount of land sufficient to support a family, and varied according to the locality or quality of the land] Sq mile = 640 acres [259 hectares = 2.59 Sq Km] Capacity [note, litre equivalents are for British Imperial measures]: 1 pint = 4 gills [0.568 litre] 1 quart = 2 pints [1.136 litre] 1 gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints [4.546 litre] 1 peck = 2 gallons 1 bushel = 4 pecks = 8 gallons Weight: 1 ounce (oz) = 16 drams 1 pound (lb) = 16 oz [0.454 kg] 1 stone = 14 lb 1 quarter = 28 lb 1 hundredweight (cwt) = 4 quarters = 112 lb 1 ton = 20 cwt = 2240 lb [1.016 tonne] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Larsen" To: "Rq-Rules List" Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions > There's also 18 inches to the cubit. > > Andrew E. Larsen > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > > On 8/14/07 2:40 PM, "Andy Leighton" wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:11:14AM +0800, Gary Sturgess wrote: >>>> But frankly, a base-10 system sucks for human uses. Example: the >>>> "foot" is >>>> divisible to integer results by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Decimal? 1, >>>> 2, 5, >>>> 10. >>> >>> That would be a fair point - IF the Imperial system used 12 as its >>> base the same way the metric system uses 10. >>> >>> 12 inches to a foot? >>> 3 feet to the yard? >>> 1760 yards to a mile? >> >> You are missing a few things there >> >> 12 inches to a foot. >> 3 feet to a yard. >> 5.5 yards to a rod. >> 4 rods to a chain >> 10 chains to a furlong >> 8 furlongs to a mile. >> >>> Inconsistency is the main bane of the Imperial system. >> >> My full list probably makes things worse. >> >>> The rest of it is just what you're used to. I can assure you that in >>> Australia we have no more problem visualising a metre than you guys >>> have visualizing a foot, or a yard - it's just familiarity. >> >> What is the length of a cricket wicket (stump to stump)? Do Aussies >> say 20.12m or do they still say 22 yards (or a chain)? >> >>> If I'm watching some US TV program where they quote someone's weight in >>> pounds, I mentally convert that to kilograms because I have no "feel" >>> for how much a pound weighs - really! >> >> As a Briton I don't like the way the US does weight in pounds either. >> I much prefer using stones and pounds - you get two relatively small >> numbers. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 15 06:25:56 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:25:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] test Message-ID: <000201c7deb1$86b6e7e0$ed6a8456@sickboy> testing, testing 123 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/732e2cab/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 06:29:57 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:29:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] test In-Reply-To: <000201c7deb1$86b6e7e0$ed6a8456@sickboy> References: <000201c7deb1$86b6e7e0$ed6a8456@sickboy> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708141329s78212d65ib858b31f913d0553@mail.gmail.com> It worked. On 8/14/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > testing, testing 123 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070814/adfe4efa/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Wed Aug 15 07:24:27 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:24:27 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] test Message-ID: In a message dated 8/14/2007 1:27:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, clive.wickens at btopenworld.com writes: testing, testing 123 . . . Please make your test count in base 10, so as not to offend our metric friends. Regards, Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/ea7700db/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 15 08:14:16 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:14:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Swimming In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708141304n1a3f6824l3e6f47bf13899a80@mail.gmail.co m> References: <50a0ed550708141105l686402fcq2d2aa33a8f63dde3@mail.gmail.com> <5f3990080708141304n1a3f6824l3e6f47bf13899a80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070814151314.03453440@caprica.com> At 01:04 PM 8/14/2007, you wrote: >On 14/08/07, Peter Maranci ><pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote: >Hey, I like that! > >Come to think of it...this is totally off the cuff, but how's this >for a "hard" skill mechanic? To succeed at a take that's unusually >difficult, you have to roll twice and get TWO successes. > > >Hey, I like this. Easy skills: two chances to get it right; hard >tests, must get it right twice. You could say that for a hard test, >one critical or special is the equivalent of two normal successes. You _really_ screw people with lower rank skills that way; consider that a character making a hard skill roll at 60% under that system actually has a 36% chance; a character starting with a 90% still has an 81% chance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070814/f49cb2ab/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 08:51:27 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:51:27 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0708141551q36d73286ub281a34b3c2646d4@mail.gmail.com> Just move the decimal one place to the right. (grin, duck, run) David On 8/14/07, DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/14/2007 1:27:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > clive.wickens at btopenworld.com writes: > > testing, testing 123 > > . > . > . > Please make your test count in base 10, so as not to offend our metric > friends. > > Regards, > > Devin > > > > ------------------------------ > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com > . > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070814/7c76bbd2/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 15 16:17:56 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:17:56 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] test References: Message-ID: <002701c7df04$05aee640$9b698456@sickboy> Testing testing 1,10,100 : ) ----- Original Message ----- From: DevinC at aol.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] test In a message dated 8/14/2007 1:27:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, clive.wickens at btopenworld.com writes: testing, testing 123 . . . Please make your test count in base 10, so as not to offend our metric friends. Regards, Devin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070815/db65fa18/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 15 16:47:29 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:47:29 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: References: <9ebd81400708140212p19f2b3c8wc3df4d0823d8944c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <50729.41.208.48.64.1187160449.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Rog wrote:By the sound of it, the D&D module is trying to impose a penalty > anyway- I'd be tempted to keep the time penalty unless someone specialed > or criticalled it, in which case they could have it in 1/5th or 1/20th of > the time.  Otherwise, apply the percentage of the skill roll of the > skill and use that as the time lost- a 50% search roll comes up as a 25, > so it takes half as much time. Actually I never said that, I just mentioned swimming as an example of the ancient modules "rules in module approach". what it did say, verbatum was: SWIMMING In some cases characters might for some reason jump or otherwise move into the water. It is to be assumed that every member of the party knows how to swim. However, this does not grant any adventurer the ability to do the breast stroke in full plate mail. An unencumbered human swims at 6? per turn. If he is wearing clothes, boots, and the other assorted oddities most characters carry, then he will swim at 4? per turn. If he enters water wearing leather armour, he must roll 1/2 his strength or less on d20 to move at 2? per turn; otherwise, he will sink. If someone wearing plate or full chain mail attempts to swim, he will drop like a rock and drown in 2-8 melee rounds. Chain mail requires 1 melee round to remove, leather 2 and plate 4. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 15 16:55:45 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:55:45 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708140804p3ac15370ld6ffdd0e6804aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <46C1B059.3090706@inetnebr.com> <56e64e7a0708140804p3ac15370ld6ffdd0e6804aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22378.41.208.48.64.1187160945.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Actually imperial to metric in this case is foot to meter, inch to centimeter. Not so much a slam of the system rather a question as to why over a hundred years later certain countries still insist on a not so locical for this age system. Imperial made sence in Roman times, and Charlemagne's times, but having grown up in a metric country, I find it highly illogical. Even the UK seems to be coming right with metrification (This from my viewing of BBC food channel:) Re stats, I have your spreadsheet. Right now stats are not so much a worry as to find suitable replacements for certain D&D specific monsters. Having said that I have not as yet paged through my various bestiaries (including the Mythworld one) so am sure between Mythworld, RQ, Gateway and lorantha I will find the goods. Tony > D&D conversion > 1) I have an excel spreadsheet that serves pretty well for generating RQ > stats for monsters in bulk, as well as a conversion of D&D module T1 > Shrine > of Tamoachan as an example of use. Email me at styopa1 at gmail.com if you > want a copy. > > 2) imperial to metric? A yard = a meter. Not terribly hard, and I doubt > any medievalist game needs to be more precise than that. I use yards in > my > game anyway since meters feels pretty anachronistic. > > Never can understand why someone's personal difficulty handling > conversions > is always accompanied by a slam of the imperial measurement system. > (shrug) > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 15 17:06:51 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:06:51 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55698.41.208.48.64.1187161611.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > That would be a fair point - IF the Imperial system used 12 as its > base the same way the metric system uses 10. > > 12 inches to a foot? > 3 feet to the yard? > 1760 yards to a mile? > > Inconsistency is the main bane of the Imperial system. > > The rest of it is just what you're used to. I can assure you that in > Australia we have no more problem visualising a metre than you guys > have visualizing a foot, or a yard - it's just familiarity. If I'm > watching some US TV program where they quote someone's weight in > pounds, I mentally convert that to kilograms because I have no "feel" > for how much a pound weighs - really! I have less problem visualising > how much a foot is, admittedly, but I think years of experience with 5 > foot squares in D&D has a lot to do with that. ;) > -- My rule of thumb for weight is 1 kg = 2 pounds. Get way confused with stone thought. Interestingly, if someone is keen, there is a freeware application at http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/ that does all kinds of conversions, you can also add some custom ones in, like I added a roman league to kilometer. Also very handy for when I bake using the old hand me down english cook books I have. (All my measurement items are of course metric). Parting shot - One wonders what the system would be like if we only had four fingers per hand, or if we were a race of only right hand users (or lefties for that matter) and had evolved an extra thumb/finger on our predominat hand. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 15 17:22:37 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:22:37 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3683.41.208.48.64.1187162557.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Devin wrote: > > . > Just curious...what module? > The Temple of Poseidon from Dragon Magazine, Vol V, No 8. One day when its finished I hope to have it Alt Earthly enough to publish on the Alt Earth site, with credits to its original source of course. I think it will fit well in the rQ Bronze Age era and also the temple could be put down anywhere from Pelopenice Greece through to Troy, or even further down the coast. Tony From gazza666 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 18:06:29 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:06:29 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <55698.41.208.48.64.1187161611.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> <55698.41.208.48.64.1187161611.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708150106j5d22a3c8ld3e9bc465c61540c@mail.gmail.com> On 15/08/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > My rule of thumb for weight is 1 kg = 2 pounds. Get way confused with > stone thought. Interestingly, if someone is keen, there is a freeware > application at http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/ that does all > kinds of conversions, you can also add some custom ones in, like I added > a roman league to kilometer. Also very handy for when I bake using the > old hand me down english cook books I have. (All my measurement items > are of course metric). The site I like is http://www.convert-me.com/en/ > Parting shot - One wonders what the system would be like if we only had > four fingers per hand, or if we were a race of only right hand users (or > lefties for that matter) and had evolved an extra thumb/finger on our > predominant hand. That would be great! Speaking as a computer programmer, if we used base 8 naturally (or 16, if it were common practice to use your toes as well) it would make some kinds of programming a lot easier. As far as the extra thumb/finger on our predominant hand, generally speaking evolution favours symmetry - not NECESSARILY bilateral symmetry (starfish are a counterexample) but that tends to be the mammalian pattern. -- GAZZA From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Aug 15 19:16:50 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:16:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: <20070814200446.B833828740F@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070814200446.B833828740F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550708150216peac2888lf9c8193c52493357@mail.gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:35:08 -0400 > From: "Peter Maranci" > > It would be nice to factor in time, as well. Say, allow a skill to be used > in less time than is normally needed at a penalty...or, contrariwise, allow > the user to take more time and get a bonus. Has anyone worked out a fully > percentile-based system for something like that? > > ->Peter Sort of I just stack doubles and halves So if PCa wants to take twice as long as normal (double skill) to make a superior (half skill) sword then his player rolls against unadjusted Craft (Swordsmith) skill. If he was going to take twice as long to make a normal sword then his player would roll against twice skill. If normal amount of time to make superior sword then roll against half skill. As an aside pretty much the only RQM rules I've seen worth nicking relate to making things with craft skills. 1. With Craft skill at 50%+ no need to roll to make a normal example of an item 2. How long it takes to make an item with the craft skill. Time in hours = (Cost)/5 Al From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Aug 15 19:23:04 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:23:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: <20070814200446.B833828740F@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070814200446.B833828740F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550708150223r55421236gff9274fb24e66dab@mail.gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:04:30 +0100 > equivalent of two normal successes. > > I've never liked doubling and halving in BRP because you always end up with > questions about how it interacts with -10 and so on. > Which is a very valid point. I usually avoid it by simply sticking to either x2 or x1/2. (Although two 'make things easier' modifiers make it x3 not x4) However I see no reason why you could not simply rule on using your basic BIDMAS order of operations and so do your doubling and halving and then any additive or subtractive modifiers. Or just stick to ?X% and ignore the doubling/halving as you are already. Al From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 21:56:58 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Conversions Message-ID: <761520.60087.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tony: > I have been getting to grips with translating an ancient D&D module > (Dragon magazine module, pre dungeon adventures) to RQ but its an ardious > task. Just converting to metric is taking its fair share of time. (Why on > earth do some countries refuse to convert to metric?) That plus fixing all > the text that wasn't properly OCR'd. As a matter of interest, what is there to convert to metric? Dungeon plans are fine regardless of scale, you don't need to know that a corridor is exactly 10' wide, it could as easily be 3m or 2 people wide. Most things will be either in missile/spell range or out of missile/spell range. Movement factors are pretty irrelevant as you convert like for like, so anything as fast as a human has 3m move, anything as fast as a horse has 10m move (RQ3) and so on. Spell ranges can be scrapped and normal RQ spell ranges could apply. Missile weapon ranges can be ignored and the closest RQ equivalent used. > Anyway, I seem to have chosen probarbly not the best adventure as its so > old that a lot of rules are kind of in the text. Was wondering, sould I > just exchange them there for RQ equivalents or should I just reference he > rule. EG: What kind of rules are included in the text? I'd use a RQ equivalent if one exists. Theer's no point in including loads of extra rules for no reason. > Original Module: The chance of finding the ring is 10% times the number of > party members who search? but even if a dice roll indicates success, the > search must be continued for 3-6 turns to be fruitful. > My plan: A successful search roll will reveal the ring. (Not even going to > mention if its a special success that player will find it first). You search a room. In RQ you make a Spot Hidden/Search or cast a Detect Magic/Detect Gold and find something. It doesn't matter how long it takes. I suppose you could say a cursory search is -20%, a thorough search gives +20% and so on. But that isn't module dependent and shouldn;t affect conversion: I converted a couple of AD&D modules - in the Desert of Desolation (?) series - and the main problem I had is converting NPCs to RQ equivalents as there were often no RQ equivalents. So, I just made up RQ stats on the fly. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/e9cfa8a5/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 15 22:05:30 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Conversions Message-ID: <154163.50933.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > Testing testing 1,10,100 : ) Isn't that 1-2-4? Oh, wrong base. Tony: > Actually I never said that, I just mentioned swimming as an example of the > ancient modules "rules in module approach". what it did say, verbatum was: > SWIMMING > In some cases characters might for some reason jump or otherwise move into > the water. It is to be assumed that every member of the party knows how to > swim. However, this does not grant any adventurer the ability to do the > breast stroke in full plate mail. An unencumbered human swims at 6? per > turn. If he is wearing clothes, boots, and the other assorted oddities > most characters carry, then he will swim at 4? per turn. If he enters > water wearing leather armour, he must roll 1/2 his strength or less on d20 > to move at 2? per turn; otherwise, he will sink. If someone wearing plate > or full chain mail attempts to swim, he will drop like a rock and drown in > 2-8 melee rounds. Chain mail requires 1 melee round to remove, leather 2 > and plate 4. So, what you do is ignore this completely and use standard RQ rules for swimming. RQ3 has them, I'm sure that RQ2 has them and RQM probably has them. Tony: > Devin wrote: >> > . >> Just curious...what module? >> > The Temple of Poseidon from Dragon Magazine, Vol V, No 8. > > One day when its finished I hope to have it Alt Earthly enough to publish > on the Alt Earth site, with credits to its original source of course. I > think it will fit well in the rQ Bronze Age era and also the temple could > be put down anywhere from Pelopenice Greece through to Troy, or even > further down the coast. Good-oh! I look forward to seeing the results there. After all, it doesn't have to be exactly Alternate Earth, or even completely finished, close enough would do fine. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/e2fa0769/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 15 23:09:16 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:09:16 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708150106j5d22a3c8ld3e9bc465c61540c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070814151946.468982805F1@mini.thinbits.net> <751878.57667.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708140903h6e007ce4sf5eed2d6179059da@mail.gmail.com> <9ebd81400708140911n67d53ee5wf3ff6b601fed7cdb@mail.gmail.com> <55698.41.208.48.64.1187161611.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <9ebd81400708150106j5d22a3c8ld3e9bc465c61540c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7360.41.208.48.64.1187183356.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Gazza wrote > > That would be great! Speaking as a computer programmer, if we used > base 8 naturally (or 16, if it were common practice to use your toes > as well) it would make some kinds of programming a lot easier. > > As far as the extra thumb/finger on our predominant hand, generally > speaking evolution favours symmetry - not NECESSARILY bilateral > symmetry (starfish are a counterexample) but that tends to be the > mammalian pattern. > -- True. Something that randomly springs to mind is the Ay-Ay (sp) lima from Madagascar. It has an extra long index finger on one hadn to fish larvae out of trees, but it stall has equal number of digits. Odd looking critter mind:) Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Aug 16 00:43:12 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:43:12 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] More Metrification Message-ID: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> After this mornings/last nights discussion, I remembered a local measure unit of area used by many of the old folk here in SA. A Morgan/Morg. 'n Morg / a morgen is a unit of area equal to about .6309 acres or 0.8 hectare. It was used in Germany, Holland and South Africa, and was derived from the German word Morgen ("morning"). It represented the amount of land that could be plowed in a morning. This site also good if you want to confuse your players with what a piece of land actually looks like:) http://www.directlinesoftware.com/survey.htm Makes one realise why metrification came about in the first place. Must say some of the measures in the above link have quite a nice/archiac and thus FRP sound to them. From DevinC at aol.com Thu Aug 16 04:52:03 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:52:03 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions Message-ID: In a message dated 8/14/2007 11:51:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, postmaster at runequest.za.org writes: Actually imperial to metric in this case is foot to meter, inch to centimeter. Not so much a slam of the system rather a question as to why over a hundred years later certain countries still insist on a not so locical for this age system. Imperial made sence in Roman times, and Charlemagne's times, but having grown up in a metric country, I find it highly illogical. Even the UK seems to be coming right with metrification (This from my viewing of BBC food channel:) . . . Why do some people drive on the lest side of the road and others on the right? I say Viva la difference! Devin ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/3bf050f8/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 10:23:18 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] More Metrification In-Reply-To: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708151723h3501f703kc41b73e0edfc6302@mail.gmail.com> On 8/15/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > 'n Morg / a morgen is a unit of area equal to about .6309 acres or 0.8 > hectare. It was used in Germany, Holland and South Africa, and was > derived from the German word Morgen ("morning"). It represented the > amount of land that could be plowed in a morning. But then again, which is more useful to a farmer using a draft animal, telling him he has 8 hectares, or 10 'morgs'. I think the morg is an eminently useful unit of measure, and that is precisely what determines what is a 'good' system or not. It's not terribly easy to convert to OTHER systems, but would a farmer at the tech level of using a draft animal really care about conversion utility? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/a3d3084c/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Aug 16 13:00:21 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:00:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins References: Message-ID: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Actually, the reason the French and Americans drive on the right side of the road is BECAUSE the Brits drive on the left. I forget which bit of revolutionary ferver influenced the other country, but that's the reason. If you are looking for ancient tradition, it's driving on the left. Maybe because that left your right hand free to swing a sword and whoever was coming toward you? In SPQR I have my own set of measurements. The main descriptor for height and width and length is the pace, which, strangely enough, is roughly equivalent to a yard or meter. Funny how that works out. I've been thinking lately that maybe the pace should be called a "stride" instead. Still thinking. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: DevinC at aol.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions In a message dated 8/14/2007 11:51:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, postmaster at runequest.za.org writes: Actually imperial to metric in this case is foot to meter, inch to centimeter. Not so much a slam of the system rather a question as to why over a hundred years later certain countries still insist on a not so locical for this age system. Imperial made sence in Roman times, and Charlemagne's times, but having grown up in a metric country, I find it highly illogical. Even the UK seems to be coming right with metrification (This from my viewing of BBC food channel:) . . . Why do some people drive on the lest side of the road and others on the right? I say Viva la difference! Devin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070815/b4c08616/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Aug 16 16:32:10 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:32:10 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45186.41.208.48.64.1187245930.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > . > . > Why do some people drive on the lest side of the road and others on the > right? > > I say Viva la difference! > > Devin > > I heard a theory on this once, not sure if it has any truth, but basically the english decided to start the left hand side of road driving thing, mainly so the coachmen, sitting on right of coach, could swing a sword.... Then Napoleon, decided to do the opposite, o be different. Prob just a bit of an old anglo french smear there, but who knows:) From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 16:31:39 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:31:39 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <46C3EF4B.1000206@gmail.com> Actually there are two definitions for the pace. The Military Pace is 30" (roughly depending on the period & the nation - but this is the modern standard & the Geometrical Pace which is 5 feet. The basis for both are military marching, but one is one step based on the standard march step or usually 120 steps to the minute. The Geometrical is the same thing but based on the distance between the same foot leading off again - thus 2 steps or 60 paces per minute. Theoretically these are based originally on Roman military doctrine.. for reference: - these are based on the Military Pace 1/2 step = 15" = 75 ft/minute = 22.86 metres/minute Slow march 60 steps per minute = 150 ft/minute = 45.72 metres/minute Standard March 120 Steps per minute = 300 ft/minute = 91.44 metres/minute Quick March 140 steps per minute =350 ft/minute = 106.68 metres/minute Double March/Double Time 180 steps per minute = 450 ft/minute = 137.16 metres/minute Divide by either 10 or 12 depending on the version of RQ/BRP you're using for distance per melee round. Skal, Sven Steve Perrin wrote: > Actually, the reason the French and Americans drive on the right side > of the road is BECAUSE the Brits drive on the left. I forget which bit > of revolutionary ferver influenced the other country, but that's the > reason. If you are looking for ancient tradition, it's driving on the > left. Maybe because that left your right hand free to swing a sword > and whoever was coming toward you? > > In SPQR I have my own set of measurements. The main descriptor for > height and width and length is the pace, which, strangely enough, is > roughly equivalent to a yard or meter. Funny how that works out. I've > been thinking lately that maybe the pace should be called a "stride" > instead. Still thinking. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/2b86a849/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 16:35:27 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:35:27 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <46C3F02F.4020509@gmail.com> Actually there are two definitions for the pace. The Military Pace is 30" (roughly depending on the period & the nation - but this is the modern standard & the Geometrical Pace which is 5 feet. The basis for both are military marching, but one is one step based on the standard march step or usually 120 steps to the minute. The Geometrical is the same thing but based on the distance between the same foot leading off again - thus 2 steps or 60 paces per minute. Theoretically these are based originally on Roman military doctrine.. for reference: - these are based on the Military Pace 1/2 step = 15" = 75 ft/minute = 22.86 metres/minute Slow march 60 steps per minute = 150 ft/minute = 45.72 metres/minute Standard March 120 Steps per minute = 300 ft/minute = 91.44 metres/minute Quick March 140 steps per minute =350 ft/minute = 106.68 metres/minute Double March/Double Time 180 steps per minute = 450 ft/minute = 137.16 metres/minute Divide by either 10 or 12 depending on the version of RQ/BRP you're using for distance per melee round. That should make everything as clear as mud & dirt you march in - & I remember these things not from being mentally stuck in boot-camp for the past (mumble-mumble) years but rather from plenty of 18th & 19th century re-enacting (Revvy War, Civil War, WSS, etc) Well actually I find you can cover a lot of ground with minimal rest periods using the march cadences. (It is however a dead give-away for tracking) Skal, Sven Steve Perrin wrote: > Actually, the reason the French and Americans drive on the right side > of the road is BECAUSE the Brits drive on the left. I forget which bit > of revolutionary ferver influenced the other country, but that's the > reason. If you are looking for ancient tradition, it's driving on the > left. Maybe because that left your right hand free to swing a sword > and whoever was coming toward you? > > In SPQR I have my own set of measurements. The main descriptor for > height and width and length is the pace, which, strangely enough, is > roughly equivalent to a yard or meter. Funny how that works out. I've > been thinking lately that maybe the pace should be called a "stride" > instead. Still thinking. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070815/415a2775/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Thu Aug 16 19:45:26 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:45:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 40 In-Reply-To: <20070816002327.04A0E2A3A5F@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070816002327.04A0E2A3A5F@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550708160245x353010c3kacfe7531f4300397@mail.gmail.com> > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:52:03 EDT > From: DevinC at aol.com > > Why do some people drive on the lest side of the road and others on the > right? > > I say Viva la difference! > > Devin Or just play the percentages and drive down the middle Al -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070816/09b27fb5/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 22:50:06 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <46C3F02F.4020509@gmail.com> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <46C3F02F.4020509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708160550x37c1c1f3ud50f9dbbd4cc33f4@mail.gmail.com> On 8/16/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Actually there are two definitions for the pace. The Military Pace is 30" > (roughly depending on the period & the nation - but this is the modern > standard & the Geometrical Pace which[snip] > In Roman parlance, 1 pace = 2 'steps' thus a mile (1760 yards) = 1000 paces (or 'mille'). Their steps were a lot shorter than ours, with them being what, about 5' typically? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070816/131e422c/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 23:17:22 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:17:22 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708160550x37c1c1f3ud50f9dbbd4cc33f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <46C3F02F.4020509@gmail.com> <56e64e7a0708160550x37c1c1f3ud50f9dbbd4cc33f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46C44E62.7090605@gmail.com> Correct you are about the derivation. I was giving the modern measure since we're not 100% sure about the accuracy of our guesses of Roman measures. I've seen debates putting from 5' down to one meter to the pace. But I doubt if a single step was 5' long, but I could see it being a single pace/2 steps. I suspect you meant a single pace is 5'. Styopa wrote: > On 8/16/07, *Sven Lugar* > wrote: > > Actually there are two definitions for the pace. The Military Pace > is 30" (roughly depending on the period & the nation - but this is > the modern standard & the Geometrical Pace which[snip] > > > In Roman parlance, 1 pace = 2 'steps' thus a mile (1760 yards) = 1000 > paces (or 'mille'). > > Their steps were a lot shorter than ours, with them being what, about > 5' typically? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070816/c31036b2/attachment.html From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 23:34:08 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: >Steve Perrin >Actually, the reason the French and Americans drive on the right side of >the road is BECAUSE the >Brits drive on the left. I forget which bit of >revolutionary ferver influenced the other country, but >that's the reason. >If you are looking for ancient tradition, it's driving on the left. Maybe >because >that left your right hand free to swing a sword and whoever was >coming toward you? I was reading that Napoleon changed it because he was left handed, so his army marched right and he travelled left with his sword facing potential enemies. The reason the US to the right side of the road was because the dutch, french, and spanish were the main colonizers of America and that was just more natural. The old way was so that coachmen could attack with thier swords. I got this of the internet, and while interesting, take it for what it is worth. > postmaster at runequest.za.org writes: > Actually imperial to metric in this case is foot to meter, inch to > centimeter. Not so much a slam of the system rather a question as to >why > over a hundred years later certain countries still insist on a not so > locical for this age system. Imperial made sence in Roman times, and > Charlemagne's times, but having grown up in a metric country, I find >it > highly illogical. Even the UK seems to be coming right with >metrification This is just my opinion. I'm fairly sure the U.S., for example, uses the (un)common system simply out of tradition. The common system has components that have been around for thouands of years. People here simply have a feel for how far 10 miles distance is. That also makes it more natural to know 60 miles/hour. That is true of all the common measurements here right down to temperature being in F rather than C. Changing to metric would require 100's or millions of people to suddenly have to live in a system of distance and measures that they don't have an intuitive feel for. What would be gained by changing. Pretty much nothing, but it would cost a fortune in street signage and documentation. It would change a lot, right down to things like the size of a football field (Am. football). I simply don't think it matters or is any more logical or illogical to say Houston is 200miles vs. 334Km from Dallas or that you are travelling 60mph vs 100kph. In terms of science calculations. Metric is simply much easier and therefore less error prone making it an obvious choice for physics, engineering, etc. But even in the US we use metric calculations for most scientific and engineering applications. The choice of common system components is largely a cost consideration. Manufacturing and tools here are geared for common measurements so it is significantly cheaper to manufacture and maintain products, such as cars, in the common measuring system. Although, with so many foriegn made vechicles coming in with metric parts, i think this may be going away. The common system actually cost us a Mars Orbiter because some engineers did thier work in common and didn't properly convert to metric. Simply putting an m for ft and newton for ft/lb without changing the numeric value ISN'T proper. The bone heads should have started with one system and stuck to it, conversions between systems only introduces minor conversion errors and adds just another element of human factor error. Fred _________________________________________________________________ Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now. http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_AugHMtagline From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 00:23:20 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Legally, but not in practice, the US has always been metric. The US variants of imperial are all defined in metric terms. This is largely because of a couple of scientists named Franklin and Jefferson, who supported the use of the more logical metric. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 00:28:15 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 40 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550708160245x353010c3kacfe7531f4300397@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <191457.46329.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Studies of museum visitors shows that Americans (Canada to Chile) tend to go to the right on entering, British to the left, and Japanese straight ahead. Paul Cardwell --- alan richards wrote: > > Message: 5 > > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:52:03 EDT > > From: DevinC at aol.com > > > > Why do some people drive on the lest side of the > road and others on the > > right? > > > > I say Viva la difference! > > > > Devin > > > > Or just play the percentages and drive down the > middle > > > Al > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 01:36:54 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:36:54 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> Sven: "Their steps were a lot shorter than ours, with them being what, about 5' typically? " Actually, I meant them=the Romans themselves, not their steps. :) Fred: I would only add to Fred's comments that, as he said, the US *IS* officially metric, it's just that "officially" means a lot less in the US than it does in the old world - I think non-US readers forget that. The US gov't has neither the means, the authority, nor the inclination to force people to metrify. So people go with what they are comfortable with which here, traditionally, is the imperial system(s). The states could do it individually (and in fact I'm a little surprised California hasn't), but the hue & cry from their merchants would be so deafening that the value would be lost. I remember that was one of the largest barriers to the penetration of (superior) Japanese cars into the US market through the 70's & 80's...if I break down in West Nowhere, Idaho, where do I find metric tools/parts? I bet that slowed sales here for 10+ years. When people see the utility, they'll switch. But trying to tell them that ordering a kilo of meat from the butcher is somehow intrinsically 'better' than ordering 2 lbs? Well...that's as conceited as trying to tell them whom they should vote for in a Presidential election. Naturally contrarian Americans are likely as not just to do the opposite of what's suggested, in pure reaction against the audacity of the suggestion in the first place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070816/96c66442/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 02:13:18 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <676122.87642.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Actually I said it, not Fred. You are quite right about the old obstacle to metric cars, but it was aimed primarily at the VW beetle as there were few Japanese cars imported at that time. The car is a good example of how metrication will come to the US. Now all US cars are metric, there just wasn't any fanfare to get the jingoists upset, they just changed over. Likewise, the standard large soda pop is two litres, not a half gallon. The "five quart" ice cream bucket is made from obsolete imperial gallow molds from Canada. Etc. Paul Cardwell --- Styopa wrote: > Sven: > "Their steps were a lot shorter than ours, with them > being what, about 5' > typically? " > Actually, I meant them=the Romans themselves, not > their steps. :) > > Fred: > I would only add to Fred's comments that, as he > said, the US *IS* officially > metric, it's just that "officially" means a lot less > in the US than it does > in the old world - I think non-US readers forget > that. The US gov't has > neither the means, the authority, nor the > inclination to force people to > metrify. So people go with what they are > comfortable with which here, > traditionally, is the imperial system(s). > The states could do it individually (and in fact I'm > a little surprised > California hasn't), but the hue & cry from their > merchants would be so > deafening that the value would be lost. > I remember that was one of the largest barriers to > the penetration of > (superior) Japanese cars into the US market through > the 70's & 80's...if I > break down in West Nowhere, Idaho, where do I find > metric tools/parts? I > bet that slowed sales here for 10+ years. > > When people see the utility, they'll switch. But > trying to tell them that > ordering a kilo of meat from the butcher is somehow > intrinsically 'better' > than ordering 2 lbs? Well...that's as conceited as > trying to tell them whom > they should vote for in a Presidential election. > Naturally contrarian > Americans are likely as not just to do the opposite > of what's suggested, in > pure reaction against the audacity of the suggestion > in the first place. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/ From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 06:51:35 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:51:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 23, Issue 40 In-Reply-To: <191457.46329.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <50a0ed550708160245x353010c3kacfe7531f4300397@mail.gmail.com> <191457.46329.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708161351v38dc4a94v1aaaaa4ca9b587a5@mail.gmail.com> On 8/16/07, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > Studies of museum visitors shows that Americans > (Canada to Chile) tend to go to the right on entering, > British to the left, and Japanese straight ahead. > > Worst part about visiting London, for me. I *know* to be careful crossing streets, etc. But the casual "crossing paths" with someone in a store or on the sidewalk becomes tiresome INCREDIBLY quickly. Unless she's cute, then it's not so bad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070816/2d85ffb6/attachment.html From mechashef at emailme.net.au Fri Aug 17 07:50:57 2007 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:50:57 +1000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070816215058.885332308C9@m0.velocity.net.au> For those interested in the history of which side we drive on, and which side various countries use, take a look at: http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/ So, after all this discussion of which side we drive on, has anyone actually used it in a game? For example have the PCs fall foul of the law because they rode or drove a cart on the wrong side of the road (perhaps because they have passed from one country to another)? It strikes me as a way for some minor official to annoy the characters by hitting them with a fine, or for a corrupt official to justify arresting the party. From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 10:20:34 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:20:34 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46C4E9D2.6080102@gmail.com> I kind of guessed that, but couldn't resist joking with you. Historically I believe they averaged 4'8" from something I read many years ago. You can see why the Vikings with their much better diet that put them on a par with modern average height were like giants to the usual Medieval peasant. Styopa wrote: > Sven: > "Their steps were a lot shorter than ours, with them being what, about > 5' typically? " > Actually, I meant them=the Romans themselves, not their steps. :) > ...snip... From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 10:23:02 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:23:02 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <676122.87642.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <676122.87642.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46C4EA66.4050103@gmail.com> Imperial GALLOW molds.... now there' a concept worth twisting into an adventure. Were they a substitute for a tree or hammering together some wood? Sven Paul Cardwell wrote: > ...snip... obsolete imperial > gallow molds from Canada. Etc. > > ...snip... From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 17 15:43:32 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:43:32 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <26681.41.208.48.64.1187329412.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Styopa wrote: > I would only add to Fred's comments that, as he said, the US *IS* > officially > metric, it's just that "officially" means a lot less in the US than it > does > in the old world - I think non-US readers forget that. The US gov't has > neither the means, the authority, nor the inclination to force people to > metrify. So people go with what they are comfortable with which here, > traditionally, is the imperial system(s). > The states could do it individually (and in fact I'm a little surprised >-snip- Interesting case in point here in South Africa - the beer industry. We were a british colony until the sixties, so inhereted an imperial system but went metric pretty much when we broke away. Initially many measures were converted to the nearest, so our pint became 375 mils and quart 750 (double of a pint) Funny people still refer to a pint of larger here but its nowhere near a pint:) However, the metrification board denoted that sooner or later true metric standards would have to be used, vis-a-vis, 330, 660 and 1 litre. Recently the main brewery decided to adhere to the metrification board ruling and converted the 375 mil pint to 330 mils. The oucry from the public was tremendous, mainly because they were now getting less beer per bottle. The brewery had dropped its prices accordiingly, but a large percentage of outlets (liquour stores, bars etc) kept their prices constant, effecivley raising their profits. To this end SAB Miller has actually slowed down on its proposed roll out of replacing the 750 mil quart with a 660. So in tis case its not so much a conversion from one system to another but more a case of john public percieves (rightly so in many cases) that he is being shafted. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 17 15:51:48 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:51:48 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <20070816215058.885332308C9@m0.velocity.net.au> References: <20070816215058.885332308C9@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: <23296.41.208.48.64.1187329908.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > For those interested in the history of which side we drive on, and which > side various countries use, take a look at: > http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/ > > > So, after all this discussion of which side we drive on, has anyone > actually > used it in a game? > > For example have the PCs fall foul of the law because they rode or drove a > cart on the wrong side of the road (perhaps because they have passed from > one country to another)? > > It strikes me as a way for some minor official to annoy the characters by > hitting them with a fine, or for a corrupt official to justify arresting > the > party. > Nope, never thought of using it till now and I thinks its an excellent idea for a little side plot device. In my campaign world there is an empire which is pretty civilised and has stone roads etc (pretty much a rome clone, but with lizard men and humans living together peacefully). So I can imagine the characters, hailing from another continent where the civilized lands would be looked on as backward and barbarian by the empire and where people mosey down single dirt tracks pretty much as they please, getting run down by a chariot or such:) Or worse, being fined by a local preafect for walking/riding on the wrong side. Hmm, or maybe for public urination, ha ha. From andyl at azaal.plus.com Fri Aug 17 17:36:06 2007 From: andyl at azaal.plus.com (Andy Leighton) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:36:06 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <26681.41.208.48.64.1187329412.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> <26681.41.208.48.64.1187329412.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <20070817073606.GA2729@azaal.plus.com> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 07:43:32AM +0200, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Styopa wrote: > > I would only add to Fred's comments that, as he said, the US *IS* > > officially > > metric, it's just that "officially" means a lot less in the US than it > > does > > in the old world - I think non-US readers forget that. The US gov't has > > neither the means, the authority, nor the inclination to force people to > > metrify. So people go with what they are comfortable with which here, > > traditionally, is the imperial system(s). > > The states could do it individually (and in fact I'm a little surprised > >-snip- > > Interesting case in point here in South Africa - the beer industry. We > were a british colony until the sixties, so inhereted an imperial system > but went metric pretty much when we broke away. Initially many measures > were converted to the nearest, so our pint became 375 mils How did you end up with pints that small? The standard British pint is equivalent to 568 ml. Orwell wrote - "A 'alf litre ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre is too much. It starts my bladder running." -- Andy Leighton => andyl at azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Aug 17 19:27:17 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:27:17 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <20070817073606.GA2729@azaal.plus.com> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> <26681.41.208.48.64.1187329412.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <20070817073606.GA2729@azaal.plus.com> Message-ID: <7485.41.208.48.64.1187342837.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > How did you end up with pints that small? The standard British pint is > equivalent to 568 ml. Orwell wrote - "A 'alf litre ain't enough. It > don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre is too much. It starts my bladder > running." > > -- That one I can't answer out right, but I will be sure to ask my dad when next I see him. He is a retired brewer so will likley know the reason. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Sat Aug 18 00:14:40 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:14:40 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <7485.41.208.48.64.1187342837.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <732140.67475.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0708160836g2a2ec829hc6804d253467d26f@mail.gmail.com> <26681.41.208.48.64.1187329412.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <20070817073606.GA2729@azaal.plus.com> <7485.41.208.48.64.1187342837.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7682.41.208.48.64.1187360080.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > >> >> How did you end up with pints that small? The standard British pint is >> equivalent to 568 ml. Orwell wrote - "A 'alf litre ain't enough. It >> don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre is too much. It starts my bladder >> running." >> >> -- > That one I can't answer out right, but I will be sure to ask my dad when > next I see him. He is a retired brewer so will likley know the reason. Replying to my own post here. Anyway, to continue the above, it apparently comes from 13 and 1/3 fluid ounces which was roughly 378 mils, so at metrification, rather than go for the 330 mil standard straight up, they just riunded down to the nearesr 5, = 375 mils. Why 13 1/3 fluid ounces dunno. Could be from backward/non existant local glass industry in the 1800's but goes to show how some sort of random measure can stick long after the reason for its existance had gone. Tony From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Sat Aug 18 00:16:18 2007 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:16:18 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Craig Carter is away Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 17/08/2007 and will not return until 03/09/2007. I am on leave and I will respond to your message when I return. Please contact Gordon Menhennet or Dominic Cartwright for technical questions aboout HSBC TV. Please contact Raj Kunner for any video-conference or Telepresence questions. Please contact Rebecca Rockliffe for any general enquiries. ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 00:50:07 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <46C4EA66.4050103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <943460.49865.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Oops! Now I am not sure whether that was a typo or freudian slip. :-) I do recall that at the same time metrication started in Canada, they stopped putting milk in jugs and put them in two litre plastic bags instead. You could buy a pitcher to hold the bag for pouring, but there was still the danger that the bags would break if dropped from a height of over a foot (or 30.5 cm) whereas the plastic jug would survive to a meter with no damage or at least just a crack which would permit a quick transfer of its contents to a safe place. The great Vancouver Sun editorial cartoonist, Len Norris, had a cartoon showing bags with four projections for cow's milk and two for goat's milk, and a man with a shy smile holding a milk bottle. The caption was "Fenster here has a great new idea." Paul Cardwell --- Sven Lugar wrote: > Imperial GALLOW molds.... now there' a concept worth > twisting into an > adventure. Were they a substitute for a tree or > hammering together some > wood? > Sven ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sun Aug 19 05:03:45 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:03:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***The Basic News Message-ID: <587985.38975.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The Basic News issue #1 is out: http://basicroleplaying.com/news.htm :-) SGL. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - BRP message group. http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070818/5fd216a8/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Aug 21 02:08:51 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list of people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people are uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email again and I will send it as an attachment. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 21 02:34:46 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:34:46 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules Message-ID: <20070820163449.65B0C2FF4A1@mini.thinbits.net> Andrew, I'd gladly convert your file into pdf and make it available on my web-site (http://www.basicrps.com/) if it'OK with you. Cheers, Gianni ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Larsen To: Rq-Rules List Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules > A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my > alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list of > people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the > rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people are > uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email > again and I will send it as an attachment. > > Andrew E. Larsen > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 21 02:37:26 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:37:26 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT]gaming shops in Oz Message-ID: <20070820163728.45FD02FF54A@mini.thinbits.net> All, I will be holidaying in Australia next year (Feb/Mar). Since I've noticed that there were several Australian gamers on this list, I would like to know if there are any good gaming shops in the following cities: - Melbourne - Perth - Sydney Thanks a lot, Gianni From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 21 02:44:03 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:44:03 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] [Mongoose RQ] stuff to buy Message-ID: <20070820164404.E9F3A2FF90B@mini.thinbits.net> All-- This e-mail is related to the previous one.... Having bought plane tickets for 4 and having paid much of the accomodation in advance, I'm flat broke at the moment and yet I would like some of the new MRQ books. Given the rate at which Mongoose spurt out books these days I certainly cannot afford to buy 'em all -- which ones would you recommend [and why] amongst the following: - Pirates - Jrustela - the Clanking City - Hawkmoon Cheers Gianni From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Aug 21 04:15:32 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:15:32 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] [LIST] Listetiquette Message-ID: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> This post is not about pointing fingers at anyone but a plead to the list to be more considerate of their fellow list members. There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, that is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster has not changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic introduced. If this trend continuous, this list will become useless for any casual user, the subject lines will simply not reflect the topic of the thread. I propose that we introduce a modest amount of rules for how to post messages on the list. 1) Change the subject of the message when you change the topic of a thread. 2) Label your messages so that it is easy to see what version of RQ (or BRP) your post is about. The following labels seems appropriate to me: [RQ II] for RQ I and II; [RQ III]; [MRQ] for Mongoose RQ; [DBRP] for the forthcoming Deluxe Basic Roleplaying; [GENERIC] for topics that relate to all versions of RQ and BRP, [LIST] for messages to the list; [STATS] for any post including stats; [ADV] for any adventure or scenario posted; and [OT] for off-topic threads (should be kept to a minimum). Other abbreviations can surely be added to this list. I hope you all agree that using these modest rules will make the list more useful for all of us. /Peter Brink From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 21 04:33:54 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:54 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [LIST] Listetiquette In-Reply-To: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> References: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070820113302.03435248@caprica.com> At 11:15 AM 8/20/2007, you wrote: >This post is not about pointing fingers at anyone but a plead to the >list to be more considerate of their fellow list members. > >There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, >that is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster >has not changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic >introduced. If this trend continuous, this list will become useless >for any casual user, the subject lines will simply not reflect the >topic of the thread. > >I propose that we introduce a modest amount of rules for how to post >messages on the list. >1) Change the subject of the message when you change the topic of a thread. >2) Label your messages so that it is easy to see what version of RQ >(or BRP) your post is about. The following labels seems appropriate >to me: [RQ II] for RQ I and II; [RQ III]; [MRQ] for Mongoose RQ; >[DBRP] for the forthcoming Deluxe Basic Roleplaying; [GENERIC] for >topics that relate to all versions of RQ and BRP, [LIST] for >messages to the list; [STATS] for any post including stats; [ADV] >for any adventure or scenario posted; and [OT] for off-topic threads >(should be kept to a minimum). Other abbreviations can surely be >added to this list. > >I hope you all agree that using these modest rules will make the >list more useful for all of us. I don't disagree in the least. I also don't think unless the automation forces it, its likely to happen. I'll agree I'm as bad as everyone else here, but the truth is, people are notoriously bad about adjusting subject lines. From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 05:26:49 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:26:49 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] [LIST] Listetiquette In-Reply-To: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> References: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Not a bad idea. I'd suggest [D100] instead of [DBRP] for Chaosium's new system, though. On 8/20/07, Peter Brink wrote: > > This post is not about pointing fingers at anyone but a plead to the > list to be more considerate of their fellow list members. > > There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, that > is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster has not > changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic introduced. > If this trend continuous, this list will become useless for any casual > user, the subject lines will simply not reflect the topic of the thread. > > I propose that we introduce a modest amount of rules for how to post > messages on the list. > 1) Change the subject of the message when you change the topic of a > thread. > 2) Label your messages so that it is easy to see what version of RQ (or > BRP) your post is about. The following labels seems appropriate to me: > [RQ II] for RQ I and II; [RQ III]; [MRQ] for Mongoose RQ; [DBRP] for the > forthcoming Deluxe Basic Roleplaying; [GENERIC] for topics that relate > to all versions of RQ and BRP, [LIST] for messages to the list; [STATS] > for any post including stats; [ADV] for any adventure or scenario > posted; and [OT] for off-topic threads (should be kept to a minimum). > Other abbreviations can surely be added to this list. > > I hope you all agree that using these modest rules will make the list > more useful for all of us. > > /Peter Brink > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070820/f6d1f25e/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Aug 21 08:01:54 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:01:54 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Untempered Iron (RQIII) In-Reply-To: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> Heya guys, I have a question about Iron. I reference the Cults Book, p. 19: "Untempered iron has the same physical qualities as bronze. However, it also affects magic. Untempered iron reduces the chance (orig. 'change') of both casting and being affected by a spell (by) 5% per point of ENC." Alrighty, then. It's the "being affected by a spell" that's the tricky part. Say you are wearing SIZ 13 Chainmail (ENC 20). Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? What would happen if you strode through that? Would an elemental or whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking you? Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? Would untempered iron affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? What about armoring or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your armor? Magic crystals? Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the good guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm trying to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. Thanks, -- Joe From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 08:20:02 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:20:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> >Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? I'd say no. Basically, if you think magic cast at weapons is covered by the wielders personal countermagic, then wearing iron should prevent your weapons and belongings from being affected by countermagic. I myself do think that a countermagic cast on oneself affects all belongings and weapons in hand (otherwise at higher levels you have to start putting countermagic on yourself AND your weapons else your foes will develop anti-weapon magic as being far more effective than anti-personal magic, and you end up with a problem similar to D20 and 3E wherein feats like Cleave become the standard and combat becomes a weapon smashing festival). But you might think otherwise, and think that if someone casts a spell at my weapon, and I have countermagic 4, the spell has no reason to overcome the countermagic. In which case, internal consistency would kinda dictate that wearing iron would also leave the weapon unaffected by the magic nullifying properties. >Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? You could rule that it did, but I would recommend against it. The magic generates the fire. The fire will hurt you, the iron won't stop that. You might want to say that the iron cancels out the Fireblade, but I strongly recommend against that (see below). >What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? No effect. If you said there was an affect, you'd be saying that touching iron causes magic to be dispelled. (i) this means that character with untempered iron will run around dispelling magic left right and center - so a rune lord who can't cast magic may well decide to get his 20 ENC worth of iron and start dispelling everything he comes across. That'd be a headache. (ii) it'd surely have to kick in every turn! So a character in untempered iron who cast protection on himself would have it dispelled every round! But the spirit of the rules is clearly that once you cast the spell, after overcoming the untempered iron penalty, it stays up. (iii) there are no mechanics for it so is probably not in the spirit of the rules as intended. For instance, what is the chance of 1 ENC of iron dispelling a lightwall? What about two? And so on and so forth. In lieu of any mechanics assume iron just prevents magic being cast, it doesn't interfere with already existing magic (again, with fireblade, so I hit you with a fireblade, it shouldn't then be dispelled - you'd be grossly overpowering untempered iron!). > Would an elemental or > whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking > you? So I'd say yes. The magic animates the creature, and so has nothing to do with the iron clad victim. > Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? I want to say yes. But I think the answer, on the grounds of internal consistency, is no. Existing magic should probably remain in effect. Of course, it is open to you to ditch internal consistency. This IS magic after all. Trying to treat it like a set of consistent rules is to be a bit too much like a God Learner. So perhaps you could have it block Mindlinks, and give no explanation as to why it blokes Mindlink but doesn't dispel other spells (although keep the inconsistency consistent of course, nothing irks a player more than the iron preventing their mindlink working, but the enemy not suffering from the same problem the next week they meet them). >Would untempered iron > affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? Yes. > What about armoring > or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your > armor? Enchantments would be unaffected given this thinking, just like existing magical spells would remain undispelled the enchantments will remain unblemished. > Magic crystals? Should be unaffected, but again you could make an interesting (and plausibly motivated) house rule that to draw magic points from an unpowered crystal is unsuccessful some of the time (say amount of untempered iron in ENC x 5%). That'd be fun, it'd add to the book keeping but also add to the anti-magic problems that beset iron wearers. If you fancy it, go for your life I say. > Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the good > guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm trying > to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. Vampire drain and all special abilities should still work. If you feel fiendish you may rule that the Disrupt attack from crosses are ineffective given the iron. Personally I wouldn't add in any rules about drawing power from crystals (too much book keeping), I'd keep Mindlink in place (and just rule that existing spells and enchantments are unaffected), under no circumstances give untempered iron the ability to dispel magic and I'm a bastard, so I'd give the vampires disurpt-style protection when wearing untempered iron. From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 08:54:42 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:54:42 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708201554s774e878ud733287a02b07060@mail.gmail.com> Basically, I go with what Nikk posted. I do limit the effect of untempered iron to incoming spells specifically targeted on the iron wearer to keep bookkeeping to a minimum but I mean any spell. Traipsing around in a full suit of untempered iron will mess up spells (helpful and harmful) cast on the wearer by friends as well as foes. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070820/e4d5bb0e/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Aug 21 09:39:37 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:39:37 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Good stuff. I think this all makes sense, which is the most important thing. Players will accept almost anything if there's a logical consistency. So, to boil it down: 1) Permanent magic in place cannot be dispelled by the arrival of untempered iron. 2) The affect of untempered iron covers yourself and those possessions on your body. 3) Magical creatures cannot be dispelled or held at bay by untempered iron. 4) I think I'll go with "block the Mindlink", though, to dissuade my own players from thinking of donning all this "demoralize, Sever Spirit, disrupt-proof armor"... Thanks! -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Nikk Effingham Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:20 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron >Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? I'd say no. Basically, if you think magic cast at weapons is covered by the wielders personal countermagic, then wearing iron should prevent your weapons and belongings from being affected by countermagic. I myself do think that a countermagic cast on oneself affects all belongings and weapons in hand (otherwise at higher levels you have to start putting countermagic on yourself AND your weapons else your foes will develop anti-weapon magic as being far more effective than anti-personal magic, and you end up with a problem similar to D20 and 3E wherein feats like Cleave become the standard and combat becomes a weapon smashing festival). But you might think otherwise, and think that if someone casts a spell at my weapon, and I have countermagic 4, the spell has no reason to overcome the countermagic. In which case, internal consistency would kinda dictate that wearing iron would also leave the weapon unaffected by the magic nullifying properties. >Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? You could rule that it did, but I would recommend against it. The magic generates the fire. The fire will hurt you, the iron won't stop that. You might want to say that the iron cancels out the Fireblade, but I strongly recommend against that (see below). >What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? No effect. If you said there was an affect, you'd be saying that touching iron causes magic to be dispelled. (i) this means that character with untempered iron will run around dispelling magic left right and center - so a rune lord who can't cast magic may well decide to get his 20 ENC worth of iron and start dispelling everything he comes across. That'd be a headache. (ii) it'd surely have to kick in every turn! So a character in untempered iron who cast protection on himself would have it dispelled every round! But the spirit of the rules is clearly that once you cast the spell, after overcoming the untempered iron penalty, it stays up. (iii) there are no mechanics for it so is probably not in the spirit of the rules as intended. For instance, what is the chance of 1 ENC of iron dispelling a lightwall? What about two? And so on and so forth. In lieu of any mechanics assume iron just prevents magic being cast, it doesn't interfere with already existing magic (again, with fireblade, so I hit you with a fireblade, it shouldn't then be dispelled - you'd be grossly overpowering untempered iron!). > Would an elemental or > whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking > you? So I'd say yes. The magic animates the creature, and so has nothing to do with the iron clad victim. > Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? I want to say yes. But I think the answer, on the grounds of internal consistency, is no. Existing magic should probably remain in effect. Of course, it is open to you to ditch internal consistency. This IS magic after all. Trying to treat it like a set of consistent rules is to be a bit too much like a God Learner. So perhaps you could have it block Mindlinks, and give no explanation as to why it blokes Mindlink but doesn't dispel other spells (although keep the inconsistency consistent of course, nothing irks a player more than the iron preventing their mindlink working, but the enemy not suffering from the same problem the next week they meet them). >Would untempered iron > affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? Yes. > What about armoring > or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your > armor? Enchantments would be unaffected given this thinking, just like existing magical spells would remain undispelled the enchantments will remain unblemished. > Magic crystals? Should be unaffected, but again you could make an interesting (and plausibly motivated) house rule that to draw magic points from an unpowered crystal is unsuccessful some of the time (say amount of untempered iron in ENC x 5%). That'd be fun, it'd add to the book keeping but also add to the anti-magic problems that beset iron wearers. If you fancy it, go for your life I say. > Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the good > guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm trying > to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. Vampire drain and all special abilities should still work. If you feel fiendish you may rule that the Disrupt attack from crosses are ineffective given the iron. Personally I wouldn't add in any rules about drawing power from crystals (too much book keeping), I'd keep Mindlink in place (and just rule that existing spells and enchantments are unaffected), under no circumstances give untempered iron the ability to dispel magic and I'm a bastard, so I'd give the vampires disurpt-style protection when wearing untempered iron. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Aug 21 09:50:33 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> Another thought. What if untempered iron had a "local" effect on "non-permanent" magic? For instance, I guy wearing a suit of untempered iron is uneffected by Fireblades and Bladesharps, but as soon as the weapon bounces off of him, the fire or bladesharp returns? He can stride through a Lightwall, but the Lightwall is so think that he still can't see all the way through it. He's immune to Demoralizes, and all that. And healing spells. -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Joe Mills Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:40 PM To: 'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.' Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron Good stuff. I think this all makes sense, which is the most important thing. Players will accept almost anything if there's a logical consistency. So, to boil it down: 1) Permanent magic in place cannot be dispelled by the arrival of untempered iron. 2) The affect of untempered iron covers yourself and those possessions on your body. 3) Magical creatures cannot be dispelled or held at bay by untempered iron. 4) I think I'll go with "block the Mindlink", though, to dissuade my own players from thinking of donning all this "demoralize, Sever Spirit, disrupt-proof armor"... Thanks! -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Nikk Effingham Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:20 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron >Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? I'd say no. Basically, if you think magic cast at weapons is covered by the wielders personal countermagic, then wearing iron should prevent your weapons and belongings from being affected by countermagic. I myself do think that a countermagic cast on oneself affects all belongings and weapons in hand (otherwise at higher levels you have to start putting countermagic on yourself AND your weapons else your foes will develop anti-weapon magic as being far more effective than anti-personal magic, and you end up with a problem similar to D20 and 3E wherein feats like Cleave become the standard and combat becomes a weapon smashing festival). But you might think otherwise, and think that if someone casts a spell at my weapon, and I have countermagic 4, the spell has no reason to overcome the countermagic. In which case, internal consistency would kinda dictate that wearing iron would also leave the weapon unaffected by the magic nullifying properties. >Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? You could rule that it did, but I would recommend against it. The magic generates the fire. The fire will hurt you, the iron won't stop that. You might want to say that the iron cancels out the Fireblade, but I strongly recommend against that (see below). >What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? No effect. If you said there was an affect, you'd be saying that touching iron causes magic to be dispelled. (i) this means that character with untempered iron will run around dispelling magic left right and center - so a rune lord who can't cast magic may well decide to get his 20 ENC worth of iron and start dispelling everything he comes across. That'd be a headache. (ii) it'd surely have to kick in every turn! So a character in untempered iron who cast protection on himself would have it dispelled every round! But the spirit of the rules is clearly that once you cast the spell, after overcoming the untempered iron penalty, it stays up. (iii) there are no mechanics for it so is probably not in the spirit of the rules as intended. For instance, what is the chance of 1 ENC of iron dispelling a lightwall? What about two? And so on and so forth. In lieu of any mechanics assume iron just prevents magic being cast, it doesn't interfere with already existing magic (again, with fireblade, so I hit you with a fireblade, it shouldn't then be dispelled - you'd be grossly overpowering untempered iron!). > Would an elemental or > whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking > you? So I'd say yes. The magic animates the creature, and so has nothing to do with the iron clad victim. > Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? I want to say yes. But I think the answer, on the grounds of internal consistency, is no. Existing magic should probably remain in effect. Of course, it is open to you to ditch internal consistency. This IS magic after all. Trying to treat it like a set of consistent rules is to be a bit too much like a God Learner. So perhaps you could have it block Mindlinks, and give no explanation as to why it blokes Mindlink but doesn't dispel other spells (although keep the inconsistency consistent of course, nothing irks a player more than the iron preventing their mindlink working, but the enemy not suffering from the same problem the next week they meet them). >Would untempered iron > affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? Yes. > What about armoring > or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your > armor? Enchantments would be unaffected given this thinking, just like existing magical spells would remain undispelled the enchantments will remain unblemished. > Magic crystals? Should be unaffected, but again you could make an interesting (and plausibly motivated) house rule that to draw magic points from an unpowered crystal is unsuccessful some of the time (say amount of untempered iron in ENC x 5%). That'd be fun, it'd add to the book keeping but also add to the anti-magic problems that beset iron wearers. If you fancy it, go for your life I say. > Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the good > guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm trying > to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. Vampire drain and all special abilities should still work. If you feel fiendish you may rule that the Disrupt attack from crosses are ineffective given the iron. Personally I wouldn't add in any rules about drawing power from crystals (too much book keeping), I'd keep Mindlink in place (and just rule that existing spells and enchantments are unaffected), under no circumstances give untempered iron the ability to dispel magic and I'm a bastard, so I'd give the vampires disurpt-style protection when wearing untempered iron. _______________________________________________ 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 jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 09:51:02 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [Mongoose RQ] stuff to buy In-Reply-To: <20070820164404.E9F3A2FF90B@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070820164404.E9F3A2FF90B@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708201651l8ba8810obb49bdffec72744d@mail.gmail.com> It really depends on what you want from the books. Hawkmoon is a standalone game book for the world described in the books pertaining to Hawkmoon. Based on RQ, it duplicates quite a bit of the character generation and magic rules in the RQ book while skewing it towards Hawkmoon's world so you don't really need any of the RQ books though they can add some nice detail. While the Hawkmoon book touches on the world background, the "Granbretan" book delves much deeper into it. However, Hawkmoon adds rules for Hawkmoon tech, vehicle combat, air-to-air/air-to-ground combat, and siege warfare which, while brief, can expand a GM's adventure options nicely. Pirates, on the other hand, is an expansion of RQ and requires the RQ books to play. Essentially, Pirates provides additional/replacement rules to allow one to sail the Spanish Main for gold and glory. If you've always wanted to play Captain Jack Sparrow and blaze away at galleons peering over the cannon through a gun port, this is one book you don't want to miss. The Clanking City is pure Glorantha. It provides extreme detail on the God Learners, their Machine City, and the blasphemous magico-tech abhorred throughout Glorantha. If you want to be a God Learner, you can't do better than this book. As for Jrustela, I don't run Gloranthan adventures so I don't have the book and don't intend to buy it. David On 8/20/07, Gianni wrote: > > All-- > > This e-mail is related to the previous one.... Having bought plane tickets > for 4 and having paid much of the accomodation in advance, I'm flat broke > at > the moment and yet I would like some of the new MRQ books. Given the rate > at > which Mongoose spurt out books these days I certainly cannot afford to buy > 'em all -- which ones would you recommend [and why] amongst the following: > - Pirates > - Jrustela > - the Clanking City > - Hawkmoon > > Cheers > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > 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/20070820/b8ce7659/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 09:58:28 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:58:28 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1187654308.35a59073bfc71@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Too powerful. Off to face Harrek the Beserk? Put on the suit of untempered iron you have in the cabinet. And you'd need a mechanic in place. As is, the casting chance is reduced by ENC x5% so if you meet a demigod with POW 300 his Sever Spirit will still slip unphased by your 20 ENC untempered iron. So the more powerful the caster, the more likely they are to overcome the untempered iron. But the mechanic you'd need here would be tricky. I imagine the mechanic you are thinking of implementing that when struck you have an ENCx5% chance of ignoring the effects. But that's nuts! That'd mean that even if Humakt himself cast a bladesharp, it'd get dispelled by 20 measly ENC of untempered iron (again, everyone would have a suit for special occassions). Perhaps a different mechanic could be implemented, but I imagine it'd be unwieldy (although it is quite late so I there might be an easier way of doing it). Either ways, you're giving too many incentives for everyone to have a suit of untempered iron knocking around for occassions when you think access to your magic isn't as good as nullifying all the magic of your enemy. Untempered iron has it's upsides, but it's generally meant to be a bum deal, something that few people consider wearing, after all why else would anyone temper the stuff! I imagine the precedent would wreak havoc with your game, especially once they do in the vampires and nick the untempered iron which, unlike tempered, they can easily melt down and have a blacksmith reforge a new suit to fit themselves perfectly. So you really will be handing your PCs the ability to slip out of any tricky situation involving really powerful magic (given, if they can don the armour, but still, I think you're unbalancing things). Of course, if you go the other way, I'd be interested to see how it pans out : ) Nikk > Another thought. What if untempered iron had a "local" effect on > "non-permanent" magic? For instance, I guy wearing a suit of untempered iron > is uneffected by Fireblades and Bladesharps, but as soon as the weapon > bounces off of him, the fire or bladesharp returns? He can stride through a > Lightwall, but the Lightwall is so think that he still can't see all the way > through it. He's immune to Demoralizes, and all that. And healing spells. > > -- Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of Joe Mills > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:40 PM > To: 'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.' > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron > > Good stuff. I think this all makes sense, which is the most important thing. > Players will accept almost anything if there's a logical consistency. So, to > boil it down: > > 1) Permanent magic in place cannot be dispelled by the arrival of untempered > iron. > > 2) The affect of untempered iron covers yourself and those possessions on > your body. > > 3) Magical creatures cannot be dispelled or held at bay by untempered iron. > > 4) I think I'll go with "block the Mindlink", though, to dissuade my own > players from thinking of donning all this "demoralize, Sever Spirit, > disrupt-proof armor"... > > Thanks! > > -- Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of Nikk Effingham > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:20 PM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron > > >Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? > > I'd say no. Basically, if you think magic cast at weapons is covered by the > wielders personal countermagic, then wearing iron should prevent your > weapons > and belongings from being affected by countermagic. I myself do think that a > countermagic cast on oneself affects all belongings and weapons in hand > (otherwise at higher levels you have to start putting countermagic on > yourself > AND your weapons else your foes will develop anti-weapon magic as being far > more effective than anti-personal magic, and you end up with a problem > similar > to D20 and 3E wherein feats like Cleave become the standard and combat > becomes > a weapon smashing festival). But you might think otherwise, and think that > if > someone casts a spell at my weapon, and I have countermagic 4, the spell has > no > reason to overcome the countermagic. In which case, internal consistency > would > kinda dictate that wearing iron would also leave the weapon unaffected by > the > magic nullifying properties. > > >Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? > > You could rule that it did, but I would recommend against it. The magic > generates the fire. The fire will hurt you, the iron won't stop that. You > might > want to say that the iron cancels out the Fireblade, but I strongly > recommend > against that (see below). > > >What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? > > No effect. If you said there was an affect, you'd be saying that touching > iron > causes magic to be dispelled. (i) this means that character with untempered > iron will run around dispelling magic left right and center - so a rune lord > who can't cast magic may well decide to get his 20 ENC worth of iron and > start > dispelling everything he comes across. That'd be a headache. (ii) it'd > surely > have to kick in every turn! So a character in untempered iron who cast > protection on himself would have it dispelled every round! But the spirit of > the rules is clearly that once you cast the spell, after overcoming the > untempered iron penalty, it stays up. (iii) there are no mechanics for it so > is > probably not in the spirit of the rules as intended. For instance, what is > the > chance of 1 ENC of iron dispelling a lightwall? What about two? And so on > and > so forth. In lieu of any mechanics assume iron just prevents magic being > cast, > it doesn't interfere with already existing magic (again, with fireblade, so > I > hit you with a fireblade, it shouldn't then be dispelled - you'd be grossly > overpowering untempered iron!). > > > Would an elemental or > > whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking > > you? > > So I'd say yes. The magic animates the creature, and so has nothing to do > with > the iron clad victim. > > > Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? > > I want to say yes. But I think the answer, on the grounds of internal > consistency, is no. Existing magic should probably remain in effect. Of > course, > it is open to you to ditch internal consistency. This IS magic after all. > Trying to treat it like a set of consistent rules is to be a bit too much > like > a God Learner. So perhaps you could have it block Mindlinks, and give no > explanation as to why it blokes Mindlink but doesn't dispel other spells > (although keep the inconsistency consistent of course, nothing irks a player > more than the iron preventing their mindlink working, but the enemy not > suffering from the same problem the next week they meet them). > > >Would untempered iron > > affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? > > Yes. > > > What about armoring > > or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your > > armor? > > Enchantments would be unaffected given this thinking, just like existing > magical > spells would remain undispelled the enchantments will remain unblemished. > > > Magic crystals? > > Should be unaffected, but again you could make an interesting (and plausibly > motivated) house rule that to draw magic points from an unpowered crystal is > unsuccessful some of the time (say amount of untempered iron in ENC x 5%). > That'd be fun, it'd add to the book keeping but also add to the anti-magic > problems that beset iron wearers. If you fancy it, go for your life I say. > > > Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the > good > > guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm trying > > to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. > > Vampire drain and all special abilities should still work. If you feel > fiendish > you may rule that the Disrupt attack from crosses are ineffective given the > iron. > > Personally I wouldn't add in any rules about drawing power from crystals > (too > much book keeping), I'd keep Mindlink in place (and just rule that existing > spells and enchantments are unaffected), under no circumstances give > untempered > iron the ability to dispel magic and I'm a bastard, so I'd give the vampires > disurpt-style protection when wearing untempered iron. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 09:59:04 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:59:04 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708201659h60ea6fc5rb5bb71e34568aa1f@mail.gmail.com> Heh. I like it. An unsuspecting player could end up thinking he's getting a really good deal until a "suppressed" Firebladed weapon just happens to roll a critical success and no one else can heal him. Such armor can still be an advantage as long as all the disadvantages are recognized and compensated for. David On 8/20/07, Joe Mills wrote: > > Another thought. What if untempered iron had a "local" effect on > "non-permanent" magic? For instance, I guy wearing a suit of untempered > iron > is uneffected by Fireblades and Bladesharps, but as soon as the weapon > bounces off of him, the fire or bladesharp returns? He can stride through > a > Lightwall, but the Lightwall is so think that he still can't see all the > way > through it. He's immune to Demoralizes, and all that. And healing spells. > > -- Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of Joe Mills > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:40 PM > To: 'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.' > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron > > Good stuff. I think this all makes sense, which is the most important > thing. > Players will accept almost anything if there's a logical consistency. So, > to > boil it down: > > 1) Permanent magic in place cannot be dispelled by the arrival of > untempered > iron. > > 2) The affect of untempered iron covers yourself and those possessions on > your body. > > 3) Magical creatures cannot be dispelled or held at bay by untempered > iron. > > 4) I think I'll go with "block the Mindlink", though, to dissuade my own > players from thinking of donning all this "demoralize, Sever Spirit, > disrupt-proof armor"... > > Thanks! > > -- Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] > On Behalf Of Nikk Effingham > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:20 PM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron > > >Could somebody else cast a Fireblade on your bronze sword? > > I'd say no. Basically, if you think magic cast at weapons is covered by > the > wielders personal countermagic, then wearing iron should prevent your > weapons > and belongings from being affected by countermagic. I myself do think that > a > countermagic cast on oneself affects all belongings and weapons in hand > (otherwise at higher levels you have to start putting countermagic on > yourself > AND your weapons else your foes will develop anti-weapon magic as being > far > more effective than anti-personal magic, and you end up with a problem > similar > to D20 and 3E wherein feats like Cleave become the standard and combat > becomes > a weapon smashing festival). But you might think otherwise, and think that > if > someone casts a spell at my weapon, and I have countermagic 4, the spell > has > no > reason to overcome the countermagic. In which case, internal consistency > would > kinda dictate that wearing iron would also leave the weapon unaffected by > the > magic nullifying properties. > > >Would you be affected by somebody hitting you with a Fireblade? > > You could rule that it did, but I would recommend against it. The magic > generates the fire. The fire will hurt you, the iron won't stop that. You > might > want to say that the iron cancels out the Fireblade, but I strongly > recommend > against that (see below). > > >What about an area of effect spell, such as Lightwall? > > No effect. If you said there was an affect, you'd be saying that touching > iron > causes magic to be dispelled. (i) this means that character with > untempered > iron will run around dispelling magic left right and center - so a rune > lord > who can't cast magic may well decide to get his 20 ENC worth of iron and > start > dispelling everything he comes across. That'd be a headache. (ii) it'd > surely > have to kick in every turn! So a character in untempered iron who cast > protection on himself would have it dispelled every round! But the spirit > of > the rules is clearly that once you cast the spell, after overcoming the > untempered iron penalty, it stays up. (iii) there are no mechanics for it > so > is > probably not in the spirit of the rules as intended. For instance, what is > the > chance of 1 ENC of iron dispelling a lightwall? What about two? And so on > and > so forth. In lieu of any mechanics assume iron just prevents magic being > cast, > it doesn't interfere with already existing magic (again, with fireblade, > so > I > hit you with a fireblade, it shouldn't then be dispelled - you'd be > grossly > overpowering untempered iron!). > > > Would an elemental or > > whirlvish, or another otherwise magical creature be capable of attacking > > you? > > So I'd say yes. The magic animates the creature, and so has nothing to do > with > the iron clad victim. > > > Would you lose your Mindlink to an Allied Spirit? > > I want to say yes. But I think the answer, on the grounds of internal > consistency, is no. Existing magic should probably remain in effect. Of > course, > it is open to you to ditch internal consistency. This IS magic after all. > Trying to treat it like a set of consistent rules is to be a bit too much > like > a God Learner. So perhaps you could have it block Mindlinks, and give no > explanation as to why it blokes Mindlink but doesn't dispel other spells > (although keep the inconsistency consistent of course, nothing irks a > player > more than the iron preventing their mindlink working, but the enemy not > suffering from the same problem the next week they meet them). > > >Would untempered iron > > affect spirit magic, divine magic, and sorcery equally? > > Yes. > > > What about armoring > > or strengthening enchantments cast upon your body before you put on your > > armor? > > Enchantments would be unaffected given this thinking, just like existing > magical > spells would remain undispelled the enchantments will remain unblemished. > > > Magic crystals? > > Should be unaffected, but again you could make an interesting (and > plausibly > motivated) house rule that to draw magic points from an unpowered crystal > is > unsuccessful some of the time (say amount of untempered iron in ENC x 5%). > That'd be fun, it'd add to the book keeping but also add to the anti-magic > problems that beset iron wearers. If you fancy it, go for your life I say. > > > Just as a reference point, I'm trying to create an adventure where the > good > > guys will face a pair of vampires in untempered iron armor, and I'm > trying > > to work out the exploits and possibilities beforehand. > > Vampire drain and all special abilities should still work. If you feel > fiendish > you may rule that the Disrupt attack from crosses are ineffective given > the > iron. > > Personally I wouldn't add in any rules about drawing power from crystals > (too > much book keeping), I'd keep Mindlink in place (and just rule that > existing > spells and enchantments are unaffected), under no circumstances give > untempered > iron the ability to dispel magic and I'm a bastard, so I'd give the > vampires > disurpt-style protection when wearing untempered iron. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070820/2f2d19b3/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 10:04:04 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:04:04 +0100 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] [RQIII] Untempered Iron In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708201659h60ea6fc5rb5bb71e34568aa1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <40542.41.208.48.64.1187188992.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <000001c7e375$b8e82990$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1187648402.a7027b1642a34@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <000601c7e383$5f337fe0$0201a8c0@laptop2> <000701c7e384$e6056550$0201a8c0@laptop2> <1c92296e0708201659h60ea6fc5rb5bb71e34568aa1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1187654644.f950d5934c0d1@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> > Heh. I like it. An unsuspecting player could end up thinking he's getting a > really good deal until a "suppressed" Firebladed weapon just happens to roll > a critical success and no one else can heal him. Such armor can still be an > advantage as long as all the disadvantages are recognized and compensated > for. David's adjustment would probably balance things out. Although I'd have some worries about internal consistency (why would being a better warrior, and having a higher chance of scoring a crit, cause my magic spell to be less likely to be dismissed?) as I say you can ignore them (famously amongst my group, acid burns off Protection spells and Shield - my answer is always the same "It's magic, who are you to tell me how it works?"). The bigger problem would be how this works for lightwalls (would a critical when casting it cause it to be immune to the dispel properties?). By the by I'd still be against the idea, but David's idea would probably make it less unbalancing. Scary thought though, what about a broo that regenerates. Then it wouldn't matter... Nikk From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 10:14:15 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:14:15 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: <20070820163449.65B0C2FF4A1@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070820163449.65B0C2FF4A1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708201714s29265c4ci159de9946cc1391d@mail.gmail.com> This would be a much better option for the list, Andrew. That way, any future forum members could just download it from the Files area rather than having to search the archives. Just an opinion that's freely ignorable. David On 8/20/07, Gianni wrote: > > Andrew, > > I'd gladly convert your file into pdf and make it available on my web-site > (http://www.basicrps.com/) if it'OK with you. > > Cheers, > > Gianni > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Larsen > To: Rq-Rules List > Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:08:51 -0500 > Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules > > > A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my > > alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list > of > > people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the > > rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people > are > > > uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email > > again and I will send it as an attachment. > > > > Andrew E. Larsen > > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." > > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070820/05d118bb/attachment.html From gazza666 at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 11:51:59 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:51:59 +0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT]gaming shops in Oz In-Reply-To: <20070820163728.45FD02FF54A@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070820163728.45FD02FF54A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <9ebd81400708201851w69e47dc9j16e707e09d6fe39d@mail.gmail.com> On 21/08/07, Gianni wrote: > All, > > I will be holidaying in Australia next year (Feb/Mar). Since I've noticed > that there were several Australian gamers on this list, I would like to > know if there are any good gaming shops in the following cities: > - Melbourne > - Perth > - Sydney In Perth, there's Tactics, in London Court (which is off of Hay Street, the main street in Perth). Drop me an email (gazza666 at gmail.com) when you're over here if you want to grab a coffee or something! -- GAZZA From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 21 15:12:09 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT]gaming shops in Oz In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400708201851w69e47dc9j16e707e09d6fe39d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <818576.21215.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Gary Sturgess wrote: > On 21/08/07, Gianni wrote: > > All, > > > > I will be holidaying in Australia next year > (Feb/Mar). Since I've noticed > > that there were several Australian gamers on this > list, I would like to > > know if there are any good gaming shops in the > following cities: > > - Melbourne > > - Perth > > - Sydney > > In Perth, there's Tactics, in London Court (which is > off of Hay > Street, the main street in Perth). In Melbourne there's Mind Games in the city and Military Simulations in Moorabin. In Sydney there's Napoleons and Atlantis Games. > Drop me an email (gazza666 at gmail.com) when you're > over here if you > want to grab a coffee or something! Ditto for Melbourne! All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Aug 21 16:57:34 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Mongoose RQ] stuff to buy/[LIST] Listetiquette Message-ID: <37422.31732.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Gianni: > This e-mail is related to the previous one.... Having bought plane tickets > for 4 and having paid much of the accomodation in advance, I'm flat broke at > the moment and yet I would like some of the new MRQ books. Given the rate at > which Mongoose spurt out books these days I certainly cannot afford to buy > 'em all -- which ones would you recommend [and why] amongst the following: > - Pirates > - Jrustela > - the Clanking City > - Hawkmoon Going to Australia AND buying RPGs - I think I might hate you :-) Of those four, Pirates is the best buy, a very good supplement that captures the spirit of Pirates and has a number of rules that could be used in a non-pirate game. Hawkmoon looks good. I've only just finished skipping through it, but it has a lot of background, keeps the spirit of the books and has a fair amount of detail. I'd only buy Jrustela and Clanking City of you were planning a Second Age campaign that directly used both settings. They are OK, apart from the lamentable maps, but if money is tight, I could not really recommend them. But, I'd advise everyone who loves RQ to buy Pirates. It is that good, in my opinion. Peter Brink: > There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, that > is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster has not > changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic introduced. I was going to change the subject matter in the reply, but decided against it, lest I be banned .... > I propose that we introduce a modest amount of rules for how to post > messages on the list. > 1) Change the subject of the message when you change the topic of a thread. > 2) Label your messages so that it is easy to see what version of RQ (or > BRP) your post is about. The following labels seems appropriate to me: > [RQ II] for RQ I and II; [RQ III]; [MRQ] for Mongoose RQ; [DBRP] for the > forthcoming Deluxe Basic Roleplaying; [GENERIC] for topics that relate > to all versions of RQ and BRP, [LIST] for messages to the list; [STATS] > for any post including stats; [ADV] for any adventure or scenario > posted; and [OT] for off-topic threads (should be kept to a minimum). > Other abbreviations can surely be added to this list. You missed [Imperial vs Metric] - I thought this list had been changed to a discussion of units. > I hope you all agree that using these modest rules will make the list > more useful for all of us. Yes, but it can cause problems when discussing a rule and then bringing in rules form other areas as examples. You could quite easily end up with confused titles. Also, I get the list in Digest mode, in fact all my lists are in Digest Mode, except for lists relating to games I am actually playig in. This means that when replying, I tend to reply to several messages at once. For example, this reply covers two messages. Is this OK? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070820/18a88f42/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 21 18:33:53 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:33:53 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] [Mongoose RQ] stuff to buy Message-ID: <20070821083356.A9EDF30CF5E@mini.thinbits.net> Thanks to all for your advice. I'm still at a loss as to what to buy, though. I am currently running a God Learner game in Second Age Glorantha (http://2ndage.blogspot.com/), but I'm also interested in rules for the Imperial Chinese game I will run... one day. I was hoping that maybe Hawkmoon would fix the broken combat rules in the MRQ rule books. Does it, or do I have to wait for the RQ Deluxe book [and regret I've ever bought RQ, the Companion and the Monsters book in the first place]? I'm not particularly interested by the setting itself (loved the books, but I wouldn't play in Tragic Europe), what I'm really interested in is _fixed_ combat rules. Ditto for RQ Pirates. I keep reading how good this book is, but I'm not interested in playing Jack Sparrow (the kids keep me annoying with him already). What I'm looking for is maybe more rules for naval combat (beyond the ones in the Companion) or fire arms (beyond the ones in Arms & Equipment), which I could plunder for my Imperial Chinese game. Cheers, Gianni From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Tue Aug 21 18:35:49 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:35:49 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andrew, >A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my >alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list of >people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the >rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people are >uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email >again and I will send it as an attachment. quite happy to see them on the list, and would also be interested in posting a copy to a web site I an d others have been developing for d100 / BRP support if you are willing? Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 Tue Aug 21 18:40:49 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:40:49 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT] gaming shops in Oz Message-ID: <20070821084050.162A330D155@mini.thinbits.net> Thanks for the kind invitations, and for the addresses. is there anything RuneQuest-y that I should be looking for in Australia, like fanzines or con books that we do not get in Europe? Cheers Gianni From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Tue Aug 21 18:42:26 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:42:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] [LIST] Listetiquette In-Reply-To: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 20/08/2007 19:15:32: > This post is not about pointing fingers at anyone but a plead to the > list to be more considerate of their fellow list members. > There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, that > is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster has not > changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic introduced. > If this trend continuous, this list will become useless for any casual > user, the subject lines will simply not reflect the topic of the thread. > I propose that we introduce a modest amount of rules for how to post > messages on the list. > 1) Change the subject of the message when you change the topic of a thread. > 2) Label your messages so that it is easy to see what version of RQ (or > BRP) your post is about. The following labels seems appropriate to me: > [RQ II] for RQ I and II; [RQ III]; [MRQ] for Mongoose RQ; [DBRP] for the > forthcoming Deluxe Basic Roleplaying; [GENERIC] for topics that relate > to all versions of RQ and BRP, [LIST] for messages to the list; [STATS] > for any post including stats; [ADV] for any adventure or scenario > posted; and [OT] for off-topic threads (should be kept to a minimum). > Other abbreviations can surely be added to this list. > I hope you all agree that using these modest rules will make the list > more useful for all of us. Peter, all seems perfectly reasonable - we will suffer the usual human frailties of forgetfulness and absent-mindedness, but an occasional gentle reminder such as this will surely help. The important thing I'd suggest is that people adhere to the _spirit_ of these rules i.e. that postings are clearly identifiable as to topic. Cheers, Nick Middleton 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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 21 19:09:18 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:09:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT]gaming shops in Oz In-Reply-To: <20070820163728.45FD02FF54A@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070820163728.45FD02FF54A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <15794.196.8.104.37.1187687358.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Thought you were tyring to talk up an invite to a RQ session. > All, > > I will be holidaying in Australia next year (Feb/Mar). Since I've noticed > that there were several Australian gamers on this list, I would like to > know > if there are any good gaming shops in the following cities: > - Melbourne > - Perth > - Sydney > > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 21 19:13:18 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:13:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [LIST] Listetiquette In-Reply-To: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> References: <46C9DA44.9060108@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <24947.196.8.104.37.1187687598.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > This post is not about pointing fingers at anyone but a plead to the > list to be more considerate of their fellow list members. > > There have been a lot of threads lately that has been high jacked, that > is the subject matter of the thread has changed and the poster has not > changed the subject line so that it reflects the new topic introduced. > If this trend continuous, this list will become useless for any casual > user, the subject lines will simply not reflect the topic of the thread. > I am a guilty party here,. Through laziness I fail to change topics. I think this is a good idea. Perhaps if everyone agrees post the etiquette on the lists home page. Tony From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 21 19:24:47 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT]gaming shops in Oz In-Reply-To: <15794.196.8.104.37.1187687358.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <467850.21333.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Thought you were tyring to talk up an invite to a RQ > session. > You know, chances are I'll be running one... :-) ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Aug 21 19:33:24 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:33:24 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [slightly OT] gaming shops in Oz In-Reply-To: <20070821084050.162A330D155@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070821084050.162A330D155@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <13056.196.8.104.37.1187688804.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Thanks for the kind invitations, and for the addresses. is there anything > RuneQuest-y that I should be looking for in Australia, like fanzines or > con > books that we do not get in Europe? > I know there are some rocking SF/Fantasy magazines, Aurelais, Andromeda Spaceways in Flight Magazine, not sure if their content will be runequesty, but having read a few Aurealis stories withe a look... Tony From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Aug 22 01:32:23 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708201714s29265c4ci159de9946cc1391d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have forwarded the file to Gianni, and he will be posting it on his site soon. It is essentially a few modifications to Stephen Martin?s alchemy rules published in Tradetalk 6. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 8/20/07 7:14 PM, "David Smart" wrote: > This would be a much better option for the list, Andrew. That way, any future > forum members could just download it from the Files area rather than having to > search the archives. Just an opinion that's freely ignorable. > > David > > On 8/20/07, Gianni wrote: >> Andrew, >> >> I'd gladly convert your file into pdf and make it available on my web-site >> (http://www.basicrps.com/) if it'OK with you. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gianni >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Andrew Larsen >> To: Rq-Rules List >> Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:08:51 -0500 >> Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules >> >>> > A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my >>> > alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list of >>> > people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the >>> > rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people >>> are >> >>> > uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email >>> > again and I will send it as an attachment. >>> > >>> > Andrew E. Larsen >>> > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." >>> > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070821/e4dfb00e/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Aug 23 16:13:43 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:13:43 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQIII]NPC's for download Message-ID: <15568.196.11.241.45.1187849623.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Well I have published my first set of downloadable NPC cards. Just used Kevs generator to whip together the stats. May have adjusted one or two skill percentages. Anyway, use it/don't use it. http://www.runequest.za.org/article/articleview/180/1/30/ You may have to be logged in to see the page. As an aside note, not sure if MS Visio was the best tool to design these in and the cutting out is a bit of an annoying task, but what the hey, no pain no gain I suppose. Tony From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Aug 23 18:03:50 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:03:50 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules Message-ID: <20070823080353.2F4F8336868@mini.thinbits.net> All, > I have forwarded the file to Gianni, and he will be posting it on his site > soon. It's here: http://www.basicrps.com/core/RQIIIAlchemy.pdf Cheers Gianni From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Thu Aug 23 18:27:31 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:27:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: <20070823080353.2F4F8336868@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <443411.52523.qm@web28010.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Great alchemy work! :-) SGL. Gianni skrev: All, > I have forwarded the file to Gianni, and he will be posting it on his site > soon. It's here: http://www.basicrps.com/core/RQIIIAlchemy.pdf Cheers Gianni_______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message group! http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070823/6e1d2dae/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Aug 23 19:22:40 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:22:40 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: <20070823080353.2F4F8336868@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070823080353.2F4F8336868@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <46CD51E0.7090907@brinkdata.se> Gianni skrev: > All, > >> I have forwarded the file to Gianni, and he will be posting it on his site >> soon. > > > It's here: http://www.basicrps.com/core/RQIIIAlchemy.pdf > Great! Here is another set of Alchemy rules that I found on the net: http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/alchemy.htm And on this page you can find a few other articles on the same subject: http://members.aol.com/Delecti/Alchemy.html /Peter Brink From stephenlposey at earthlink.net Sun Aug 26 04:16:05 2007 From: stephenlposey at earthlink.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:16:05 -0600 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <46D071E5.4080701@earthlink.net> Steve Perrin wrote: > Actually, the reason the French and Americans drive on the right side of > the road is BECAUSE the Brits drive on the left. I forget which bit of > revolutionary ferver influenced the other country, but that's the > reason. If you are looking for ancient tradition, it's driving on the > left. Maybe because that left your right hand free to swing a sword and > whoever was coming toward you? > > In SPQR I have my own set of measurements. The main descriptor for > height and width and length is the pace, which, strangely enough, is > roughly equivalent to a yard or meter. Funny how that works out. I've > been thinking lately that maybe the pace should be called a "stride" > instead. Still thinking. > > Steve Perrin I'm running behind on my Email reading, so sorry that this is coming late to the list. I actually worked up a set of names for measures based on archaic sounding units which I had mapped to modern equivalents for my purposes. A few I can recall off the top of my head: Vertical linear measure: 1 Manheight = 2 meters/2 yards/6 feet Horizontal linear measure: 1 Pace = 1 meter/1 yard/3 feet Distance: 1 League = 10 kilometers/6 miles Apothecary's volume: 1 Dram = 1 milliliter Common liquid volume: 1 Flagon = 1 liter/1 quart 1 Tun = 10 Flagons/Liters Weight: 1 Stone = 5 kilograms/11 pounds I intended these to add flavor and to "defamiliarize" the players' expectations about things, trying to get them away from thinking in terms of rigid amounts. E.g. saying a wall is "about 3 manheights" high rather than giving an explicit 35 feet. Stephen Posey stephenlposey at earthlink.net From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 26 04:32:45 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:32:45 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <46D071E5.4080701@earthlink.net> References: <006c01c7dfb1$958e39c0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <46D071E5.4080701@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070825113140.033d4350@caprica.com> >I intended these to add flavor and to "defamiliarize" the players' >expectations about things, trying to get them away from thinking in >terms of rigid amounts. The problem I find with this is that it also all too easily destroys many people's ability to visualize; a lot of people don't engage well with strange units of measurement, even relatively intuitive ones. From bick10 at comcast.net Sun Aug 26 04:56:59 2007 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:56:59 +0000 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins Message-ID: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > >I intended these to add flavor and to "defamiliarize" the players' > >expectations about things, trying to get them away from thinking in > >terms of rigid amounts. From: Wayne Shaw > The problem I find with this is that it also all too easily destroys > many people's ability to visualize; a lot of people don't engage well > with strange units of measurement, even relatively intuitive ones. I've used pace for yards/meters. It worked well. Then again, I'm use to doing rough measurements by 'pacing' out the yards. Steve, I say go with pace or stride. Jim Bickmeyer From shaw at caprica.com Sun Aug 26 05:19:19 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:19:19 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE05 0C070D@comcast.net> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> At 11:56 AM 8/25/2007, you wrote: > > >I intended these to add flavor and to "defamiliarize" the players' > > >expectations about things, trying to get them away from thinking in > > >terms of rigid amounts. > >From: Wayne Shaw > > The problem I find with this is that it also all too easily destroys > > many people's ability to visualize; a lot of people don't engage well > > with strange units of measurement, even relatively intuitive ones. > > >I've used pace for yards/meters. It worked well. Then again, I'm >use to doing rough measurements by 'pacing' out the yards. Well, that one works okay because it _directly_ relates to a single other unit of measurement. But as soon as there's any conversion at all... From styopa1 at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 06:04:40 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:04:40 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> Actually, as far as distance measures go, I found it surprisingly appropriate to dispense with long distance measures. I got this from reading contemporary Renaissance and later travelogues - like Chaucer, and the real life annals of (I think it was) ibn Farouk. They almost NEVER say "we travelled 200 leagues" or "the people say that the next village is 10 miles away". They nearly always use TIME. We travelled for a week. The next village is a half-day's walk. PARTICULARLY for people who might never have left their home valley in their entire lives. Seriously, try it. It's disorienting for modern players to stop thinking of their world as if from "map view" or satellite cartographic view, but instead as really a topology of lines of travel. "To get to Wilmskirk? Well, from Clearwine you can go downriver for about 4 days, and then head east on the high road. After about three days you'd pass through Famegrave (the peach vendor there will rob you blind!) and another three or four day's rough road to Wilmskirk. Or you could try going upriver - with a good boat and fair winds you might make it in five or six days." It also makes the idea of cutting 'across country' seem that more dangerous and crazy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070825/19141cdf/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 06:47:55 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <20070825200449.C6F813681D4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <312817.17505.qm@web53905.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > ------------------------------ > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:04:40 -0500 > From: Styopa > Subject: Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] > Conversions and origins > > Actually, as far as distance measures go, I found it > surprisingly > appropriate to dispense with long distance measures. > I got this from reading contemporary Renaissance and > later travelogues - > like Chaucer, and the real life annals of (I think > it was) ibn Farouk. > > They almost NEVER say "we travelled 200 leagues" or > "the people say that the > next village is 10 miles away". They nearly always > use TIME. We travelled > for a week. The next village is a half-day's walk. > PARTICULARLY for people > who might never have left their home valley in their > entire lives. > One of my elementary teachers commented that, "city people tell you how far things are in time, country people tell you in miles." I don't know how valid that distinction is, but I have noticed that different groups use different styles. I don't know if this is an artefact of modern society. Here we mostly tell distances in time, because something that is 10 miles away in one direction is much farther away, time-wise, than one that is 10 miles away in another. Steve Steven D. Davies PerfectJob Software 312.560.4577 mobile From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 26 09:39:32 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Directions and Distances (was Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins) In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <609364.5945.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Styopa wrote: > Actually, as far as distance measures go, I found it > surprisingly > appropriate to dispense with long distance measures. > I got this from reading contemporary Renaissance and > later travelogues - > like Chaucer, and the real life annals of (I think > it was) ibn Farouk. > > They almost NEVER say "we travelled 200 leagues" or > "the people say that the > next village is 10 miles away". They nearly always > use TIME. We travelled > for a week. The next village is a half-day's walk. > PARTICULARLY for people > who might never have left their home valley in their > entire lives. > This was exactly may experience in East Timor. Locals would always measure distance by how long it would take to get there (it used to be by pony, but more commonly by care these days... not that there was much difference). Mind you, there were towns of Timor which were 65 kilometers apart, as the garuda flies, but took six hours travel to get to them. One other thing which could be incorporated is that the main Timorese language, Tetum, has no words for the cardinal directions. North was "tasi feto" (the woman's sea - to the north), South was "tasi mane" (the man's sea), East was "lorosa'e" (sunrise) and West was (iirc) "loromoron" (sunset). All the best, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun Aug 26 23:59:48 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:59:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book Message-ID: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070826/f1fafe31/attachment.html From stephenlposey at earthlink.net Mon Aug 27 00:27:21 2007 From: stephenlposey at earthlink.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:27:21 -0600 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Directions and Distances (was Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins) In-Reply-To: <609364.5945.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <609364.5945.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46D18DC9.7070903@earthlink.net> Lev Lafayette wrote: > --- Styopa wrote: > >> Actually, as far as distance measures go, I found it >> surprisingly >> appropriate to dispense with long distance measures. >> I got this from reading contemporary Renaissance and >> later travelogues - >> like Chaucer, and the real life annals of (I think >> it was) ibn Farouk. >> >> They almost NEVER say "we travelled 200 leagues" or >> "the people say that the >> next village is 10 miles away". They nearly always >> use TIME. We travelled >> for a week. The next village is a half-day's walk. >> PARTICULARLY for people >> who might never have left their home valley in their >> entire lives. >> > > This was exactly may experience in East Timor. Locals > would always measure distance by how long it would > take to get there (it used to be by pony, but more > commonly by care these days... not that there was much > difference). Mind you, there were towns of Timor which > were 65 kilometers apart, as the garuda flies, but > took six hours travel to get to them. > > One other thing which could be incorporated is that > the main Timorese language, Tetum, has no words for > the cardinal directions. North was "tasi feto" (the > woman's sea - to the north), South was "tasi mane" > (the man's sea), East was "lorosa'e" (sunrise) and > West was (iirc) "loromoron" (sunset). Interesting, reminds me of growing up in New Orleans. The city is not really laid out in any sort of predictable NSEW grid. The major older portion is more like a wagonwheel, paralleling a big curve of the Mississippi river. People tended to talk about direction in terms of relationships to bodies of water: the river and Lake Ponchartrain. So when someone gave directions it wasn't "Go South on Canal Street" it was "Take Canal Street towards the River". Stephen Posey stephenlposey at earthlink.net From shaw at caprica.com Mon Aug 27 03:25:55 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:25:55 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070826102447.033f24e0@caprica.com> At 06:59 AM 8/26/2007, you wrote: >A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can >copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, >whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping >out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download >for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which >basically IS the BRP system ) ? > >Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him >copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm >just curious. There isn't much, honestly. You might have to change some phrasiology, but that's likely about it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070826/45ad6a19/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Mon Aug 27 03:49:43 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:49:43 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com > References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> >Seriously, try it. It's disorienting for modern players to stop >thinking of their world as if from "map view" or satellite >cartographic view, but instead as really a topology of lines of >travel. "To get to Wilmskirk? Well, from Clearwine you can go >downriver for about 4 days, and then head east on the high >road. After about three days you'd pass through Famegrave (the >peach vendor there will rob you blind!) and another three or four >day's rough road to Wilmskirk. Or you could try going upriver - >with a good boat and fair winds you might make it in five or six >days." It also makes the idea of cutting 'across country' seem that >more dangerous and crazy. It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good purpose it really serves. From styopa1 at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 09:59:18 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:59:18 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> > > It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture > relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble > consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good > purpose it really serves. Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close as possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. Another reason that I personally DON'T like to give my players "beautiful gamemaps" of the area they're in - despite them being a staple of most adventuring campaigns - it's just entirely incorrect for people to HAVE a 'perfect' knowledge of locations and proportions. YGMV of course, but it's the geographical equivalent to handing your players a list of the stats of every person in town. Sure, there are relationships and relative values that they will figure out over time, but isn't it more valuable as a ref to have that knowledge earned through events and experience? As the first rule of fiction: show, don't simply tell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070826/99d25cf5/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Mon Aug 27 14:54:58 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 21:54:58 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46D25922.2060101@gmail.com> I only give characters maps if they have purchased one, actually mapped an area & the maps are based on the geography skill. Sven Styopa wrote: > > It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture > relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble > consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good > purpose it really serves. > > > Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close as > possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. > Another reason that I personally DON'T like to give my players > "beautiful gamemaps" of the area they're in - despite them being a > staple of most adventuring campaigns - it's just entirely incorrect > for people to HAVE a 'perfect' knowledge of locations and > proportions. YGMV of course, but it's the geographical equivalent to > handing your players a list of the stats of every person in town. > Sure, there are relationships and relative values that they will > figure out over time, but isn't it more valuable as a ref to have that > knowledge earned through events and experience? As the first rule of > fiction: show, don't simply tell. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070826/a82fd4ab/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Aug 27 17:31:17 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:31:17 +0200 (SAST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <23417.196.8.104.37.1188199877.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close as > possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. > Another reason that I personally DON'T like to give my players "beautiful > gamemaps" of the area they're in - despite them being a staple of most > adventuring campaigns - it's just entirely incorrect for people to HAVE a > 'perfect' knowledge of locations and proportions. YGMV of course, but > it's > the geographical equivalent to handing your players a list of the stats of > every person in town. Sure, there are relationships and relative values > that they will figure out over time, but isn't it more valuable as a ref > to > have that knowledge earned through events and experience? As the first > rule > of fiction: show, don't simply tell. > Good point. My game maps vary from slightly sucky to very sucky. In my one campaign, at present most of the party hails from that territory, so the map reflects slightly more detail regarding landmarks etc, but is still vague enough to overlook some pretty major items. Another campaign the lads are leading a cohort of 95% foreign troops. The other 55 will every now and then have a dab of local knowledge, but it will be very area specific. The map reflects this in being pretty much a blank page with the off major town, river and mountain range marked, otherwise its a blank. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Aug 27 17:52:31 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:52:31 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Saturdays session Message-ID: <41848.196.8.104.37.1188201151.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Finally managed to have another session with my group on Saturday. (Amazing how as time goes bu and people start having kids etc how the old role play time slips from once a week, to once a month, to onece a quarter or worse!). Anyway, have to tell you this. The lads are doing a bit of underground delving. They come across a band of orc miners. Now the miners are stripped to the waste, only really have leather loingcloths/trousers on and pretty much arm themselves with whatever comes to hand - which in this case was wooden clubs (more recently mining timber). So the one character parries an orcs miss with a critical parry and manages to break the orcs club, but then misses his attack. Next round the orc, no to be outdone lets fly with a headbut, rolls a 01. Charcater decides to dodge but fails and takes 8 points to head, armmour ignored. Hadd a good laugh, you can just imaging the orc looks at broken club, briefly puzzled, then just shrugs and --- Bok, one times near dead character. (Actually would have died had it not been for some last minute first aid). Tony From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 28 04:31:20 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:31:20 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827112959.033caba0@caprica.com> At 04:59 PM 8/26/2007, you wrote: >It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture >relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble >consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good >purpose it really serves. > > >Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close >as possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. Except I don't think it does do that; it destroys there ability to do so without replacing it. Its not like people in ancient times couldn't assess how far down the road something was in a meaningful way, but if you use a unit the players can't wrap their head around, you might as well describe it as "off a ways." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070827/dda4beca/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Aug 28 09:13:18 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:13:18 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827112959.033caba0@caprica.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070827112959.033caba0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <46D35A8E.7060604@inetnebr.com> Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 04:59 PM 8/26/2007, you wrote: >> >> It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture >> relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble >> consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good >> purpose it really serves. >> >> >> Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close as >> possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. > > Except I don't think it does do that; it destroys there ability to do > so without replacing it. Its not like people in ancient times > couldn't assess how far down the road something was in a meaningful > way, but if you use a unit the players can't wrap their head around, > you might as well describe it as "off a ways." > > There is always a conflict betwix what the players can do and what the character can do.. and one of those may be unit systems... just like language the characters arent speaking modern english in any form.. however To me unit systems are purely flavor and if the player needs a translation they will get get one. Just like if I describe a beast and they ask is this the same kind we met earlier on such and such encounter? I will clarify their understanding "Well it could be but it has a lot more horns and a lot more hair" etc,. Something simple like strides or days of travel is a case where I say Pish Posh Wayne your players arent morons give them flavor. Ofcourse you might be describing time to travel in gwoknurenian moons vers kalithenti moons...then that invokes a question like is the gwoknurenian moon the one with double cycles of 20 days or the big one. I err on the side of re-informing rather than making game play be as bland as posible ... just in case somebody cant figure it out. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 28 09:17:50 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:17:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826102447.033f24e0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <001501c7e900$7e0e80e0$45688456@sickboy> Have to say that seems a bit harsh, that particular set of rules is pretty much synonomous with Sandy Peterson, it would be a bit unfair if anybody could blag them off and sell them without showing Mr Peterson the colour of their money. Ah well, life isn't fair I suppose. Cheers, Clive -- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Shaw To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book At 06:59 AM 8/26/2007, you wrote: A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. There isn't much, honestly. You might have to change some phrasiology, but that's likely about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070828/490418a9/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Aug 28 09:21:49 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:21:49 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001501c7e900$7e0e80e0$45688456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826102447.033f24e0@caprica.com> <001501c7e900$7e0e80e0$45688456@sickboy> Message-ID: <1188256909.ec841a8a0af60@webmail7.leeds.ac.uk> Legalities aside, you'd have to be a bit dumb to buy it given it's freely available. Stuff like this always pops up on ebay ('CD contains 500 RUNEQUEST CULTS!!!' - yeah, 500 cults downloaded off of 500 sites) so, legal or otherwise, one would imagine it would lack popularity and be sold only to chumps - so perhaps nothing to get too concerned about. I'm not accountant but my guess would be that in this hobby, if you were interested enough to want it, you'd be interested enough to know where to get it free. Nikk > Have to say that seems a bit harsh, that particular set of rules is pretty > much synonomous with Sandy Peterson, it would be a bit unfair if anybody > could blag them off and sell them without showing Mr Peterson the colour of > their money. Ah well, life isn't fair I suppose. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > -- Original Message ----- > From: Wayne Shaw > To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > At 06:59 AM 8/26/2007, you wrote: > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright > a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop > someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan > references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part > of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him > copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just > curious. > > There isn't much, honestly. You might have to change some phrasiology, > but that's likely about it. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 28 10:20:27 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:20:27 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <46D35A8E.7060604@inetnebr.com> References: <082520071856.2040.46D07B7B0005BBCA000007F82215593414CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070825121843.033e6ea0@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708251304ma050d7cr64692d3f8563bf91@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826104851.033e5718@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0708261659u5bae8047m78b21438c7f4d5@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070827112959.033caba0@caprica.com> <46D35A8E.7060604@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827171817.033cb1a8@caprica.com> At 04:13 PM 8/27/2007, you wrote: >Wayne Shaw wrote: >>At 04:59 PM 8/26/2007, you wrote: >>> >>> It also makes it almost impossible for many people to picture >>> relationships properly at any distance. If that's a desireble >>> consequence that's fine, but other than that, I'm not sure what good >>> purpose it really serves. >>> >>> >>>Which would be precisely the point? Getting your players as close >>>as possible to an authentic 'worldview' IMO is its own reward. >> >>Except I don't think it does do that; it destroys there ability to >>do so without replacing it. Its not like people in ancient times >>couldn't assess how far down the road something was in a meaningful >>way, but if you use a unit the players can't wrap their head >>around, you might as well describe it as "off a ways." >> >There is always a conflict betwix what the players can do and what >the character can do.. and one of those may be unit systems... >just like language the characters arent speaking modern english in >any form.. however To me unit systems are purely flavor and if the >player needs a translation they will get get one. Just like if I >describe a beast and they ask is this the same kind we met earlier >on such and such encounter? I will clarify their understanding "Well >it could be but it has a lot more horns and a lot more hair" etc,. At which point it seems little but forcing extra communication overhead as an attempt to impose atmosphere. Whatever. >Something simple like strides or days of travel is a case where I >say Pish Posh Wayne your players arent morons give them flavor. Nor do they need me to make their life harder in the name of color. >I err on the side of re-informing rather than making game play be as >bland as posible ... just in case somebody cant figure it out. And as I said, I don't see a small increase in color being worth a large decrease in clarity. From shaw at caprica.com Tue Aug 28 10:21:43 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:21:43 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001501c7e900$7e0e80e0$45688456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070826102447.033f24e0@caprica.com> <001501c7e900$7e0e80e0$45688456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827172048.033e8988@caprica.com> At 04:17 PM 8/27/2007, you wrote: >Have to say that seems a bit harsh, that particular set of rules is >pretty much synonomous with Sandy Peterson, it would be a bit unfair >if anybody could blag them off and sell them without showing Mr >Peterson the colour of their money. Ah well, life isn't fair I suppose. Copyright isn't about information; its about expression. The only way to copyright information (and there's good argument this is often a bad thing as its developed) is with patent law. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070827/54442ac8/attachment.html From mechashef at emailme.net.au Tue Aug 28 12:23:50 2007 From: mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:23:50 +1000 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827171817.033cb1a8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <20070828022353.0C61C2302F5@m0.velocity.net.au> In my campaign I started using km to describe travel distances, but the characters always wanted to know how long it would take to get there. These days I usually describe travelling distance in days. For shorter distance I will use half day and even quarter day (known simply as a quarter). I do use an hour, but and sometimes two hours, but anything longer than that blends in with quarter day. For much shorter distances I use spear throw and bow shot, reasoning that most people who are proficient with their weapons (my campaign is mainly set on a frontier) are quite familiar with the ranges of their weapons, even if they don't know exactly how many metres that is. I use a spear throw to be about 50m, with a bow shot being about 200m. So two villages might be 3 and a half days away. The farm is about two bow shots down the road from the inn. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 29 00:54:50 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] The Red Moon! Message-ID: <123329.54478.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought of Lunars and RuneQuest during tonight's lunar eclipse... http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/images/astronomy/Moon_eclipse_2345-15_Rod_So.jpg ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 29 03:35:56 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:35:56 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Conversions and origins In-Reply-To: <20070828022353.0C61C2302F5@m0.velocity.net.au> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070827171817.033cb1a8@caprica.com> <20070828022353.0C61C2302F5@m0.velocity.net.au> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828103452.03441a58@caprica.com> At 07:23 PM 8/27/2007, you wrote: >In my campaign I started using km to describe travel distances, but the >characters always wanted to know how long it would take to get there. Well, keep in mind I'm mostly objecting to it for more short range units; its pretty harmless to describe distances in travel time in most versions of RQ, as there are usually a limited number of travel methods that are liable to vary that significantly. From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 04:10:50 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:10:50 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> Message-ID: According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't consider it ethical. A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think would be the first to scream to high heaven? Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! ->Peter On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright > a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop > someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the > Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP > system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) > ? > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright > dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070828/03533b75/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 29 05:06:59 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:06:59 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> Message-ID: <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Pete: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't consider it ethical. A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think would be the first to scream to high heaven? Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! ->Peter On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. Cheers, Clive _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070828/b426daef/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 05:20:08 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0708281220n32504a1bwb9b73d2d4b843d49@mail.gmail.com> On 8/28/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game > world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > I would, because I'd know that it would presage the interminable grinding of someone's "I hate everything about Greg Stafford" axe again...and again...and again. But perhaps that's just me? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070828/ffa3c3f6/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 05:24:07 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:24:07 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0708281220n32504a1bwb9b73d2d4b843d49@mail.gmail.com> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <56e64e7a0708281220n32504a1bwb9b73d2d4b843d49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe I should start a club, if the axe is starting to wear out. :D On 8/28/07, Styopa wrote: > > On 8/28/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game > > world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > > > > I would, because I'd know that it would presage the interminable grinding > of someone's "I hate everything about Greg Stafford" axe again...and > again...and again. > > But perhaps that's just me? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070828/9c5c51c1/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 05:28:00 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Message-ID: Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that would be you. :D ->Peter On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > Pete: > > http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ > > Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of > BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually > bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic > beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. > > I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't > consider it ethical. > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game > world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > > Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D > > What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! > > ->Peter > > On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can > > copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats > > to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all > > the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP > > system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) > > ? > > > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him > > copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just > > curious. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Clive > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070828/af325b84/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 29 05:58:13 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:58:13 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828125411.033ca3d8@caprica.com> At 12:28 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: >Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's >astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have >ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! As I said earlier, systems are not copyrightable. That's true of _any_ sort of system. You saw that with D&D knockoffs for _years_. If someone copies your game system, you have, potentially, two options: 1. Go after them on trade dilution grounds if they haven't worked hard enough at it; 2. Fake the above and take them to court anyway, and hope they'll bail. That's just the way it works. In fact its the way its _supposed_ to work. Copyright is there to reward creation of a _product_, not any underlaying system within the product. To the degree anything does that, its patent law (and there's good arguments that modern patent law, which recognizes patents on things like algorithms in some cases is Not A Good Thing). From grogthing at yahoo.com Wed Aug 29 06:57:29 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT [Patents, Copyright,s Etc] In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828125411.033ca3d8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <70883.10745.qm@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Luckily, man in his greedy attempt to make everything "sell-able" and "for profit" did not think of patents and copyrights too early in our history, or we would all still be slaves owned by the first person to strike flint and create fire or to make a wheel. Evolution depends on creativity, and communal sharing of knowledge for mutual improvement. The natural flow is: person thinks of idea, creating knowledge...its his knowledge....but once he shares it...by speech, writing or example...the recipients also become owners of knowledge....once knowledge is in your head....it is your knowledge and to do with as you please. Knowledge is not property, because ownership can not be transferred. One person giving another knowledge does not himself lose the knowledge. Sharing knowledge is therefore not a transfer of property but, it is a service provided. One can and should be paid for the service they provide in transferring knowledge to another (ie.. paid for the service of writing a book, public speaking, etc). But probably should not be paid over and over again for work done once. All just my opinion of course, and very far out from todays "every things for sale" attitude. Patents and copyrights are ways to artificially create a monopoly on knowledge, that does not exist naturally. Greg --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 12:28 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: > >Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, > and so far it's > >astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm > starting to have > >ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! > > As I said earlier, systems are not copyrightable. > That's true of > _any_ sort of system. You saw that with D&D > knockoffs for > _years_. If someone copies your game system, you > have, potentially, > two options: > > 1. Go after them on trade dilution grounds if they > haven't worked > hard enough at it; > 2. Fake the above and take them to court anyway, and > hope they'll bail. > > That's just the way it works. In fact its the way > its _supposed_ to > work. Copyright is there to reward creation of a > _product_, not any > underlaying system within the product. To the > degree anything does > that, its patent law (and there's good arguments > that modern patent > law, which recognizes patents on things like > algorithms in some cases > is Not A Good Thing). > > _______________________________________________ > 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 clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 29 10:35:48 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:35:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Message-ID: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Pete, now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: "So, OSRICT, GORET, and Labyrinth LordT serve as trademarks for which express permission has been given by the trademark owners for use by third-party publishers (if they follow certain criteria, which are a little different for each license)." Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given by trademark owners, so in relation to GORE is that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? Curiouser and curiouser said Alice Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that would be you. :D ->Peter On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: Pete: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't consider it ethical. A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think would be the first to scream to high heaven? Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! ->Peter On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. Cheers, Clive _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070829/4249f2a1/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 29 12:10:36 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:10:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828190942.033d5b88@caprica.com> At 05:35 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: >Pete, > >now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: > >"So, OSRIC?, GORE?, and Labyrinth Lord? serve as >trademarks for which express permission has been >given by the trademark owners for use by >third-party publishers (if they follow certain >criteria, which are a little different for each license)." > >Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given >by trademark owners, so in relation to GORE is >that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the >trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention >RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? They're talking about third parties producing material _for_ GORE, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord under the license. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070828/8612d167/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 29 16:19:51 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:19:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy><001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070828190942.033d5b88@caprica.com> Message-ID: <001001c7ea04$9d8534f0$b1ea8c56@sickboy> Ah right ! that'll be me miscomprehending the text then. Whoops . ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Shaw To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book At 05:35 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: Pete, now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: "So, OSRICT, GORET, and Labyrinth LordT serve as trademarks for which express permission has been given by the trademark owners for use by third-party publishers (if they follow certain criteria, which are a little different for each license)." Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given by trademark owners, so in relation to GORE is that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? They're talking about third parties producing material _for_ GORE, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord under the license. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20070829/91f0f9da/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 29 17:09:30 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:09:30 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQII] Clones In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Message-ID: <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's > astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical > qualms. What a confusing situation! > > Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It > doesn't > credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all > authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that > would > be you. :D > This puts me in mind of another game system I read aout in one of my ancient dragon mags. Never seen it but heard it was very RuneQuesty. Element Masters. Anyone know/play that game. Was it a clone? Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 29 17:11:41 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:11:41 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [OT] Legalities & Copywrites In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828125411.033ca3d8@caprica.com> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070828125411.033ca3d8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <29763.196.8.104.31.1188371501.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > As I said earlier, systems are not copyrightable. That's true of > _any_ sort of system. You saw that with D&D knockoffs for > _years_. If someone copies your game system, you have, potentially, > two options: > > 1. Go after them on trade dilution grounds if they haven't worked > hard enough at it; > 2. Fake the above and take them to court anyway, and hope they'll bail. > > That's just the way it works. In fact its the way its _supposed_ to > work. Copyright is there to reward creation of a _product_, not any > underlaying system within the product. To the degree anything does > that, its patent law (and there's good arguments that modern patent > law, which recognizes patents on things like algorithms in some cases > is Not A Good Thing). Agreed. If these type of things were copywrited, i am sure Tolkein enterprises would have taken exception to every game/book who used the word orc by now:) From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Aug 29 17:24:55 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:24:55 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] OT [Patents, Copyright,s Etc] In-Reply-To: <70883.10745.qm@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828125411.033ca3d8@caprica.com> <70883.10745.qm@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64957.196.8.104.31.1188372295.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Greg wrote: > One person giving another knowledge does not himself > lose the knowledge. > > Sharing knowledge is therefore not a transfer of > property but, it is a service provided. > > One can and should be paid for the service they > provide in transferring knowledge to another (ie.. > paid for the service of writing a book, public > speaking, etc). But probably should not be paid over > and over again for work done once. > -snip- Kinda why Alfred The Great was the only English (Saxon) monarc to be called The Great. Because he saqw knowledge was power and set about handing out books etc to others so that they could learn to read and write and thereby verskaf knowledge further to their firends etc. Tony From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 29 17:46:18 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] [OT] Legalities & Copywrites In-Reply-To: <29763.196.8.104.31.1188371501.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <345889.43093.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > As I said earlier, systems are not copyrightable. > That's true of > > _any_ sort of system. You saw that with D&D > knockoffs for > > _years_. If someone copies your game system, you > have, potentially, > > two options: > > > > 1. Go after them on trade dilution grounds if they > haven't worked > > hard enough at it; > > 2. Fake the above and take them to court anyway, > and hope they'll bail. > > > > That's just the way it works. In fact its the way > its _supposed_ to > > work. Copyright is there to reward creation of a > _product_, not any > > underlaying system within the product. To the > degree anything does > > that, its patent law (and there's good arguments > that modern patent > > law, which recognizes patents on things like > algorithms in some cases > > is Not A Good Thing). > > Agreed. If these type of things were copywrited, i > am sure Tolkein > enterprises would have taken exception to every > game/book who used the > word orc by now:) Er, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc#Old_English_influence Tolkien Enterprises does take exception to anyone who uses the word "Hobbit" however. Regards, Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 29 12:10:36 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:10:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828190942.033d5b88@caprica.com> At 05:35 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: >Pete, > >now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: > >"So, OSRIC?, GORE?, and Labyrinth Lord? serve as >trademarks for which express permission has been >given by the trademark owners for use by >third-party publishers (if they follow certain >criteria, which are a little different for each license)." > >Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given >by trademark owners, so in relation to GORE is >that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the >trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention >RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? They're talking about third parties producing material _for_ GORE, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord under the license. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070828/8612d167/attachment-0001.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Aug 29 12:10:36 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:10:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070828190942.033d5b88@caprica.com> At 05:35 PM 8/28/2007, you wrote: >Pete, > >now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: > >"So, OSRIC?, GORE?, and Labyrinth Lord? serve as >trademarks for which express permission has been >given by the trademark owners for use by >third-party publishers (if they follow certain >criteria, which are a little different for each license)." > >Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given >by trademark owners, so in relation to GORE is >that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the >trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention >RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? They're talking about third parties producing material _for_ GORE, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord under the license. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070828/8612d167/attachment-0002.html From mason.bruce at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 00:28:22 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:28:22 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Message-ID: <5f3990080708290728n7c47162cyda8b78e3942025e4@mail.gmail.com> As I understand it, GORE has used the MRQ OGL to produce its rule set. What is has then done is to retroengineer the MRQ SRD (acronym city, I realise) to produce something that looks like RQ2. It is not, however, "derived from" RQ. There was some controversy of the use of the resistance table but basically what they have done with the MRQ SRD is to rebuild a "traditional" game in the same way that some people have built systems that look like 1970s D&D out of the D20 SRD. They probably can't legally credit any of the designers of RQ1-3 because that would imply that they wrote the SRD that Mongoose have produced for their version of RQ. On 29/08/2007, Clive Wickens wrote: > > Pete, > > now interestingly if you look at the GORE site it has this to say: > > "So, OSRIC?, GORE?, and Labyrinth Lord? serve as trademarks for which > express permission has been given by the trademark owners for use by > third-party publishers (if they follow certain criteria, which are a little > different for each license)." > > Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given by trademark owners, so in > relation to GORE is that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the trademark to RQ. > Or ( since they don't mention RQ anywhere ) would that be Chaosium ? > > Curiouser and curiouser said Alice > > Cheers, > > Clive > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's > astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical > qualms. What a confusing situation! > > Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It > doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to > "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that > would be you. :D > > ->Peter > > On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > Pete: > > > > http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ > > > > Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of > > BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually > > bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic > > beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Clive > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Peter Maranci > > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > > > > According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. > > > > I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't > > consider it ethical. > > > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game > > world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > > > > Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D > > > > What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can > > > copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats > > > to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all > > > the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP > > > system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) > > > ? > > > > > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him > > > copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just > > > curious. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Clive > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070829/f644db49/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Aug 30 00:38:25 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:38:25 +0200 Subject: [OT] GORE (was: re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book) In-Reply-To: <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> Message-ID: <46D584E1.6080000@brinkdata.se> Clive Wickens skrev: > > "So, OSRICT, GORET, and Labyrinth LordT serve as trademarks for which > express permission has been given by the trademark owners for use > by third-party publishers (if they follow certain criteria, which are a > little different for each license)." > > Here it says EXPRESS PERMISSION has been given by trademark owners, > so in relation to GORE is that Greg Stafford who has snaggled the > trademark to RQ. Or ( since they don't mention RQ anywhere ) would > that be Chaosium ? > > Curiouser and curiouser said Alice > It's acctually Issaries INC. that owns the trademark RuneQuest. Issaries picked it up just ahead of Chaosium after Avalon Hill (owned by Hasbro, who also owns WotC) had let the tradmark registration lapse. GORE is made available under the Open Game License (OGL) and the game is based on the MRQ SRD. The GORE License gives third-party users the right to use the trademarks GORE, OSTRIC and Labyrinth Lord. That permission makes no sense unless you are aware of that the OGL contains a clause that deny third-party users the right to refer to or use _any_ trademark, even if the trademark is completely unrelated to gaming. Issaries or Chaosium are not involved in any way, GORE, OSTRIC and Labyrinth Lord are trademarks owned by a guy named Daniel Proctor and it's he who allows other people to use his trademarks. /Peter Brink From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 00:53:58 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQII] Clones In-Reply-To: <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708290753k54108b2br548249ecc2240b6c@mail.gmail.com> Close. A writeup on the game is at http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3145.html And the current official site for the game publishers is at http://gatewar.com/ Gotta love Google! On 8/29/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > > This puts me in mind of another game system I read aout in one of my > ancient dragon mags. Never seen it but heard it was very RuneQuesty. > Element Masters. Anyone know/play that game. Was it a clone? > Tony > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070829/6d67a38c/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 00:56:20 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQII] Clones In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708290753k54108b2br548249ecc2240b6c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <1c92296e0708290753k54108b2br548249ecc2240b6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708290756s63bb7380keef72366569b88fa@mail.gmail.com> Actually, the earlier game "Element Masters" may have been closer to RQ. The current Gatewars game sounds much closer to AD&D. On 8/29/07, David Smart wrote: > > Close. A writeup on the game is at > http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3145.html > > And the current official site for the game publishers is at > http://gatewar.com/ > > Gotta love Google! > > On 8/29/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org > wrote: > > > > > > This puts me in mind of another game system I read aout in one of my > > ancient dragon mags. Never seen it but heard it was very RuneQuesty. > > Element Masters. Anyone know/play that game. Was it a clone? > > Tony > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070829/451eb5a2/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 30 01:06:17 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:06:17 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [RQII] Clones In-Reply-To: <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <25403.196.8.104.31.1188371370.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070829080525.03421c98@caprica.com> At 12:09 AM 8/29/2007, you wrote: > > Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's > > astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical > > qualms. What a confusing situation! > > > > Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It > > doesn't > > credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all > > authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that > > would > > be you. :D > > >This puts me in mind of another game system I read aout in one of my >ancient dragon mags. Never seen it but heard it was very RuneQuesty. >Element Masters. Anyone know/play that game. Was it a clone? I own a copy, since it came out back during the days when I was a compulsive game buyer. It was certainly very RQ-ish, including many spell descriptions. From shaw at caprica.com Thu Aug 30 01:08:18 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:08:18 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book In-Reply-To: <5f3990080708290728n7c47162cyda8b78e3942025e4@mail.gmail.co m> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <001001c7e9d4$8bf31250$d4668456@sickboy> <5f3990080708290728n7c47162cyda8b78e3942025e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070829080738.03440a68@caprica.com> At 07:28 AM 8/29/2007, you wrote: >As I understand it, GORE has used the MRQ OGL to produce its rule >set. What is has then done is to retroengineer the MRQ SRD (acronym >city, I realise) to produce something that looks like RQ2. It is >not, however, "derived from" RQ. There was some controversy of the >use of the resistance table but basically what they have done with >the MRQ SRD is to rebuild a "traditional" game in the same way that >some people have built systems that look like 1970s D&D out of the D20 SRD. In fact, that's OSRIC, which is handled by the same people. >They probably can't legally credit any of the designers of RQ1-3 >because that would imply that they wrote the SRD that Mongoose have >produced for their version of RQ. Yeah. Ironically, they're legal protections don't _allow_ them to give any credit. From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 04:33:20 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:33:20 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] [OT] Legalities & Copywrites In-Reply-To: <345889.43093.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <345889.43093.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46D5BBF0.1020509@gmail.com> orc is an Old & Middle English word that was in common use as opposed to hobbit which he pretty much coined. That's probably the difference in copyrighting things. Ent, Wight, & Barrow-wight were also common Old English words. Sven Lev Lafayette wrote: > --- postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > ...snip... >> Agreed. If these type of things were copywrited, i >> am sure Tolkein >> enterprises would have taken exception to every >> game/book who used the >> word orc by now:) >> > > Er, no. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc#Old_English_influence > > Tolkien Enterprises does take exception to anyone who > uses the word "Hobbit" however. > > Regards, > > > Lev > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070829/b480b6e4/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 30 09:54:45 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:54:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> Message-ID: <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> Pete, You realise what this means don't you ? Yet another entry on your history of Runequest article. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that would be you. :D ->Peter On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: Pete: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't consider it ethical. A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think would be the first to scream to high heaven? Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! ->Peter On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. Cheers, Clive _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070830/0c750607/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 16:34:34 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book Message-ID: <44541.30873.qm@web51005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Bruce Mason: > They probably can't legally credit any of the designers of RQ1-3 because > that would imply that they wrote the SRD that Mongoose have produced for > their version of RQ. Which, of course, they didn't. The SRD may have been based on principles written for RQ2 and RQ3, but the authors of those products were not involved in RQM's SRD, with the possible exception of Steve Perrin whose magic rules were never used. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070829/24a2b1e7/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Aug 30 17:30:53 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:30:53 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] [OT] Legalities & Copywrites In-Reply-To: <345889.43093.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <29763.196.8.104.31.1188371501.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <345889.43093.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51804.196.8.104.37.1188459053.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Er, no. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc#Old_English_influence > > Tolkien Enterprises does take exception to anyone who > uses the word "Hobbit" however. > Interesting, I was always led to believe that Tolkein invented the word. But yes, the point is as well illustrated with the word Hobbit? as you said. Tony From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 04:07:02 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:07:02 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc In-Reply-To: <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> Message-ID: That thought had crossed my mind. But I need to do some serious thinking first. First off, I'm not sure about the ethics of it - is it stealing? And I need more information, too: is GORE taken from the OGL Mongoose RuneQuest, or is it an emulation of RQ3? As far as I can tell there isn't a relationship between Goblinoid (publishers of GORE), Mongoose, and Chaosium. Does anyone here have any more information on that? Maybe I should write to Goblinoid and ask them. ->Peter On 8/29/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > Pete, > > You realise what this means don't you ? Yet another entry on your history > of Runequest article. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's > astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical > qualms. What a confusing situation! > > Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It > doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to > "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that > would be you. :D > > ->Peter > > On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > Pete: > > > > http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ > > > > Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of > > BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually > > bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic > > beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Clive > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Peter Maranci > > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > > > > According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. > > > > I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't > > consider it ethical. > > > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game > > world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > > > > Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D > > > > What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can > > > copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats > > > to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all > > > the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP > > > system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP > > > system ) ? > > > > > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him > > > copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just > > > curious. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Clive > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070830/1632fdbe/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 31 04:43:16 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:43:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070830114132.033f9140@caprica.com> At 11:07 AM 8/30/2007, you wrote: >That thought had crossed my mind. > >But I need to do some serious thinking first. First off, I'm not >sure about the ethics of it - is it stealing? And I need more >information, too: is GORE taken from the OGL Mongoose RuneQuest, or >is it an emulation of RQ3? As far as I can tell there isn't a >relationship between Goblinoid (publishers of GORE), Mongoose, and >Chaosium. Does anyone here have any more information on that? To the best of my understanding, its essentially retroengineering the Mongoose OGL into something closer to RQ3. As to stealing--how can that be answered except personally? It turns entirely on whether you view people as "owning" a system. If you do it is; if you don't it isn't. Neither I nor the law consider it to be, but that doesn't require you to agree. From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 07:22:04 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:22:04 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc In-Reply-To: References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> Message-ID: <1c92296e0708301422w6810f6c9j1418b6bcf59cc281@mail.gmail.com> Actually, after scanning through the entire PDF, I'd say it's pretty darn close to Cthulhu Rising and Call of Cthulhu, 5th edition. The art work is definitely Cthulhu. On 8/30/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > That thought had crossed my mind. > > But I need to do some serious thinking first. First off, I'm not sure > about the ethics of it - is it stealing? And I need more information, too: > is GORE taken from the OGL Mongoose RuneQuest, or is it an emulation of RQ3? > As far as I can tell there isn't a relationship between Goblinoid > (publishers of GORE), Mongoose, and Chaosium. Does anyone here have any more > information on that? > > Maybe I should write to Goblinoid and ask them. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070830/d7fd44bf/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Fri Aug 31 07:44:13 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:44:13 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0708301422w6810f6c9j1418b6bcf59cc281@mail.gmail.co m> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> <1c92296e0708301422w6810f6c9j1418b6bcf59cc281@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070830144337.011302f8@caprica.com> At 02:22 PM 8/30/2007, you wrote: >Actually, after scanning through the entire PDF, I'd say it's pretty >darn close to Cthulhu Rising and Call of Cthulhu, 5th edition. The >art work is definitely Cthulhu. Ah. Given the title and apparent orientation toward horror games, I should have expected that, but some things I'd read made me think it was more oriented toward RQ. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 31 08:28:05 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:28:05 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy><002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy><1c92296e0708301422w6810f6c9j1418b6bcf59cc281@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070830144337.011302f8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <001201c7eb55$0a7f4950$67638a56@sickboy> Wayne, The scenario book they have out 'The Whispering Wood' is a pretty straightforward heroic fantasy style supplement. It's got your actual wood spirits, brockmen ( sort of badgermen like creatures ), slimes ( very thinly disguised gorp ) an underground temple complex and a cult, God of madness type thing, I bought a copy via Lulu.com out of curiousity, it's ok for the price but nothing stunning. Cheers Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc > At 02:22 PM 8/30/2007, you wrote: >>Actually, after scanning through the entire PDF, I'd say it's pretty darn >>close to Cthulhu Rising and Call of Cthulhu, 5th edition. The art work is >>definitely Cthulhu. > > Ah. Given the title and apparent orientation toward horror games, I > should have expected that, but some things I'd read made me think it was > more oriented toward RQ. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 31 08:33:50 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:33:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy><001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy><002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> Message-ID: <002301c7eb55$d6b2fb70$67638a56@sickboy> Pete, Does ethics really come into it ? if you're writing a history of RQ then it is still part of that history, whether or not we approve or not isn't really relevent. I don't mean that nastily but a good history educates the reader, it presents them the facts and allows them to draw their own value judgments. I really like your history of RQ and the GORE system is basically RQ for all intents and purposes so I think you should include it.. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc That thought had crossed my mind. But I need to do some serious thinking first. First off, I'm not sure about the ethics of it - is it stealing? And I need more information, too: is GORE taken from the OGL Mongoose RuneQuest, or is it an emulation of RQ3? As far as I can tell there isn't a relationship between Goblinoid (publishers of GORE), Mongoose, and Chaosium. Does anyone here have any more information on that? Maybe I should write to Goblinoid and ask them. ->Peter On 8/29/07, Clive Wickens wrote: Pete, You realise what this means don't you ? Yet another entry on your history of Runequest article. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical qualms. What a confusing situation! Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that would be you. :D ->Peter On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: Pete: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version of BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Maranci To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't consider it ethical. A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think would be the first to scream to high heaven? Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! ->Peter On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the BRP system ) ? Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just curious. Cheers, Clive _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070830/1b97462b/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 09:05:23 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:05:23 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc In-Reply-To: <002301c7eb55$d6b2fb70$67638a56@sickboy> References: <000601c7e7e9$5f51a190$bb638a56@sickboy> <001001c7e9a6$9d717590$f8409756@sickboy> <002301c7ea97$fb417200$fabb8956@sickboy> <002301c7eb55$d6b2fb70$67638a56@sickboy> Message-ID: Clive, you're absolutely right. I'll have to add a section. I think my concern was more that if I add GORE to the article, I assumed I'd add a link as well - and that would effectively endorse GORE. Not that it would necessarily be a huge boost for Goblinoid Games, but realistically I know that my site is well-ranked in Google. A link from it would boost the standing of the linked-to site, from what I've heard about the Google algorithm. ->Peter On 8/30/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > Pete, > > Does ethics really come into it ? if you're writing a history of RQ then > it is still part of that history, whether or not we approve or not isn't > really relevent. I don't mean that nastily but a good history educates the > reader, it presents them the facts and allows them to draw their own value > judgments. I really like your history of RQ and the GORE system is basically > RQ for all intents and purposes so I think you should include it.. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Maranci > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:07 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] FAO Pete Maranci re: GORE rules etc etc > > That thought had crossed my mind. > > But I need to do some serious thinking first. First off, I'm not sure > about the ethics of it - is it stealing? And I need more information, too: > is GORE taken from the OGL Mongoose RuneQuest, or is it an emulation of RQ3? > As far as I can tell there isn't a relationship between Goblinoid > (publishers of GORE), Mongoose, and Chaosium. Does anyone here have any more > information on that? > > Maybe I should write to Goblinoid and ask them. > > ->Peter > > On 8/29/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > Pete, > > > > You realise what this means don't you ? Yet another entry on your > > history of Runequest article. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Clive > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > *From:* Peter Maranci > > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:28 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > > > > Thanks for the link, Clive - I just checked it out, and so far it's > > astonishingly close to RQ. So much so that I'm starting to have ethical > > qualms. What a confusing situation! > > > > Steve Perrin, I assume you're not associated with it in any way? It > > doesn't credit you by name, although it does have a generic thank-you to > > "all authors of late 1970s and early 1980s game systems". I'm guessing that > > would be you. :D > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 8/28/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > > > Pete: > > > > > > http://www.goblinoidgames.com/ > > > > > > Click on the GORE button at left, it's basically a no frills version > > > of BRP and it stands for: Generic Old school Roleplaying Engine. I actually > > > bought the whispering wood adventure from lulu.com it's a generic > > > beginners scenario with one or two nice touches. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Clive > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > *From:* Peter Maranci > > > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:10 PM > > > *Subject:* Re: [Rq-rules] Sandy's sorcery and the new BRP book > > > > > > > > > According to you-know-who, it would be both legal and ethical. > > > > > > I can't dispute the legal part, unfortunately, but I definitely don't > > > consider it ethical. > > > > > > A thought just crossed my mind: if someone were to steal a certain > > > game world, change the trademarked names just enough to make it legal, and > > > publish it commercially - say under the name "Boreantha" - who do you think > > > would be the first to scream to high heaven? > > > > > > Ha! Bore-antha. Good name for it. :D > > > > > > What's the GORE system, anyway? I've never heard of it! > > > > > > ->Peter > > > > > > On 8/26/07, Clive Wickens wrote: > > > > > > > > A while back there was a brief discussion about whether you can > > > > copyright a game system ( the answer seeming to be you can't ). Now, whats > > > > to stop someone taking Sandy Petersons sorcery system ripping out > > > > all the Gloranthan references and selling it as a PDF download for the new > > > > BRP system or as part of the GORE system ( which basically IS the > > > > BRP system ) ? > > > > > > > > Does the fact that everybody calls it 'Sandy's sorcery' give him > > > > copyright dibs ? Before you ask, no I don't intend to do this I'm just > > > > curious. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Clive > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070830/590be88b/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Aug 22 01:31:45 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:31:45 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules In-Reply-To: <20070820163449.65B0C2FF4A1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: Gianni, I have attached the alchemy file to this email. You may post it on the site. Thanks. Andrew On 8/20/07 11:34 AM, "Gianni" wrote: > Andrew, > > I'd gladly convert your file into pdf and make it available on my web-site > (http://www.basicrps.com/) if it'OK with you. > > Cheers, > > Gianni > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Larsen > To: Rq-Rules List > Sent: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:08:51 -0500 > Subject: [Rq-rules] Alchemy Rules > >> A while ago I mentioned that I would be willing to send out a copy of my >> alchemy rules. Since then, owing to a few problems, I've lost the list of >> people who requested it. Would the list be upset if I simply pasted the >> rules into a general email? The write-up runs about 5 pages. If people are > >> uncomfortable with this, then those who requested the rules should email >> again and I will send it as an attachment. >> >> Andrew E. Larsen >> "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." >> Alan Moore--V for Vendetta >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: Alchemy.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070821/8188ba03/attachment.doc