From shaw at caprica.com Sun Jul 1 02:46:06 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:46:06 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <8d5c4aa40706270954g708911adv4997585cdf1d646c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d5c4aa40706270954g708911adv4997585cdf1d646c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630094227.033b76a8@caprica.com> >When it comes to weapon ranges, it is actually easier to foul up >opponent's using great weapons than those using sword and shield. >The shafts and hafts of longer weapons are more difficult to move >around allies standing to the sides, or before the wielder. I realize this is the case, but by all evidence its far harder to deal with once the situation has jelled and mobility isn't any longer practical. In other words, its not an issue of getting in multiple parries so much as arranging that the opposition doesn't get a chance to even make attack rolls. >Whatever the tactics, you can only survive by constantly moving. By >the end of such a fight I am _completely_ exhausted! So you largely agree that with my statement above? >Please note however, that I am fighting in a large open area with no >obstacles and perfectly level footing. Two factors it is rare to >find in the real world! :) I think there are some issues with representing this well in RQ or any version of BRP because of how movement is handled, though I think some aspects of the RQ4/RQAIG Manuever skill help; this seems to be more an issue of that than anything to do with parrying as such. From shaw at caprica.com Sun Jul 1 02:56:54 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:56:54 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630095303.03474010@caprica.com> At 12:37 PM 6/28/2007, you wrote: >If you have been able to take out 10 attackers when you were alone, >you were not on their skill-level... Beeing able to utilize tactical >postition to a level where you allone is able to take out 10 people >on a flat field without any obstacles, the opposition is either >incredably slow or dum? I have to admit I have to wonder a bit at this; I'm not an SCA guy, but I've done both martial arts and fencing, and I can't picture, barring an incredible gap in skill, anyone doing a credible job taking on more than 2-1 or at most 3-1 odds there and coming out well. As I said, there is a certain potential to arrange for people to get in each other's way because of lack of group coordination, but in the end, you just don't have eyes on the back of your head, so unless you're so fast and skilled that you can strike and recover at one before any of the others can respond at all, someone is going to get you. You can _avoid_ being taken for a while by keeping moving, but all the opposition needs to be is cautious and persistent and wait for fatigue to set in (unless of course you just run away completely). From aelarsen at mac.com Sun Jul 1 02:55:23 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:55:23 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630095303.03474010@caprica.com> Message-ID: It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill of a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live and kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and limb. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 6/30/07 11:56 AM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 12:37 PM 6/28/2007, you wrote: >> If you have been able to take out 10 attackers when you were alone, >> you were not on their skill-level... Beeing able to utilize tactical >> postition to a level where you allone is able to take out 10 people >> on a flat field without any obstacles, the opposition is either >> incredably slow or dum? > > I have to admit I have to wonder a bit at this; I'm not an SCA guy, > but I've done both martial arts and fencing, and I can't picture, > barring an incredible gap in skill, anyone doing a credible job > taking on more than 2-1 or at most 3-1 odds there and coming out > well. As I said, there is a certain potential to arrange for people > to get in each other's way because of lack of group coordination, but > in the end, you just don't have eyes on the back of your head, so > unless you're so fast and skilled that you can strike and recover at > one before any of the others can respond at all, someone is going to > get you. You can _avoid_ being taken for a while by keeping moving, > but all the opposition needs to be is cautious and persistent and > wait for fatigue to set in (unless of course you just run away completely). > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Sun Jul 1 03:07:43 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:07:43 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <006e01c7b950$cb2af1e0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> References: <46829563.9000005@gmail.com> <8d5c4aa40706271505u105b1441o1904c507e5e7efb9@mail.gmail.com> <006e01c7b950$cb2af1e0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630100715.034664e8@caprica.com> At 11:51 PM 6/27/2007, you wrote: >I use Maneuver Skill to much the same effect. That makes sense. I can much more buy this sort of thing as an issue of Maneuver and positioning than of parry per se. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070630/3da80fc3/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Sun Jul 1 05:16:47 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:16:47 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630095303.03474010@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630121615.033bde88@caprica.com> At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: >It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill of >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a >person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live and >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and limb. That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and RQ throughout its life really hasn't been a cinematic system. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sun Jul 1 06:04:38 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:04:38 +0000 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: Very good point indeed! Perhaps someone should have a penalty if he is a NPC and part of a group that outnumbers the opposition? > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:55:23 -0500> Subject: Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction> From: aelarsen at mac.com> To: rq-rules at crashbox.com> > It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill of> a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a> person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live and> kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and limb.> > Andrew E. Larsen> "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody."> Alan Moore--V for Vendetta> > > > On 6/30/07 11:56 AM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote:> > > At 12:37 PM 6/28/2007, you wrote:> >> If you have been able to take out 10 attackers when you were alone,> >> you were not on their skill-level... Beeing able to utilize tactical> >> postition to a level where you allone is able to take out 10 people> >> on a flat field without any obstacles, the opposition is either> >> incredably slow or dum?> > > > I have to admit I have to wonder a bit at this; I'm not an SCA guy,> > but I've done both martial arts and fencing, and I can't picture,> > barring an incredible gap in skill, anyone doing a credible job> > taking on more than 2-1 or at most 3-1 odds there and coming out> > well. As I said, there is a certain potential to arrange for people> > to get in each other's way because of lack of group coordination, but> > in the end, you just don't have eyes on the back of your head, so> > unless you're so fast and skilled that you can strike and recover at> > one before any of the others can respond at all, someone is going to> > get you. You can _avoid_ being taken for a while by keeping moving,> > but all the opposition needs to be is cautious and persistent and> > wait for fatigue to set in (unless of course you just run away completely).> > > > _______________________________________________> > 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 _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live Hotmail, you can personalize your inbox with your favorite color. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0607 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070630/78434ef4/attachment.html From the.iqari at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 21:34:27 2007 From: the.iqari at gmail.com (Pete Nash) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:34:27 +0200 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630094227.033b76a8@caprica.com> References: <003001c7b86b$1cc284f0$19407442@chaosce4015e22> <569078.61324.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d5c4aa40706270954g708911adv4997585cdf1d646c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070630094227.033b76a8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <8d5c4aa40707020434m5f1ca2f9p802a92c5cd663d53@mail.gmail.com> > > I realize this is the case, but by all evidence its far harder to > deal with once the situation has jelled and mobility isn't any longer > practical. In other words, its not an issue of getting in multiple > parries so much as arranging that the opposition doesn't get a chance > to even make attack rolls. Precisely. Its all about maneuvering. >Whatever the tactics, you can only survive by constantly moving. By > >the end of such a fight I am _completely_ exhausted! > > So you largely agree that with my statement above? If you are static, from whatever reason, you are dog meat. All you can do is switch to full defense and maybe last a few more seconds... but they'll get you in the end. Even if you can out-maneuver multiple opponents for a while, eventually they'll hound you to submission once your endurance breaks. I think there are some issues with representing this well in RQ or > any version of BRP because of how movement is handled, though I think > some aspects of the RQ4/RQAIG Manuever skill help; this seems to be > more an issue of that than anything to do with parrying as such. Agreed. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070702/00bfcbaf/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 05:32:08 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:32:08 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630121615.033bde88@caprica.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630095303.03474010@caprica.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070630121615.033bde88@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0707021232k182d6cd6v742476254fd535e@mail.gmail.com> On 6/30/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > > At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: > >It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill > of > >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a > >person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live > and > >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and > limb. > > That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and RQ throughout its > life really hasn't been a cinematic system. Just a hunch, someone failed his "humour" check. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070702/9eee0245/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 3 07:00:53 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:00:53 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707021232k182d6cd6v742476254fd535e@mail.gmail.com > References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070630095303.03474010@caprica.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070630121615.033bde88@caprica.com> <56e64e7a0707021232k182d6cd6v742476254fd535e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> At 12:32 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: >On 6/30/07, Wayne Shaw <shaw at caprica.com> wrote: >At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: > >It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill of > >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a > >person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live and > >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and limb. > >That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and RQ throughout its >life really hasn't been a cinematic system. > > >Just a hunch, someone failed his "humour" check. My sense of humor was surgically removed at birth. I don't miss it much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070702/d314ef73/attachment.html From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Jul 3 08:35:36 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:35:36 -0500 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> Message-ID: Yes, that was in fact a joke on my part, not a serious contribution to the discussion of the issue. Since I feel an obligation to make a serious contribution after having distracted people with a joke, let me make this observation: Game systems all have a tension between playability and simulation (by which I mean an effort for the system to make logical sense and simulate a real functional universe). D&D, for example, emphasizes playability, with the result that it often has irrational rules about who can do what with which types of weapons and so on. On the other end, Chivalry and Sorcery was marvelously simulatory, to the point that no one wanted to play it because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans out there). What I?ve always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good balance between playability and simulation. The rules are logical and do a good job of simulating human combat, but without being so realistic as to seriously bog down play. Many of the proposed discussions about how to improve the rules system often seem to emphasize simulation at the expense of playability. Yes, adding a nuance like Fatigue does make the system more realistic, but it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping that detracts of playability. My rule about modifying the rules has always been that any modification needs to keep that balance intact, unless the problem it fixes is a major one. Andrew E. Larsen "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized to nobody." Alan Moore--V for Vendetta On 7/2/07 4:00 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 12:32 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: >> On 6/30/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: >> At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: >>> >It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse Law of Ninjas. The skill >>> of >>> >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the number of ninjas that attack a >>> >person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person being attacked will live and >>> >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a profound threat to life and >>> limb. >> >> That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and RQ throughout its >> life really hasn't been a cinematic system. >> >> >> Just a hunch, someone failed his "humour" check. > > My sense of humor was surgically removed at birth. I don't miss it much. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070702/d552a1d1/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 3 08:56:18 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <332295.73897.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> C&S was playable; it's just that is was badly organised actually, it was probably the worst organisation of a rulesbook I'd ever encounterd... and in six (or less!) point font?!? Ow, my poor eyes.. OTOH in many ways it was a lot closer to AD&D; when it comes to the "realism" stakes I'd rate RQ higher than C&S.. All the best, Lev --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > Yes, that was in fact a joke on my part, not a > serious contribution to the > discussion of the issue. Since I feel an obligation > to make a serious > contribution after having distracted people with a > joke, let me make this > observation: > Game systems all have a tension between > playability and simulation (by > which I mean an effort for the system to make > logical sense and simulate a > real functional universe). D&D, for example, > emphasizes playability, with > the result that it often has irrational rules about > who can do what with > which types of weapons and so on. On the other end, > Chivalry and Sorcery > was marvelously simulatory, to the point that no one > wanted to play it > because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans > out there). What I?ve > always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good > balance between > playability and simulation. The rules are logical > and do a good job of > simulating human combat, but without being so > realistic as to seriously bog > down play. Many of the proposed discussions about > how to improve the rules > system often seem to emphasize simulation at the > expense of playability. > Yes, adding a nuance like Fatigue does make the > system more realistic, but > it adds an extra layer of bookkeeping that detracts > of playability. My rule > about modifying the rules has always been that any > modification needs to > keep that balance intact, unless the problem it > fixes is a major one. > > Andrew E. Larsen > "But for three years I had roses, and I apologized > to nobody." > Alan Moore--V for Vendetta > > > > On 7/2/07 4:00 PM, "Wayne Shaw" > wrote: > > > At 12:32 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: > >> On 6/30/07, Wayne Shaw wrote: > >> At 09:55 AM 6/30/2007, you wrote: > >>> >It's really quite simple. Remember the Inverse > Law of Ninjas. The skill > >>> of > >>> >a ninja is inversely proportionate to the > number of ninjas that attack a > >>> >person. Many ninjas guarantee that the person > being attacked will live and > >>> >kill all the ninjas, but a solo ninja is a > profound threat to life and > >>> limb. > >> > >> That's a largely cinematic conceit, though, and > RQ throughout its > >> life really hasn't been a cinematic system. > >> > >> > >> Just a hunch, someone failed his "humour" check. > > > > My sense of humor was surgically removed at birth. > I don't miss it much. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 3 09:07:45 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:07:45 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702160659.033fea10@caprica.com> >because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans out there). What >I've always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good balance >between playability and simulation. The rules are logical and do a >good job of simulating human combat, but without being so realistic >as to seriously bog down play. Many of the proposed discussions >about how to improve the rules system often seem to emphasize >simulation at the expense of playability. Yes, adding a nuance like >Fatigue does make the system more realistic, but it adds an extra >layer of bookkeeping that detracts of playability. My rule about >modifying the rules has always been that any modification needs to keep The question ends up being whether the extra layer adds enough to game play to be worth it. That can't be anything _but_ a subjective call. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070702/ca0483dd/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 3 09:10:13 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:10:13 -0700 Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <332295.73897.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <332295.73897.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702160939.03446e70@caprica.com> At 03:56 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: >C&S was playable; it's just that is was badly >organised actually, it was probably the worst >organisation of a rulesbook I'd ever encounterd... and >in six (or less!) point font?!? Ow, my poor eyes.. I know quite a few people who played C&S who considered mages tantamount to unplayable just on character generation grounds. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 3 09:43:33 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702160939.03446e70@caprica.com> Message-ID: <978035.31857.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 03:56 PM 7/2/2007, you wrote: > > >C&S was playable; it's just that is was badly > >organised actually, it was probably the worst > >organisation of a rulesbook I'd ever encounterd... > and > >in six (or less!) point font?!? Ow, my poor eyes.. > > I know quite a few people who played C&S who > considered mages > tantamount to unplayable just on character > generation grounds. > Now that point I will quickly cede... :-) ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 mason.bruce at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 21:12:03 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:12:03 +0100 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <5f3990080707030412n5dc15167rcbd069c95fbbb136@mail.gmail.com> On 02/07/07, Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > Game systems all have a tension between playability and simulation (by > which I mean an effort for the system to make logical sense and simulate a > real functional universe). D&D, for example, emphasizes playability, with > the result that it often has irrational rules about who can do what with > which types of weapons and so on. On the other end, Chivalry and Sorcery > was marvelously simulatory, to the point that no one wanted to play it > because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans out there). What I've > always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good balance between > playability and simulation. > Although I know what you're getting at, I actually think the playability/simulation axis is the wrong way to look at it. I think what's crucial is what could be called "stimulation". I don't think any game system could attempt to model or simulate the multiple types of combat in the real world. You only have to read the anecdotes from those who are combat recreators or have faced real, hand-to-hand combat to realise that what "really" happens is so diverse as probably to be impossible to model. However, you can when using a game "stimulate" the players in such a way that combat generates adrenaline and stimulates the player in a way that feels like combat. I think the biggest factor in RQ that achieves this is the parry roll. The parry/dodge roll feels like you trying to defend yourself. The other factors are the critical because it means in RQ almost any attack feels as though it could kill you. (Clearly you get to levels where that isn't the case), the fact that 1/20 rolls fail through sheer bad luck and the relative fragility of characters once they actually take damage. Add this together and what you have is a system where 90% of all attacks are potentially dangerous and no matter how good you are you can't defend successfully against everything. The physical act of rolling a parry dice stimulates and the worry for your character enhances that stimulation. For me that's the essence of combat in RQ/BRP. Playability is really all about how much book-keeping and how many modifiers affect every roll the various mechanics require. Some groups actually like detailed calculation while others tolerate it to an extent. RQ has a fairly large amount of book-keeping. I don't think that RQ *simulates* combat any better than any other system because I don't think you can simulate but I do think it *feels* like combat because I find it more exciting than any other rpg I've played. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/832da01d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 23:35:33 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? Message-ID: <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28@mail.gmail.com> Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more exotic creatures being used as familiars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/2d751ee2/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Jul 4 00:35:00 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:35:00 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4515.196.8.104.27.1183473300.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Impressive, just ope it doesn't puchs on ones shoulder:) > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more exotic > creatures being used as familiars. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 00:39:46 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:39:46 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? In-Reply-To: <4515.196.8.104.27.1183473300.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28@mail.gmail.com> <4515.196.8.104.27.1183473300.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707030739r456645b2wdc48a0dffbe383b5@mail.gmail.com> Heh. For some reason, I get a vision of the sorcerer using paddles to guide it in during landing, just like on a WWII aircraft carrier. And I used to think the giant eagles in the Griffin Island supplement were a bit silly. Never again! David On 7/3/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Impressive, just ope it doesn't puchs on ones shoulder:) > > > > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more exotic > > creatures being used as familiars. > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20070703/ad722ede/attachment.html From superninja42 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 01:40:45 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:40:45 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <5f3990080707030412n5dc15167rcbd069c95fbbb136@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> <5f3990080707030412n5dc15167rcbd069c95fbbb136@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0707030840v31c50ec8j52ae21151d52319d@mail.gmail.com> Somewhat off topic... but the first time I ran RQ (and for me that is RQIII), I killed a player in one hit from a Broo. Now, mind you, we were used to high combat games (D&D, Shadowrun, Gurps) where the likely hood of a small enemy killing you was slim. I freaked, halved the damage and smiled at my players ;) What keeps us using RQ now is the ability to have some type of realism. That doesn't mean I don't side-step or embellish rules when need be to keep the players entertained and having and enjoyable time. On 7/3/07, Bruce Mason wrote: > > > > On 02/07/07, Andrew Larsen wrote: > > > > > > Game systems all have a tension between playability and simulation > > (by which I mean an effort for the system to make logical sense and simulate > > a real functional universe). D&D, for example, emphasizes playability, with > > the result that it often has irrational rules about who can do what with > > which types of weapons and so on. On the other end, Chivalry and Sorcery > > was marvelously simulatory, to the point that no one wanted to play it > > because it was such a pain. (Apologies to C&S fans out there). What I've > > always likes about RQ is that it strikes a very good balance between > > playability and simulation. > > > > Although I know what you're getting at, I actually think the > playability/simulation axis is the wrong way to look at it. I think what's > crucial is what could be called "stimulation". I don't think any game system > could attempt to model or simulate the multiple types of combat in the real > world. You only have to read the anecdotes from those who are combat > recreators or have faced real, hand-to-hand combat to realise that what > "really" happens is so diverse as probably to be impossible to model. > However, you can when using a game "stimulate" the players in such a way > that combat generates adrenaline and stimulates the player in a way that > feels like combat. I think the biggest factor in RQ that achieves this is > the parry roll. The parry/dodge roll feels like you trying to defend > yourself. The other factors are the critical because it means in RQ almost > any attack feels as though it could kill you. (Clearly you get to levels > where that isn't the case), the fact that 1/20 rolls fail through sheer bad > luck and the relative fragility of characters once they actually take > damage. Add this together and what you have is a system where 90% of all > attacks are potentially dangerous and no matter how good you are you can't > defend successfully against everything. > > The physical act of rolling a parry dice stimulates and the worry for your > character enhances that stimulation. > > For me that's the essence of combat in RQ/BRP. Playability is really all > about how much book-keeping and how many modifiers affect every roll the > various mechanics require. Some groups actually like detailed calculation > while others tolerate it to an extent. RQ has a fairly large amount of > book-keeping. I don't think that RQ *simulates* combat any better than any > other system because I don't think you can simulate but I do think it > *feels* like combat because I find it more exciting than any other rpg I've > played. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/3768f314/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jul 4 03:41:42 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:41:42 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <4183445e0707030840v31c50ec8j52ae21151d52319d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> <5f3990080707030412n5dc15167rcbd069c95fbbb136@mail.gmail.com> <4183445e0707030840v31c50ec8j52ae21151d52319d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070703103807.033c1f80@caprica.com> At 08:40 AM 7/3/2007, you wrote: >Somewhat off topic... but the first time I ran RQ (and for me that >is RQIII), I killed a player in one hit from a Broo. Now, mind you, >we were used to high combat games (D&D, Shadowrun, Gurps) where the >likely hood of a small enemy killing you was slim. I freaked, >halved the damage and smiled at my players ;) Over the years I've seen some people who came from a D&D paradigm run up against the realities of BRP pretty hard. We had one player in an RQ3 campaign where the group was travelling cross country decide to convince the party to go attack some wyverns they saw up on a mountainside. The wyverns hadn't seen them, and might or might not have decided to do anything aggressive anyway, but off they went. As those who've ever been involved in a fight with wyverns in RQ will tell you, not an easy fight; I don't remember if anyone died, but I'm sure there were some serious injuries, poisoning, and so on. It turned out he'd not only not internalized how rough RQ combat could be, and in addition had assumed that because they were monsters, the wyverns would have treasure--which they didn't. He wasn't with the group much longer after that... From DevinC at aol.com Wed Jul 4 03:53:05 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:53:05 EDT Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction Message-ID: In a message dated 7/3/2007 10:36:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, shaw at caprica.com writes: Over the years I've seen some people who came from a D&D paradigm run up against the realities of BRP pretty hard. We had one player in an RQ3 campaign where the group was travelling cross country decide to convince the party to go attack some wyverns they saw up on a mountainside. The wyverns hadn't seen them, and might or might not have decided to do anything aggressive anyway, but off they went. As those who've ever been involved in a fight with wyverns in RQ will tell you, not an easy fight; I don't remember if anyone died, but I'm sure there were some serious injuries, poisoning, and so on. It turned out he'd not only not internalized how rough RQ combat could be, and in addition had assumed that because they were monsters, the wyverns would have treasure--which they didn't. He wasn't with the group much longer after that... . . . It was a common problem in my group as well. I ran the old High Holes scenario from White Dwarf (later reprinted) which involved, basically, a den of broo in a cave-ridden rock in the wastes of Prax. This hole had a lot of broo. A lot of broo. It also had various back entrances and the like for a clever group to sneak into. A smart group of PCs would have spent some time watching the place from a distance. This would have let them get an idea of the numbers of the broo. They would also have noted occasional parties of broo leaving the holes (to hunt, raid, whatever). This might have allowed the PCs to pick off a good number of broo in ambushes in detail. They could have captured one and tried to question it. Instead, they did the D&D thing. They marched in perfect formation right up to the front entrance of the cave and marched right in. It wasn't a pretty fight. Devin ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/1119a458/attachment.html From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Jul 4 03:59:00 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:59:00 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 22, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <20070702223552.9D2C91BC7B68@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070702223552.9D2C91BC7B68@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550707031059u190579e9mea86f3e111ae16c@mail.gmail.com> In a Gloranthan setting it is worth remembering that the inverse law of ninjas becomes an inverse square law for trollkin Al From alanjrichards at googlemail.com Wed Jul 4 04:05:01 2007 From: alanjrichards at googlemail.com (alan richards) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 22, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <20070703143027.6F87F1BD2690@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20070703143027.6F87F1BD2690@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <50a0ed550707031105y4900cb6u3a1714dc98b6b00a@mail.gmail.com> -> Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0500 > From: "David Smart" > Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: > <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more exotic > creatures being used as familiars. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm > > David Back in the day White Dwarf ran an article called something along the lines of 'Sounds Familiar' which recommended giving the 'boring' animal familiars the spooky powers which medievel people attributed them. It was great. Al From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jul 4 04:42:00 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:42:00 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070703113920.033ef478@caprica.com> >It was a common problem in my group as well. I ran the old High >Holes scenario from White Dwarf (later reprinted) which involved, >basically, a den of broo in a cave-ridden rock in the wastes of >Prax. This hole had a lot of broo. A lot of broo. It also had >various back entrances and the like for a clever group to sneak into. > >A smart group of PCs would have spent some time watching the place >from a distance. This would have let them get an idea of the numbers >of the broo. They would also have noted occasional parties of broo >leaving the holes (to hunt, raid, whatever). This might have allowed >the PCs to pick off a good number of broo in ambushes in detail. >They could have captured one and tried to question it. > >Instead, they did the D&D thing. They marched in perfect formation >right up to the front entrance of the cave and marched right in. It >wasn't a pretty fight. One of the things it sometimes takes a while for RQ players to learn is that standing in the midst of large number of even inferior foes and duking it out is _really_ unhealthy. Once they do, they learn how to limit the problem (putting their backs to walls or each other, defeating opponents in detail, and so on) but it can take a bit to learn that mowing through opposition like cordwood isn't liable to go well until there's quite a gap, and even then its risky (as any runelord who's managed to eat a crit by some guy with a shortspear can attest). From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 04:51:55 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:51:55 -0500 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: re-[Rq-rules] Introduction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702160659.033fea10@caprica.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070702140034.033dcfd8@caprica.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070702160659.033fea10@caprica.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0707031151m2ccae00dxdb008f71b8969866@mail.gmail.com> > > > The question ends up being whether the extra layer adds enough to game > play to be worth it. That can't be anything _but_ a subjective call. > My solution is to make it (fatigue, in this case) not a bookkeeping matter at all. It involves a little structure-fudging, but nothing that anyone in my group has minded so far. Anytime you roll %iles: - if the roll ends in a "0" or a "5" it's a 'special' - if it's otherwise successful, it's a special success - if it's otherwise a failure, it's a special failure (I just arbitrarily have something happen that's worse that a simple failure, but not as bad as a fumble - mostly superficial and trivial, "color" events, frankly) - if it's doubles and even, it's a critical (success/failure) (22, 44, 66, 88, 00)...yes, I'm aware this makes crits less likely for anyone under 22% skill, which I think actually helps the players vs unskilled mobs, which is fine for me. Any time a 0 comes up on a %ile roll, I throw a poker chip at the player for him to hold. This represents fatigue, generally -10% to all skill checks, -1 damage. They can be gotten rid of 1 at a time by resting for a round, and rolling d20 under your CON. Seems to be good fun for all, nobody has to calculate anything ("uh, let's see, I have a 15% bonus to my skill, now, was that roll a special?") and a quick glance around the table will show everyone who's wearing down or not. The players actually love to see the big nasty bad guy's figure accumulate pokerchips, gives them a sense of 'whittling' him down. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070703/91b2182a/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 06:41:18 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 22, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <50a0ed550707031105y4900cb6u3a1714dc98b6b00a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070703143027.6F87F1BD2690@mini.thinbits.net> <50a0ed550707031105y4900cb6u3a1714dc98b6b00a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707091341i50d2592bpa3dd90dd77191bba@mail.gmail.com> Oh MAN! I'd forgotten about that! Pity my WD collection went the way of my mint 1st edition D&D set (given away back in my university days). David On 7/3/07, alan richards wrote: > > -> Message: 6 > > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0500 > > From: "David Smart" > > Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? > > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Message-ID: > > <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28 at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more exotic > > creatures being used as familiars. > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm > > > > David > > Back in the day White Dwarf ran an article called something along the > lines of 'Sounds Familiar' which recommended giving the 'boring' > animal familiars the spooky powers which medievel people attributed > them. It was great. > > > 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/20070709/be2ef3db/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 10 07:23:18 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:23:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coversion help needed In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707091341i50d2592bpa3dd90dd77191bba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hey yall, I am in the process of converting Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to MRQ. Right now, all the rules fall into place with the setting. However, I am converting the "Tome of Corruption" from 2nd Ed: Mutations, Gifts, Magic Items, spells, demons etc... All the other rules are 1st edition (Gods and spells). I am also wondering if I should convert the Demonology rules. Has any one done this, or is anyone willing to help with the project. Let me know.. Thanks John >From: "David Smart" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 22, Issue 2 >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:41:18 -0500 > >Oh MAN! I'd forgotten about that! Pity my WD collection went the way of my >mint 1st edition D&D set (given away back in my university days). > >David > >On 7/3/07, alan richards wrote: >> >>-> Message: 6 >> > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0500 >> > From: "David Smart" >> > Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? >> > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> > Message-ID: >> > <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28 at mail.gmail.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> > >> > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been interested in more >>exotic >> > creatures being used as familiars. >> > >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm >> > >> > David >> >>Back in the day White Dwarf ran an article called something along the >>lines of 'Sounds Familiar' which recommended giving the 'boring' >>animal familiars the spooky powers which medievel people attributed >>them. It was great. >> >> >>Al >>_______________________________________________ >>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://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07 From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 10 08:57:02 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Coversion help needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <45663.3897.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There was a great little article done in White Dwarf many years ago for Demons. Basically, they were tough, summonable, cut deals and had one essential characteristic which made them utterly abhorrent and evil for the RuneQuest universe. They had no Power. No Power! Apart from meaning they were not affected by magic (although they may have magical-like powers themselves), thr truly disgusting thing was they were sentient beings without a soul! No wonder souls were something that demons always wanted.... HTH, Lev --- John Pare' wrote: > > Hey yall, > > I am in the process of converting Warhammer Fantasy > Roleplay to MRQ. Right > now, all the rules fall into place with the setting. > > However, I am converting the "Tome of Corruption" > from 2nd Ed: Mutations, > Gifts, Magic Items, spells, demons etc... All the > other rules are 1st > edition (Gods and spells). > > I am also wondering if I should convert the > Demonology rules. > > Has any one done this, or is anyone willing to help > with the project. > > Let me know.. > > Thanks > > > > > John > > > > > > > >From: "David Smart" > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol > 22, Issue 2 > >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:41:18 -0500 > > > >Oh MAN! I'd forgotten about that! Pity my WD > collection went the way of my > >mint 1st edition D&D set (given away back in my > university days). > > > >David > > > >On 7/3/07, alan richards > wrote: > >> > >>-> Message: 6 > >> > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:35:33 -0500 > >> > From: "David Smart" > >> > Subject: [Rq-rules] THAT'S Your Familiar?!? > >> > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >> > Message-ID: > >> > > <1c92296e0707030635q7ea690e8q796fb2b1beb24d28 at mail.gmail.com> > >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > > >> > Couldn't resist posting this; I've always been > interested in more > >>exotic > >> > creatures being used as familiars. > >> > > >> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6262740.stm > >> > > >> > David > >> > >>Back in the day White Dwarf ran an article called > something along the > >>lines of 'Sounds Familiar' which recommended > giving the 'boring' > >>animal familiars the spooky powers which medievel > people attributed > >>them. It was great. > >> > >> > >>Al > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 anders at california.com Tue Jul 10 15:43:36 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:43:36 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coversion help needed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:23:18 -0400 "John Pare'" wrote: > > Hey yall, > > I am in the process of converting Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to MRQ. Right > now, all the rules fall into place with the setting. > > However, I am converting the "Tome of Corruption" from 2nd Ed: Mutations, > Gifts, Magic Items, spells, demons etc... All the other rules are 1st > edition (Gods and spells). > > I am also wondering if I should convert the Demonology rules. > > Has any one done this, or is anyone willing to help with the project. > > Let me know.. > > Thanks > > > > > John > Oh I've said this before. Take the setting from the non RQ game, then construct a RQ setting incorperating the elements you want in RQ terms. If you want deamons running around, stat 'em and hurl em at the PCs. Especially if the players are gonna hate 'em. PCs becoming demon summoners? Only if you want! Is this a non - answer? --Anders From avkl35 at dsl.pipex.com Tue Jul 10 19:33:17 2007 From: avkl35 at dsl.pipex.com (Nick Middleton) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:33:17 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coversion help needed In-Reply-To: <45663.3897.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45663.3897.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4693525D.1080100@dsl.pipex.com> Lev Lafayette wrote: > There was a great little article done in White Dwarf > many years ago for Demons. Basically, they were tough, > summonable, cut deals and had one essential > characteristic which made them utterly abhorrent and > evil for the RuneQuest universe. > > They had no Power. No Power! Apart from meaning they > were not affected by magic (although they may have > magical-like powers themselves), thr truly disgusting > thing was they were sentient beings without a soul! > > No wonder souls were something that demons always > wanted.... The POW-less Demons were in Wyrms Footnotes 10 - Dave Morris' seminal "Dealing With Demons" series of articles in White Dwarf has demons WITH POW scores ( at least, in the copy I'm looking at...) Cheers, Nick Middleton From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 10 20:16:29 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Coversion help needed In-Reply-To: <4693525D.1080100@dsl.pipex.com> Message-ID: <713424.1955.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Nick Middleton wrote: > Lev Lafayette wrote: > > There was a great little article done in White > Dwarf > > many years ago for Demons. Basically, they were > tough, > > summonable, cut deals and had one essential > > characteristic which made them utterly abhorrent > and > > evil for the RuneQuest universe. > > > > They had no Power. No Power! Apart from meaning > they > > were not affected by magic (although they may have > > magical-like powers themselves), thr truly > disgusting > > thing was they were sentient beings without a > soul! > > > > No wonder souls were something that demons always > > wanted.... > The POW-less Demons were in Wyrms Footnotes 10 - > Dave Morris' seminal > "Dealing With Demons" series of articles in White > Dwarf has demons WITH > POW scores ( at least, in the copy I'm looking > at...) > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton Ahh, my failing memory... :-) Thanks for the clarification. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 17 22:53:09 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:53:09 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ NPC Cards Message-ID: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Hi All I pasted up a PDF of some "cards" that one could print and potentially use to create a deck resource for NPC's, Foes, Henchmen etc that characters may come across. Simple items for sure, but then again, sometimes the simplest things are the most useful. Going forward I am thinking of creating a vast archive or pre rolled personalities, so that GM's who are shorting time and are want to get stumped for stats/names etc can whip out a NPC at leisure. Anyway, its at www.runequest.za.org under the character sheets section. Cheers Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Wed Jul 18 15:45:07 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:45:07 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Test Message-ID: <48913.196.8.104.27.1184737507.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Is the list working? From superninja42 at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 04:14:40 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Test In-Reply-To: <48913.196.8.104.27.1184737507.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> References: <48913.196.8.104.27.1184737507.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <4183445e0707201114v6cf63679l8704daf27a84e94f@mail.gmail.com> Yes, yes it is working. On 7/18/07, postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Is the list working? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070720/ac43d5d9/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 04:28:44 2007 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:28:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ NPC Cards In-Reply-To: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> Yes the list works. BTW where are these cards on your site? Skal, Sven postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > Hi All > > I pasted up a PDF of some "cards" that one could print and potentially use > to create a deck resource for NPC's, Foes, Henchmen etc that characters > may come across. Simple items for sure, but then again, sometimes the > simplest things are the most useful. Going forward I am thinking of > creating a vast archive or pre rolled personalities, so that GM's who are > shorting time and are want to get stumped for stats/names etc can whip out > a NPC at leisure. > > Anyway, its at www.runequest.za.org under the character sheets section. > Cheers > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From kruch7 at cox.net Sat Jul 21 05:51:36 2007 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Test References: <48913.196.8.104.27.1184737507.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <035601c7cb07$61a436f0$6701a8c0@Arioch> yes Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? Blog http://www.aeonity.com/arioch http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:45 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Test Is the list working? _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007 6:10 PM From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat Jul 21 14:39:54 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:39:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***spirits cults versus religion Message-ID: <000601c7cb51$31164100$4ad89456@sickboy> Dear all, Thanks to anyone who responded to my rambling question about spirit cults and religions. Lots of interesting ideas from everybody, though I think Simon's probably came closest in terms of describing the actual process ( apart from the heroquesting bit...) certainly gave me food for thought. Small Gods ? I'd agree it's probably the best thing Terry Pratchett has written. Here's another question then: Is there any reason why the spirit worshipped in a spirit cult HAS to give a divine magic spell ? How about a really high powered spirit magic spell ( say; Bladesharp 10 ) or possibly a single ability, such as a humakti gift or something similiar. This might work quite well with MRQ and the whole legendary abilities thing. Cheers, Clive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070721/f98f5871/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Jul 21 23:24:55 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:24:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: spirits cults versus religion Message-ID: <284357.1312.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > Here's another question then: Is there any reason why the spirit worshipped in a spirit cult > HAS to give a divine magic spell ? How about a really high powered spirit magic spell ( say; > Bladesharp 10 ) or possibly a single ability, such as a humakti gift or something similiar. This > might work quite well with MRQ and the whole legendary abilities thing. Absolutely not. (To the "must give a divine spell" part) A spirit cult would be worshipped for several main reasons: 1. Because it is a divine being and is worthy of worship 2. Because our family/clan/tribe/people has always worshipped it 3. Because it is here and demands worship 4. Because it gives us powerful/different skills 5. Because it gives us powerful/different abilities 6. Because it gives us powerful/different magic Some cults will only teach skills, so a hunting spirit might teach you Run Quietly, to allow you to run after game without being heard. Another might teach a Spirit Magic spell, so you might contact the Blackberry spirit who teaches Food Song and requires that his worshippers use Food Song when eating harvesting blackberries, but also teaches where to find the best blackberries. I can see no reason why a spirit can't teach Legendary Abilities or gifts. In my version of Raven, Sun hawk and Thunder Bird, they each give a worshipper a special kind of spirit that possesses the worshipper and grants a special ability. Vikings had worship without Godi, and gave spirits that gave a magical benefit through covert possession. That would be a great benefit of worshipping a spirit. The only thing, I wouldn't normally allow a spirit cult to teach something like Bladesharp 10. Generally, a being grants a spell because it has access to the power of the spell via some God Time or Heroic act. So, Humakt wields the Death Sword, as did Orlanth, so they get access to a minor form of this and can teach Bladesharp. But, they can teach the spell up to as many points are available to the temple. Normally, this means up to 4 points at a small temple, up to 8 points at a Large Temple and perhaps more than 8 points at a Great Temple. Allowing a Spirit Cult to teach Bladesharp 10 means that it is as powerful as Humakt or Orlanth, which is unusual. If you have a rationale, say this spirit was a shard that broke off Humakt's Sword and lay undiscovered for millenia, then was found by a shaman who contacted DeathSword, then fine. But you have to be careful about that kind of thing. I'd create new Spirit magic spells rather than just have powerful existing ones. However, I try to blur the distinction between Animist and Divine in my games, so my Spirit Cults normally teach Spirit and Divine Spells. Many of my Sorcerous cults also teach Spirit/Divine spells as well as sorcery, especially if they are connected with the Waertagi/Arkat/Aoelian sects, but I rarely use Sorcery in my games so it doesn't normally come up. Hope that helps. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070721/9ffdd99a/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 00:13:31 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:13:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ NPC Cards In-Reply-To: <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> References: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707210713m687ce6b9o253f460028c2cda7@mail.gmail.com> In the navigation panel on the left of the webpage, click "Character Sheets." On the webpage that's then displayed, click "Read more". The link for the cards PDF file is at the bottom of the list. David On 7/20/07, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Yes the list works. > BTW where are these cards on your site? > Skal, > Sven > > postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: > > Hi All > > > > I pasted up a PDF of some "cards" that one could print and potentially > use > > to create a deck resource for NPC's, Foes, Henchmen etc that characters > > may come across. Simple items for sure, but then again, sometimes the > > simplest things are the most useful. Going forward I am thinking of > > creating a vast archive or pre rolled personalities, so that GM's who > are > > shorting time and are want to get stumped for stats/names etc can whip > out > > a NPC at leisure. > > > > Anyway, its at www.runequest.za.org under the character sheets section. > > Cheers > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070721/8aed2a5c/attachment.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 24 00:57:28 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:57:28 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ NPC Cards In-Reply-To: <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> References: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26168.196.8.104.27.1185202648.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Under the character sheets section, sorry I can't post an actual link because I use this XML engine thingy and I can't go to my actual site because my work bars it. Anyway, if you select Character Sheets in the LHS sidebar there should be a downloadable in that folder. > Yes the list works. > BTW where are these cards on your site? > Skal, > Sven > > postmaster at runequest.za.org wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I pasted up a PDF of some "cards" that one could print and potentially >> use >> to create a deck resource for NPC's, Foes, Henchmen etc that characters >> may come across. Simple items for sure, but then again, sometimes the >> simplest things are the most useful. Going forward I am thinking of >> creating a vast archive or pre rolled personalities, so that GM's who >> are >> shorting time and are want to get stumped for stats/names etc can whip >> out >> a NPC at leisure. >> >> Anyway, its at www.runequest.za.org under the character sheets section. >> Cheers >> 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 > From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 24 01:01:08 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:01:08 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <000601c7cb51$31164100$4ad89456@sickboy> References: <000601c7cb51$31164100$4ad89456@sickboy> Message-ID: <30537.196.8.104.27.1185202868.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Clive wrote: . > > Here's another question then: Is there any reason why the spirit > worshipped in a spirit cult HAS to give a divine magic spell ? How about a > really high powered spirit magic spell ( say; Bladesharp 10 ) or possibly > a single ability, such as a humakti gift or something similiar. This might > work quite well with MRQ and the whole legendary abilities thing. > I don't see why not, if the spirit spell is also one use? Or perhaps in your example, Bladesharp 10, but the 10 is seen as uses/charges, so use it all in one go or bit by bit... Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 24 01:06:21 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:06:21 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ NPC Cards In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707210713m687ce6b9o253f460028c2cda7@mail.gmail.com> References: <15489.196.8.104.31.1184676789.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <46A0FEDC.9010707@gmail.com> <1c92296e0707210713m687ce6b9o253f460028c2cda7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36621.196.8.104.27.1185203181.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Ja thats about it. Sometimes my site design is not so great, oh well... > In the navigation panel on the left of the webpage, click "Character > Sheets." On the webpage that's then displayed, click "Read more". The link > for the cards PDF file is at the bottom of the list. > > David > > From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Jul 24 01:20:53 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <30537.196.8.104.27.1185202868.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: Spirit spells are always reusable. That's one of the things that separates them from divine spells. You could make a 1-use only divine spell that was effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more powerful than most divine spells. Andrew E. Larsen On 7/23/07 10:01 AM, "postmaster at runequest.za.org" wrote: > Clive wrote: > . >> >> Here's another question then: Is there any reason why the spirit >> worshipped in a spirit cult HAS to give a divine magic spell ? How about a >> really high powered spirit magic spell ( say; Bladesharp 10 ) or possibly >> a single ability, such as a humakti gift or something similiar. This might >> work quite well with MRQ and the whole legendary abilities thing. >> > I don't see why not, if the spirit spell is also one use? Or perhaps in > your example, Bladesharp 10, but the 10 is seen as uses/charges, so use it > all in one go or bit by bit... > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 24 03:01:06 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:01:06 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: References: <30537.196.8.104.27.1185202868.squirrel@mail.wack.co.za> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723100029.033f6f08@caprica.com> At 08:20 AM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >Spirit spells are always reusable. That's one of the things that separates >them from divine spells. You could make a 1-use only divine spell that was >effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more powerful than most >divine spells. Hmm. I'm not sure its _immensely_ more powerful than most non-reuseable ones. But perhaps you're right. From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jul 24 03:29:38 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723100029.033f6f08@caprica.com> Message-ID: <20070723172938.25605.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > You could make a 1-use > only divine spell that was > >effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more > powerful than most > >divine spells. > > Hmm. I'm not sure its _immensely_ more powerful > than most > non-reuseable ones. But perhaps you're right. To compare, Diamond Edge is a 2 pt Divine spell and is in effect a Bladesharp 8. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 24 03:59:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:59:49 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <20070723172938.25605.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723100029.033f6f08@caprica.com> <20070723172938.25605.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723105901.03418db0@caprica.com> At 10:29 AM 7/23/2007, you wrote: > > You could make a 1-use > > only divine spell that was > > >effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more > > powerful than most > > >divine spells. > > > > Hmm. I'm not sure its _immensely_ more powerful > > than most > > non-reuseable ones. But perhaps you're right. > >To compare, Diamond Edge is a 2 pt Divine spell and is >in effect a Bladesharp 8. Well, there you go; I'm not sure I consider there to be all that dramatic a difference between Bladesharp 8 and 10 when you're getting into that range. From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jul 24 04:00:16 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723105901.03418db0@caprica.com> Message-ID: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > > You could make a 1-use > > > only divine spell that was > > > >effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way > more > > > powerful than most > > > >divine spells. > > > > > > Hmm. I'm not sure its _immensely_ more powerful > > > than most > > > non-reuseable ones. But perhaps you're right. > > > >To compare, Diamond Edge is a 2 pt Divine spell and > is > >in effect a Bladesharp 8. > > Well, there you go; I'm not sure I consider there to > be all that > dramatic a difference between Bladesharp 8 and 10 > when you're getting > into that range. Generally speaking it would depend on the casters abilities. The lower his pre-spell chances to hit are the more important those extra 10% to hit and +2 damage are. It would also become important if you are fighting creatures which can only be damaged by magic, such a Were Wolf with a Chaos Feature of 8 AP skin. Leon ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 aelarsen at mac.com Tue Jul 24 04:34:08 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Also, keep in mind that divine spells can only be cast once in a given situation. Even reusable ones need to be renewed by prayer at a temple. So if my character knows Diamond Edge, I can cast it at best once a day (unless I sacrifice for multiple castings of it). Spirit magic spells can be cast as often as I have the mps to fuel it. So if I know Bladesharp 10, I can cast on multiple weapons, assuming I have the mps to fuel it. And because it's variable, I can decide to cast it in a variety of levels that fit my mps. For example, if I have 20 mps (from myself and my stored mps), I could cast two 8 pt castings and a 3 pt casting (sparing 1 mp to keep myself conscious), or 3 6 point castings, or whatever. Granted, that runs my mps dangerously low, which is not a consideration with divine magic, but I do think it's a considerable advantage that divine spells generally lack. Andrew E. Larsen On 7/23/07 1:00 PM, "Leon Kirshtein" wrote: > >>>> You could make a 1-use >>>> only divine spell that was >>>>> effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way >> more >>>> powerful than most >>>>> divine spells. >>>> >>>> Hmm. I'm not sure its _immensely_ more powerful >>>> than most >>>> non-reuseable ones. But perhaps you're right. >>> >>> To compare, Diamond Edge is a 2 pt Divine spell and >> is >>> in effect a Bladesharp 8. >> >> Well, there you go; I'm not sure I consider there to >> be all that >> dramatic a difference between Bladesharp 8 and 10 >> when you're getting >> into that range. > > Generally speaking it would depend on the casters > abilities. The lower his pre-spell chances to hit are > the more important those extra 10% to hit and +2 > damage are. It would also become important if you are > fighting creatures which can only be damaged by magic, > such a Were Wolf with a Chaos Feature of 8 AP skin. > > Leon > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit > the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 24 04:53:23 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:53:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> At 11:34 AM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >Also, keep in mind that divine spells can only be cast once in a given >situation. Even reusable ones need to be renewed by prayer at a temple. So >if my character knows Diamond Edge, I can cast it at best once a day (unless >I sacrifice for multiple castings of it). Spirit magic spells can be cast >as often as I have the mps to fuel it. So if I know Bladesharp 10, I can >cast on multiple weapons, assuming I have the mps to fuel it. And because Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created Bladesharp 10. From aelarsen at mac.com Tue Jul 24 04:58:34 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:58:34 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> Message-ID: Well, originally, it was about a 1-use spirit spell. But if it were a 1-use divine spell, it would be reasonable, perhaps as a 2 or 3 pt spell. Andrew E. Larsen On 7/23/07 1:53 PM, "Wayne Shaw" wrote: > At 11:34 AM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >> Also, keep in mind that divine spells can only be cast once in a given >> situation. Even reusable ones need to be renewed by prayer at a temple. So >> if my character knows Diamond Edge, I can cast it at best once a day (unless >> I sacrifice for multiple castings of it). Spirit magic spells can be cast >> as often as I have the mps to fuel it. So if I know Bladesharp 10, I can >> cast on multiple weapons, assuming I have the mps to fuel it. And because > > Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created Bladesharp 10. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Jul 24 09:51:06 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:51:06 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> Message-ID: <001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> Wayne said: "Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created Bladesharp 10" Not as such, no. I was thinking around the idea that in RQ ( at least RQ3 ) at present a spirit cult generally gives access to one, maybe two divine spells. My feelings about the spirit plane/world is that its denizens are pretty damn varied ( bear in mind I don't play in Glorantha ) and that there was more scope for spirit cults in what they delivered. This was one of the reasons I was curious as to the crossover point between spirit cult and a religion and what the difference between the two was. I think that spirit cults might be able to deliver all sorts of weird and interesting things. Maybe they are spirits in their own right, maybe they are aspects or fragments of other gods or concepts, who knows ? So, it seemed to me that instead of a divine magic a spirit might be able to deliver, spirit magic spells, skills, access to other spirits, gifts ( and maybe geasa to go with them ), legendary abilities, basically all sorts of stuff. Now I picked the Bladesharp 10 as an example, it's a pretty extreme example I'll grant you as Bladesharp 10 is a pretty meaty magic to be possessing. But it's the kind of thing that might be delivered by a spirit. The trick of course is balance out the power of the spell. So maybe the spirit that provides it ( hereafter known as Sword In The Rocks= SITR ) can only be contacted in one very specific locale, maybe SITR can only be contacted once a year, possibly the Bladesharp 10 will only work against certain enemies of SITR ( Trolls, Broos, take your pick ! ). Maybe it can ONLY be cast at strength 10, in which case without a bound spirit or MP matrix you're going to run out of MP's pretty fast, not a good thing. So I don't have a problem with powerful spells in the game as long as there's a limiting factor involved. My understanding is that spirit magic spells don't actually have an upper limit, it just gets harder and harder to find them and learn them, so maybe SITR demands a big price for handing over the mega Bladesharp. Cheers, Clive----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion > At 11:34 AM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >>Also, keep in mind that divine spells can only be cast once in a given >>situation. Even reusable ones need to be renewed by prayer at a temple. >>So >>if my character knows Diamond Edge, I can cast it at best once a day >>(unless >>I sacrifice for multiple castings of it). Spirit magic spells can be cast >>as often as I have the mps to fuel it. So if I know Bladesharp 10, I can >>cast on multiple weapons, assuming I have the mps to fuel it. And because > > Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created Bladesharp > 10. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 24 10:06:57 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:06:57 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> <001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070723170631.03421158@caprica.com> At 04:51 PM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >Wayne said: > >"Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created >Bladesharp 10" > >Not as such, no. I was thinking around the idea that in RQ ( at >least RQ3 ) at present a spirit cult generally gives access to one, Actually, I'm pretty sure that the specific part I was responding to was; I'd suggest going back and looking. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 25 03:51:08 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:51:08 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com><001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723170631.03421158@caprica.com> Message-ID: <001b01c7ce1b$38ae89f0$12698456@sickboy> Sorry Wayne, I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, originally this: "Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created Bladesharp 10" Was in response to Andrews post ? I can see where he is talking about the divine spell Diamond Edge ( Caladra and Aurelion if memory serves ) which gives you the equivalent of Bladesharp 8 and then he goes on to talk about how a fairly poky spirit magic spell might be more flexible in that as long as you fuel it with MP's you can keep on going. Certainly when I made the original post I was talking about spirit magic spells. Have I missed a post somewhere ? Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion > At 04:51 PM 7/23/2007, you wrote: >>Wayne said: >> >>"Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created >>Bladesharp 10" >> >>Not as such, no. I was thinking around the idea that in RQ ( at least >>RQ3 ) at present a spirit cult generally gives access to one, > > Actually, I'm pretty sure that the specific part I was responding to was; > I'd suggest going back and looking. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From shaw at caprica.com Wed Jul 25 05:02:23 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:02:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <001b01c7ce1b$38ae89f0$12698456@sickboy> References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> <001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723170631.03421158@caprica.com> <001b01c7ce1b$38ae89f0$12698456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070724120136.0342df78@caprica.com> At 10:51 AM 7/24/2007, you wrote: >Sorry Wayne, > >I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, originally this: > >"Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created >Bladesharp 10" > >Was in response to Andrews post ? > >I can see where he is talking about the divine spell Diamond Edge ( >Caladra and Aurelion if memory serves ) which gives you the >equivalent of Bladesharp 8 and then he goes on to talk about how a >fairly poky spirit magic spell might be more flexible in that as >long as you fuel it with MP's you can keep on going. Certainly when >I made the original post I was talking about spirit magic spells. >Have I missed a post somewhere ? Unless I'm completely confused, the first message I responded to was refering to a one-use rune spell equivleent to Bladesharp 10 as an option. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 25 06:08:09 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:08:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com><001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy><7.0.1.0.1.20070723170631.03421158@caprica.com><001b01c7ce1b$38ae89f0$12698456@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070724120136.0342df78@caprica.com> Message-ID: <003301c7ce2e$5b7748b0$12698456@sickboy> Wayne, Problem solved, found about 3 posts stuck in my spam filter, it all makes sense now, you were talking about this: " You could make a 1-use only divine spell that was effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more powerful than most divine spells." Weren't you ? The marvels of modern technology........ Aside from all that, the point I was driving at was looking at a wider variety of magics from spirit cults, and maybe gods as well. In my game world there are loads of little spirit cults/hero cults dotted around. Most are nothing special, maybe they teach some skills or low powered magics, sometimes they just act as a sort of very localised divination source. I just like the idea of lots of obscure little cults and groupings being dotted all over. Cheers, Clive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Shaw" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion > At 10:51 AM 7/24/2007, you wrote: >>Sorry Wayne, >> >>I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, originally this: >> >>"Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created >>Bladesharp 10" >> >>Was in response to Andrews post ? >> >>I can see where he is talking about the divine spell Diamond Edge ( >>Caladra and Aurelion if memory serves ) which gives you the equivalent of >>Bladesharp 8 and then he goes on to talk about how a fairly poky spirit >>magic spell might be more flexible in that as long as you fuel it with >>MP's you can keep on going. Certainly when I made the original post I was >>talking about spirit magic spells. Have I missed a post somewhere ? > > Unless I'm completely confused, the first message I responded to was > refering to a one-use rune spell equivleent to Bladesharp 10 as an option. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aelarsen at mac.com Wed Jul 25 06:25:19 2007 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:25:19 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <003301c7ce2e$5b7748b0$12698456@sickboy> Message-ID: I totally agree with your basic point about spirit cults granting a range of different things. A lot of the more spirit level cults published in Tales of the Reaching Moon work this way. Heroes might have a spirit spell and a divine spell, or a skill and spell. They also impose restrictions of various sorts. Legendary abilities might be better acquired through a quest instead of just through worship. They're legendary because they're hard to acquire. Andrew E. Larsen On 7/24/07 3:08 PM, "Clive Wickens" wrote: > Wayne, > > Problem solved, found about 3 posts stuck in my spam filter, it all makes > sense now, you were talking about this: > > " You could make a 1-use only divine spell that was > effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more powerful than most > divine spells." > > Weren't you ? The marvels of modern technology........ > > Aside from all that, the point I was driving at was looking at a wider > variety of magics from spirit cults, and maybe gods as well. In my game > world there are loads of little spirit cults/hero cults dotted around. Most > are nothing special, maybe they teach some skills or low powered magics, > sometimes they just act as a sort of very localised divination source. I > just like the idea of lots of obscure little cults and groupings being > dotted all over. > > Cheers, > > Clive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Shaw" > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:02 PM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion > > >> At 10:51 AM 7/24/2007, you wrote: >>> Sorry Wayne, >>> >>> I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, originally this: >>> >>> "Remember, this was about a non-reusable rune spell that created >>> Bladesharp 10" >>> >>> Was in response to Andrews post ? >>> >>> I can see where he is talking about the divine spell Diamond Edge ( >>> Caladra and Aurelion if memory serves ) which gives you the equivalent of >>> Bladesharp 8 and then he goes on to talk about how a fairly poky spirit >>> magic spell might be more flexible in that as long as you fuel it with >>> MP's you can keep on going. Certainly when I made the original post I was >>> talking about spirit magic spells. Have I missed a post somewhere ? >> >> Unless I'm completely confused, the first message I responded to was >> refering to a one-use rune spell equivleent to Bladesharp 10 as an option. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 shaw at caprica.com Wed Jul 25 07:03:40 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:03:40 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion In-Reply-To: <003301c7ce2e$5b7748b0$12698456@sickboy> References: <747076.51750.qm@web51910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723115250.03414f58@caprica.com> <001c01c7cd84$57bc3dc0$a0579a56@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070723170631.03421158@caprica.com> <001b01c7ce1b$38ae89f0$12698456@sickboy> <7.0.1.0.1.20070724120136.0342df78@caprica.com> <003301c7ce2e$5b7748b0$12698456@sickboy> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070724140244.03430758@caprica.com> At 01:08 PM 7/24/2007, you wrote: >Wayne, > >Problem solved, found about 3 posts stuck in my spam filter, it all >makes sense now, you were talking about this: > >" You could make a 1-use only divine spell that was >effectively Bladesharp 10, but it would be way more powerful than >most divine spells." > >Weren't you ? The marvels of modern technology........ That's the one. >Aside from all that, the point I was driving at was looking at a >wider variety of magics from spirit cults, and maybe gods as well. >In my game world there are loads of little spirit cults/hero cults >dotted around. Most are nothing special, maybe they teach some >skills or low powered magics, sometimes they just act as a sort of >very localised divination source. I just like the idea of lots of >obscure little cults and groupings being dotted all over. Well, my approach on that was still to give the spirit cults divine magic, just a very limited range of it. Sometimes only a single spell. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 25 07:20:32 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:20:32 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Spirits cults versus religion References: Message-ID: <000601c7ce38$780c9750$18598456@sickboy> Andrew, you said: "I totally agree with your basic point about spirit cults granting a range of different things. A lot of the more spirit level cults published in Tales of the Reaching Moon work this way. Heroes might have a spirit spell and a divine spell, or a skill and spell. They also impose restrictions of various sorts. " It was actually the whole series of Praxian spirits they published in Tales 14 to 16 that got me into the idea, along with the various Trollish spirit cults in Troll Gods " Legendary abilities might be better acquired through a quest instead of just through worship. They're legendary because they're hard to acquire." Thats a good point, I think you could go for gifts ( humakt, yelm style etc ) though, some are quite low powered and if you attached geasa or taboos to them it'd balance out nicely. Cheers, Clive ________________________________________ >>> 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 postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Jul 26 18:06:32 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:06:32 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents Message-ID: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Has anyone used one of them free MRQ adventures in Mongoos' download magazine Signs & Portents. I see every month they have a RQ Article and/or adventure. If so, have they been of any decent use? Enjoyed by players? Any specific issue you can recomend? I checked out issue 46 last night and while the Quest For The Stones adventure looked kinda useful as a standby for somewhere in the campaign, but at the same time didn't spark too much interest IMO. Then again, it is a freebie, so one can't expect Strangers on the Borderland or such. Tony From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Fri Jul 27 08:33:30 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:33:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I ran the "druids" scenario from S&P. Somewhat lacking in spice, not really that funny to game, but okay I guess. I also bought the "Rune of Chaos" which was a total waste of money. Will probably never bother to run that one. Waiting for the Blood of Orlanth scenario to come out, but my expectations from Mongoose are way low. Classic RQ still rocks. SGL. postmaster at runequest.za.org skrev: Has anyone used one of them free MRQ adventures in Mongoos' download magazine Signs & Portents. I see every month they have a RQ Article and/or adventure. If so, have they been of any decent use? Enjoyed by players? Any specific issue you can recomend? I checked out issue 46 last night and while the Quest For The Stones adventure looked kinda useful as a standby for somewhere in the campaign, but at the same time didn't spark too much interest IMO. Then again, it is a freebie, so one can't expect Strangers on the Borderland or such. Tony _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/0ec1bcf0/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 09:44:43 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer Message-ID: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or uploading of an executable file. Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070726/11930c35/attachment.html From viktor.haag at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:02:58 2007 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?VmlrdG9yIEhhYWc=?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:02:58 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> You could ZIP the file before sending it.... V. -----Original Message----- From: "David Smart" Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or uploading of an executable file. Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? David _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:29:36 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:29:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707261729s4196924ela2e2a21bcdb2825@mail.gmail.com> Thank you for the suggestion but I tried that. Googlemail is able to automatically preview the contents of zipped files. It blocks the sending of emails with attached zipped files if an attachment contains any executable files. On 7/26/07, Viktor Haag wrote: > > You could ZIP the file before sending it.... > > V. > -----Original Message----- > From: "David Smart" > > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 > To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer > > > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character > generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to > someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or > uploading of an executable file. > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > David > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070726/6e7ca3fa/attachment.html From viktor.haag at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 10:35:49 2007 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (=?utf-8?B?VmlrdG9yIEhhYWc=?=) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:35:49 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707261729s4196924ela2e2a21bcdb2825@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com><1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry><1c92296e0707261729s4196924ela2e2a21bcdb2825@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1426903310-1185496550-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1432290256-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hrm. You could probably either encrypt the archive, or obfuscate the contents somehow (for example, by uuencoding). It's most probable that Google's process for determining the zip's contents is unzip, look for magic cookie in file that says it's an executable and then reject it. If you encrypt the archive with a password so they can't open it, or obfuscate it, that would probably work. V. -----Original Message----- From: "David Smart" Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:29:36 To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer Thank you for the suggestion but I tried that. Googlemail is able to automatically preview the contents of zipped files. It blocks the sending of emails with attached zipped files if an attachment contains any executable files. On 7/26/07, Viktor Haag > wrote: You could ZIP the file before sending it.... V. -----Original Message----- From: "David Smart" > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or uploading of an executable file. Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? David _______________________________________________ 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 anders at california.com Fri Jul 27 10:51:30 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:51:30 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1426903310-1185496550-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1432290256-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <1c92296e0707261729s4196924ela2e2a21bcdb2825@mail.gmail.com> <1426903310-1185496550-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1432290256-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:35:49 +0000 Hey, some of us others would like to see that p[rogram, too. --Aders From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:05:00 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:05:00 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Oddly enough I had the same problem with Google today. I got around it by using the stand-alone Gtalk application to transfer the file; it allows you to transfer files of virtually any size. But both the sender and the receiver have to be using the stand-alone app, because the Gmail website doesn't have the file transfer option. You MIGHT be able to email it by renaming the .EXE to something like .RENAME - if Google is just looking at the filename rather than the contents. I don't know. I'd think password-protecting would be another possibility, as Viktor suggested. Or...if we can get Kevin's permission, I wouldn't mind posting that generator on my RQ site. Is he around? Does anyone know how to reach him? ->Peter On 7/26/07, Viktor Haag wrote: > > You could ZIP the file before sending it.... > > V. > -----Original Message----- > From: "David Smart" > > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 > To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer > > > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character > generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to > someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or > uploading of an executable file. > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > David > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070726/307152c8/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:07:55 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:07:55 -0400 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. ->Peter On 7/26/07, sverre larne wrote: > > I ran the "druids" scenario from S&P. Somewhat lacking in spice, not > really that funny to game, but okay I guess. I also bought the "Rune of > Chaos" which was a total waste of money. Will probably never bother to run > that one. > > Waiting for the Blood of Orlanth scenario to come out, but my expectations > from Mongoose are way low. Classic RQ still rocks. > > SGL. > > > > *postmaster at runequest.za.org* skrev: > > Has anyone used one of them free MRQ adventures in Mongoos' download > magazine Signs & Portents. I see every month they have a RQ Article and/or > adventure. If so, have they been of any decent use? Enjoyed by players? > Any specific issue you can recomend? I checked out issue 46 last night and > while the Quest For The Stones adventure looked kinda useful as a standby > for somewhere in the campaign, but at the same time didn't spark too much > interest IMO. Then again, it is a freebie, so one can't expect Strangers > on the Borderland or such. > Tony > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com > GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070726/6fb406c5/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:20:43 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:20:43 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> ARRRGH!!!! Googlemail blocked even a password-protected zip file! I admire Google's capabilities, though. Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and activate file-sharing on my ISP account. Can't do it 'till tomorrow but I'll post again once the software is available. It really is very slick and is customizable, assuming one is comfortable with manually typing changes directly into data tables. David On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Oddly enough I had the same problem with Google today. > > I got around it by using the stand-alone Gtalk application to transfer the > file; it allows you to transfer files of virtually any size. But both the > sender and the receiver have to be using the stand-alone app, because the > Gmail website doesn't have the file transfer option. > > You MIGHT be able to email it by renaming the .EXE to something like > .RENAME - if Google is just looking at the filename rather than the > contents. I don't know. I'd think password-protecting would be another > possibility, as Viktor suggested. > > Or...if we can get Kevin's permission, I wouldn't mind posting that > generator on my RQ site. Is he around? Does anyone know how to reach him? > > ->Peter > > On 7/26/07, Viktor Haag wrote: > > > > You could ZIP the file before sending it.... > > > > V. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "David Smart" > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 > > To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer > > > > > > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's > > character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to > > get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the > > sending or uploading of an executable file. > > > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20070726/d4638b89/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:42:02 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:42:02 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: References: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707261842t157ef1b6m359976ec152be307@mail.gmail.com> Yes, it would. Surprisingly (especially to me), I actually like some of the ideas Mongoose has included in the arms & equipment book as well as some of the "core rules" books. However, I almost never download or run pre-built adventures. I've had my own custom world for over two decades now and the canned stuff usually wouldn't fit. I still use the occasional one for inspiration though, AH's Griffin Island supplement coming to mind. David On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the > idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. > > ->Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070726/a9155588/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:44:59 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:44:59 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure if I made this clear, but Gtalk transfer definitely DOES allow the transfer of EXE-containing ZIP files. On 7/26/07, David Smart wrote: > > ARRRGH!!!! Googlemail blocked even a password-protected zip file! > > I admire Google's capabilities, though. Looks like I'm going to have to > bite the bullet and activate file-sharing on my ISP account. Can't do it > 'till tomorrow but I'll post again once the software is available. It really > is very slick and is customizable, assuming one is comfortable with manually > typing changes directly into data tables. > > David > > On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > Oddly enough I had the same problem with Google today. > > > > I got around it by using the stand-alone Gtalk application to transfer > > the file; it allows you to transfer files of virtually any size. But both > > the sender and the receiver have to be using the stand-alone app, because > > the Gmail website doesn't have the file transfer option. > > > > You MIGHT be able to email it by renaming the .EXE to something like > > .RENAME - if Google is just looking at the filename rather than the > > contents. I don't know. I'd think password-protecting would be another > > possibility, as Viktor suggested. > > > > Or...if we can get Kevin's permission, I wouldn't mind posting that > > generator on my RQ site. Is he around? Does anyone know how to reach him? > > > > ->Peter > > > > On 7/26/07, Viktor Haag wrote: > > > > > > You could ZIP the file before sending it.... > > > > > > V. > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "David Smart" < jurrubin at gmail.com> > > > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:44:43 > > > To:"Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > > Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's > > > character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to > > > get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the > > > sending or uploading of an executable file. > > > > > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > > > > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/20070726/c430da69/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 11:50:35 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:50:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707261850h4d0676c5m9b1016d19d388537@mail.gmail.com> You did. *grin* But since the person I want to send the software to is new to my group and we've never met face-to-face, I want to minimize the software I'm asking him to install on his PC. On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I'm not sure if I made this clear, but Gtalk transfer definitely DOES > allow the transfer of EXE-containing ZIP files. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070726/3ba10b24/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Fri Jul 27 14:40:45 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> If a copy of the software was to find its way to eMule, he could download it from there? Sverre. David Smart skrev: I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or uploading of an executable file. Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? David _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/3f6edaa0/attachment.html From superninja42 at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 23:51:45 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:51:45 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> I have it posted here : http://www.finding42.com/rq/rq.zip It is not the executable but the actual folder. To use it unzip the files into the directory you want and then run it. It will ask if this is the directory you want to store your stuff in - click YES. Hope this is the one your looking for. I love it, very easy to use and customize. On 7/26/07, sverre larne wrote: > > If a copy of the software was to find its way to eMule, he could download > it from there? > > Sverre. > > > > *David Smart * skrev: > > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of Kevin Spencer's character > generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy but I need to get it to > someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail won't allow the sending or > uploading of an executable file. > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com > GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/03537620/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Jul 27 23:59:27 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42264.19975.qm@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Renaming the file should work. Renaming a file does not actually change the file contents, so you could rename "program.exe" to "picture.jpg", then tell the recipiant to name it back upon receipt. Greg --- David Smart wrote: > I'm trying to track down a downloadable copy of > Kevin Spencer's character > generator software for RQIII. I actually have a copy > but I need to get it to > someone in Alabama (I'm in Texas) and Googlemail > won't allow the sending or > uploading of an executable file. > > Anyone know where a copy is residing on the Web? > > David > > _______________________________________________ > 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jul 27 18:51:54 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer Message-ID: <863315.36017.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >>Viktor Haag: >> You could ZIP the file before sending it.... >David Smart: > Thank you for the suggestion but I tried that. Googlemail is able to > automatically preview the contents of zipped files. It blocks the sending of > emails with attached zipped files if an attachment contains any executable > files. Try renaming the .zip file to a .piz - it worked for us, albeit not for Googlemail. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/b58363a4/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 11:30:14 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <42264.19975.qm@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <42264.19975.qm@web32814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707271830h643f051p495b840299cb226f@mail.gmail.com> We decided to take the easy way out and he created a Yahoo account. I simply emailed the zip file to it from my ISP-provided email account. Sometimes the easiest solution is too obvious. *grin* David On 7/27/07, grogthing wrote: > > Renaming the file should work. Renaming a file does > not actually change the file contents, so you could > rename "program.exe" to "picture.jpg", then tell the > recipiant to name it back upon receipt. > > Greg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/e29c195e/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 11:34:48 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:34:48 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> That's it!!! Everybody, grab this. You'll love it. Thank you, Robert. I greatly appreciate your posting it. David On 7/27/07, Robert wrote: > > I have it posted here : http://www.finding42.com/rq/rq.zip > > It is not the executable but the actual folder. To use it unzip the files > into the directory you want and then run it. It will ask if this is the > directory you want to store your stuff in - click YES. > > Hope this is the one your looking for. I love it, very easy to use and > customize. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070727/5a622dd5/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 28 11:46:57 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <505920.22551.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Y'know... I think I might rewrite this in PHP so it will be platform independent... (Not everyone uses MS-Windows) All the best, Lev --- David Smart wrote: > That's it!!! Everybody, grab this. You'll love it. > > Thank you, Robert. I greatly appreciate your posting > it. > > David > > On 7/27/07, Robert wrote: > > > > I have it posted here : > http://www.finding42.com/rq/rq.zip > > > > It is not the executable but the actual folder. > To use it unzip the files > > into the directory you want and then run it. It > will ask if this is the > > directory you want to store your stuff in - click > YES. > > > > Hope this is the one your looking for. I love it, > very easy to use and > > customize. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 superninja42 at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 16:28:22 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:28:22 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0707272328n1b2a3880i5348050fd0e1e9d8@mail.gmail.com> Your welcome. When I lost my HD I lost the install executable... I was sooooo relieved you could just run it via the folder :) On 7/27/07, David Smart wrote: > > That's it!!! Everybody, grab this. You'll love it. > > Thank you, Robert. I greatly appreciate your posting it. > > David > > On 7/27/07, Robert wrote: > > > > I have it posted here : http://www.finding42.com/rq/rq.zip > > > > It is not the executable but the actual folder. To use it unzip the > > files into the directory you want and then run it. It will ask if this is > > the directory you want to store your stuff in - click YES. > > > > Hope this is the one your looking for. I love it, very easy to use and > > customize. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070728/6d9ea16f/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sat Jul 28 18:47:19 2007 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:47:19 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another piece of software... Message-ID: <46AB0297.5010302@brinkdata.se> At Hugh Fosters webpage one can download a NPC generator (http://home2.btconnect.com/hughfoster/Downloads/WinRabble.htm), only usable on windows though... /Peter Brink From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jul 28 20:07:09 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:07:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46AB154D.5090207@zunder.org.uk> www.yousendit.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 10:56:37 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:56:37 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <4183445e0707272328n1b2a3880i5348050fd0e1e9d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <41762.46337.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4183445e0707270651k720740ber3b4ca0a14bada65e@mail.gmail.com> <1c92296e0707271834h5c74f2fdhf196c578e7e0a393@mail.gmail.com> <4183445e0707272328n1b2a3880i5348050fd0e1e9d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707281756i2db3122at3a90932a9f7eaf8b@mail.gmail.com> Would you like the executable? I'll be happy to send it from my Verizon account. This offer includes anyone on the list; just send an email to jurrubin at verizon.net titled "RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer"'. David On 7/28/07, Robert wrote: > > Your welcome. When I lost my HD I lost the install executable... I was > sooooo relieved you could just run it via the folder :) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070728/0bb7eb7d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 10:58:35 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:58:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another piece of software... In-Reply-To: <46AB0297.5010302@brinkdata.se> References: <46AB0297.5010302@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707281758g76471ff2y2868cd638fa9fd01@mail.gmail.com> Yet it's a fun one. Hugh writes software that will run on pretty much any Windows-based system though I haven't tested any of it on a Vista box. His MegaTraveller software is especially good and I've been using it for years. David On 7/28/07, Peter Brink wrote: > > At Hugh Fosters webpage one can download a NPC generator > (http://home2.btconnect.com/hughfoster/Downloads/WinRabble.htm), only > usable on windows though... > > /Peter Brink > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070728/9761a0fa/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 11:03:21 2007 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:03:21 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQIII CharGen software by Kevin Spencer In-Reply-To: <46AB154D.5090207@zunder.org.uk> References: <1c92296e0707261644w455fbc9excd631270fed0ddb1@mail.gmail.com> <1585992773-1185494580-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1077266167-@bxe119.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <1c92296e0707261820t716a1c07g8b7e3f6c44ad0ecd@mail.gmail.com> <46AB154D.5090207@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0707281803s44d3aea6w1eee283fa88e2c3f@mail.gmail.com> Wow, this is great! With this, I can zip my entire campaign subdirectory and ship it out for free. Thank you, Thomas! David On 7/28/07, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > www.yousendit.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/20070728/fa16e05b/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 00:40:27 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:40:27 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: References: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the > idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. > > ->Peter Maybe it's just me, but "ruining" is a bit strong of a word; perhaps you want to rein back the Mongoose-hatred-bias leaking in there? Runequest has been a wonderful game system for a long time, but let's be honest: "Runequest" and "moribund" have been synonymous since the early 90's. Certainly one could be one of the orthodox (if not downright Talmudic) Runequestophiles who believe anything tainting the Sacred Word shall be apostasy (would that be the Sacred Word 2nd Ed. or 3rd?). For my money, it's a worthwhile exercise to have SOMETHING even marginally Runequesty to be out on the gameshelves again, if only for people to see that there is SOMETHING other then d20. Even if I agreed with you that Mongoose was putting out particularly crappy product (you've apparently forgotten Daughters of Darkness? Elderad? Dobyski art? the previous RQ legacy was hardly untainted...) the idea that people might be just thinking about Runequest again is, IMO, a good thing. And please, "dubious provenance"? - you've got to be kidding. Compared to what? HQ? RQ:Slayers? They both have presumably better "claims" to the mantle of 'current successor to RQ' than Mongoose's, neh? -Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/1b0fe722/attachment.html From superninja42 at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 01:59:28 2007 From: superninja42 at gmail.com (Robert) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:59:28 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: References: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4183445e0707300859r22887fe3u2d0a28bec610a76f@mail.gmail.com> On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the > idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. > > ->Peter > There is a group of fairly hardcore RQ'rs (primarily 3rd, but their GM has adapted so much other RQ material I have no idea what version you would call it to be honest) that have recently purchased and have started playing Mongoose RQ. Their reaction was nothing apocalyptic, but said the heart of RQ is present just in a different package. People who are going to buy Mongoose's version of RQ will probably never see the original and half of them will never know there was something before it. When D20 D&D came out there was the same hemming and hawing about it ruining the game and the D&D name. Though I agree (cause I have a bizarre hatred of D20) it did what it was supposed to do and that was bring a ton of new RPG players into a dying piece of the American market. I like Mongoose Publishing though because they gave me a better, prettier, and more suicidal Paranoia :) -- Robert Parrish superninja42 at gmail.com www.finding42.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/2b5e3d0e/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 02:01:30 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:01:30 -0400 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> References: <43142.196.8.104.27.1185437192.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <397591.38947.qm@web28008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "The same system using different words", Steve. My understanding is that NONE of the profits from Mongoose RQ are going to the people who actually created the RuneQuest system. Steve Perrin, please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that Mongoose RQ is the first system claiming to actually be related to RQ 1, 2, and 3 in which none of the profits have gone to the original system creators. RuneQuest: Slayers never pretended to be actually related to the RuneQuest system. Neither did Issaries Heroquest (as opposed to the never-published HeroQuest of RQ2/3 days). 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. ->Peter On 7/30/07, Styopa wrote: > > On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the > > idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and > > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the > > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. > > > > ->Peter > > > Maybe it's just me, but "ruining" is a bit strong of a word; perhaps you > want to rein back the Mongoose-hatred-bias leaking in there? > > Runequest has been a wonderful game system for a long time, but let's be > honest: "Runequest" and "moribund" have been synonymous since the early > 90's. > > Certainly one could be one of the orthodox (if not downright Talmudic) > Runequestophiles who believe anything tainting the Sacred Word shall be > apostasy (would that be the Sacred Word 2nd Ed. or 3rd?). For my money, > it's a worthwhile exercise to have SOMETHING even marginally Runequesty to > be out on the gameshelves again, if only for people to see that there is > SOMETHING other then d20. > > Even if I agreed with you that Mongoose was putting out particularly > crappy product (you've apparently forgotten Daughters of Darkness? > Elderad? Dobyski art? the previous RQ legacy was hardly untainted...) the > idea that people might be just thinking about Runequest again is, IMO, a > good thing. > > And please, "dubious provenance"? - you've got to be kidding. Compared to > what? HQ? RQ:Slayers? They both have presumably better "claims" to the > mantle of 'current successor to RQ' than Mongoose's, neh? > > -Steve > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20070730/20e05d1f/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Tue Jul 31 04:06:07 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:06:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <595205.33018.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mongoose RuneQuest is quite inferior to the Classical RuneQuest. I was very entusiastic when it came out and have almost all their books. I haven't played a single session though, and probably never will. The quality of their products is pretty bad. But you're right. This isn't the place to discuss MRQ's failings, but the brilliance of classical RuneQuests! SGL. Styopa skrev: On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. ->Peter Maybe it's just me, but "ruining" is a bit strong of a word; perhaps you want to rein back the Mongoose-hatred-bias leaking in there? Runequest has been a wonderful game system for a long time, but let's be honest: "Runequest" and "moribund" have been synonymous since the early 90's. Certainly one could be one of the orthodox (if not downright Talmudic) Runequestophiles who believe anything tainting the Sacred Word shall be apostasy (would that be the Sacred Word 2nd Ed. or 3rd?). For my money, it's a worthwhile exercise to have SOMETHING even marginally Runequesty to be out on the gameshelves again, if only for people to see that there is SOMETHING other then d20. Even if I agreed with you that Mongoose was putting out particularly crappy product (you've apparently forgotten Daughters of Darkness? Elderad? Dobyski art? the previous RQ legacy was hardly untainted...) the idea that people might be just thinking about Runequest again is, IMO, a good thing. And please, "dubious provenance"? - you've got to be kidding. Compared to what? HQ? RQ:Slayers? They both have presumably better "claims" to the mantle of 'current successor to RQ' than Mongoose's, neh? -Steve _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/74bbd695/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 31 04:26:11 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:26:11 -0700 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <595205.33018.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> <595205.33018.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730112542.033af178@caprica.com> At 11:06 AM 7/30/2007, you wrote: >Mongoose RuneQuest is quite inferior to the Classical RuneQuest. I >was very entusiastic when it came out and have almost all their >books. I haven't played a single session though, and probably never >will. The quality of their products is pretty bad. > >But you're right. This isn't the place to discuss MRQ's failings, >but the brilliance of classical RuneQuests! As far as I understood it, this list is about all versions of RQ. Am I in error? From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Tue Jul 31 05:13:12 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:13:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730112542.033af178@caprica.com> Message-ID: <476919.77145.qm@web28001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed content for this list. I think it should be about brilliance of the true RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ forum. ;-) SGL. Wayne Shaw skrev: At 11:06 AM 7/30/2007, you wrote: >Mongoose RuneQuest is quite inferior to the Classical RuneQuest. I >was very entusiastic when it came out and have almost all their >books. I haven't played a single session though, and probably never >will. The quality of their products is pretty bad. > >But you're right. This isn't the place to discuss MRQ's failings, >but the brilliance of classical RuneQuests! As far as I understood it, this list is about all versions of RQ. Am I in error? _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/a3bef98b/attachment.html From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 31 05:30:34 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:30:34 -0400 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I for one LOVE Mongoose Runequest. No RPG pleases everyone. 2nd Edition WFRP Sucked, as far as I am concerned, but I know others like it. John >From: Styopa >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:40:27 -0500 > >On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci wrote: > > > > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the > > idea that all RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and > > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the > > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ. > > > > ->Peter > > >Maybe it's just me, but "ruining" is a bit strong of a word; perhaps you >want to rein back the Mongoose-hatred-bias leaking in there? > >Runequest has been a wonderful game system for a long time, but let's be >honest: "Runequest" and "moribund" have been synonymous since the early >90's. > >Certainly one could be one of the orthodox (if not downright Talmudic) >Runequestophiles who believe anything tainting the Sacred Word shall be >apostasy (would that be the Sacred Word 2nd Ed. or 3rd?). For my money, >it's a worthwhile exercise to have SOMETHING even marginally Runequesty to >be out on the gameshelves again, if only for people to see that there is >SOMETHING other then d20. > >Even if I agreed with you that Mongoose was putting out particularly crappy >product (you've apparently forgotten Daughters of Darkness? Elderad? >Dobyski art? the previous RQ legacy was hardly untainted...) the idea that >people might be just thinking about Runequest again is, IMO, a good thing. > >And please, "dubious provenance"? - you've got to be kidding. Compared to >what? HQ? RQ:Slayers? They both have presumably better "claims" to the >mantle of 'current successor to RQ' than Mongoose's, neh? > >-Steve >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ http://liveearth.msn.com From shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 31 05:53:57 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:53:57 -0700 Subject: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <476919.77145.qm@web28001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730112542.033af178@caprica.com> <476919.77145.qm@web28001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730125324.03436d08@caprica.com> At 12:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote: >You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed >content for this list. I think it should be about brilliance of the >true RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ forum. ;-) I think you'll be frustrated then, because I've certainly seen people discussing matters where they were apparently using MRQ here. From parejf63 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 31 06:10:12 2007 From: parejf63 at hotmail.com (John Pare') Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:10:12 -0400 Subject: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730125324.03436d08@caprica.com> Message-ID: I do not feel that this list specifies a version of RQ. I play MRQ and RQ III with adaptations of both. John >From: Wayne Shaw >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & >Portents >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:53:57 -0700 > >At 12:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote: >>You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed >>content for this list. I think it should be about brilliance of the true >>RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ forum. ;-) > >I think you'll be frustrated then, because I've certainly seen people >discussing matters where they were apparently using MRQ here. > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!? http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2 From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Tue Jul 31 07:19:56 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (sverre larne) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:19:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730125324.03436d08@caprica.com> Message-ID: <804726.25025.qm@web28006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Oh I will be fine. I'll just eat my Zyprexa and it will all be good. ;-) SGL. Wayne Shaw skrev: At 12:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote: >You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed >content for this list. I think it should be about brilliance of the >true RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ forum. ;-) I think you'll be frustrated then, because I've certainly seen people discussing matters where they were apparently using MRQ here. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules GBC's Portal to Glorantha - http://www.runequest-glorantha.com GBC's RuneQuest Links & Glorantha Links - http://www.runequest.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/94df6c49/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 31 09:03:03 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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' wrote: > I do not feel that this list specifies a version of > RQ. I play MRQ and RQ > III with adaptations of both. > > > John > > >From: Wayne Shaw > >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > > >Subject: Re: Vedr. Re: *** JUNK MAIL ***Vedr. Re: > Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & > >Portents > >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:53:57 -0700 > > > >At 12:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote: > >>You might be right as there is no clear > description of the supposed > >>content for this list. I think it should be about > brilliance of the true > >>RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the > MRQ forum. ;-) > > > >I think you'll be frustrated then, because I've > certainly seen people > >discussing matters where they were apparently using > MRQ here. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play > Chicktionary! > http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 shaw at caprica.com Tue Jul 31 10:45:16 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:45:16 -0700 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730174451.034021c8@caprica.com> At 04:03 PM 7/30/2007, you 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? I suspect the only reason it isn't is that the system doesn't show any relationship to BRP style systems. From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jul 31 16:52:42 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents Message-ID: <324850.47504.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > "The same system using different words", Steve. My understanding is that > NONE of the profits from Mongoose RQ are going to the people who actually > created the RuneQuest system. Steve Perrin, please correct me if I'm wrong. Ah, the age-old distinction between workers and bosses, writers as opposed to owners. If I write a piece of software for a company and that company then sells the software or gets someone else to add things to it or rewrite it then I don't expect a cut of any future profits, unless I had an agreement in place beforehand. That's life. It's just tough. > 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. 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. 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. Sverre Larne: >>Wayne Shaw: >>As far as I understood it, this list is about all versions of RQ. Am >>I in error? > > You might be right as there is no clear description of the supposed content for this list. I think it > should be about brilliance of the true RuneQuest though. I do enough MRQ bashing on the MRQ > forum. ;-) All RQ, as well as many different forms of BRP, have been discussed here in the past. I'm not a moderator but I can't see discussions of RQM rules being bannded. Maybe discussions on RQ politics should be, though ..... See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/cf13d935/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 31 17:46:39 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <324850.47504.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <630.22867.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- 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 supplements 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 From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 31 18:12:20 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:12:20 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730112542.033af178@caprica.com> References: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> <595205.33018.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070730112542.033af178@caprica.com> Message-ID: <16180.196.8.104.27.1185869540.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Wayne wrote: > > As far as I understood it, this list is about all versions of RQ. Am > I in error? > I think you are correct. While I don't own any MRQ gear yet, I do hope to get some down the line. Besides, as new people join the fold, many of them will have MRQ as their only experience of RQ and I do not think it would be wise to diss it and potentially loose their input and potentially creative ideas. We can however encourage them to experience older versions and make up their own minds as to what they prefer and maybe all be the ircher for it. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Tue Jul 31 18:13:46 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster at runequest.za.org) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:13:46 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: References: <56e64e7a0707300740x7ec45a46q8b2ce0659c4c1ccc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18638.196.8.104.27.1185869626.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > I for one LOVE Mongoose Runequest. > > No RPG pleases everyone. 2nd Edition WFRP Sucked, as far as I am > concerned, > but I know others like it. > > > > > John > Agreed, hey I still reel someties from the bias against 3rd edition from AH. Tony From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Tue Jul 31 18:23:24 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:23:24 +0100 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070730174451.034021c8@caprica.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote on 31/07/2007 01:45:16: > At 04:03 PM 7/30/2007, you 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? > I suspect the only reason it isn't is that the system doesn't show > any relationship to BRP style systems. Which rather reinforces the idea that this list is, unofficially anyway, a sort of "BRP and rule systems clearly derived (even if by ethically dubious chicanery) from them" list. And since BRP originated from the original RuneQuest... 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 Tue Jul 31 19:51:27 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:51:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents In-Reply-To: <324850.47504.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >> 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. From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 22:03:53 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:03:53 -0500 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules]Signs & Portent In-Reply-To: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <997198.43349.qm@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0707310503r1f35827ftc0079344391ecb30@mail.gmail.com> 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' 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070731/b5bc3571/attachment.html