From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Thus our Chalana healer also is training up their Racial Lore for races we run into... Hope that helped. Jeremy J and/or Ellen wrote: > I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? > > I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? > > Big thankies, > > J. McCrackan > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: got dead stock still in their warehouse? Anyone that can shed sone light on the matter would be revered as a linguistic god! Cheers, Ash --__--__-- Message: 6 From: "Pontus Amberg" To: Subject: RE: [RQ-Rules] Bloody Foreigners! Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 16:58:12 +0200 Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com And where can the website be found? /Pontus -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of aescleal at btinternet.com Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 4:53 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bloody Foreigners! Is my French letting me down, or do Oriflam still produce a version of RQ? From their website it looks like they still publish it, or have they just got dead stock still in their warehouse? Anyone that can shed sone light on the matter would be revered as a linguistic god! Cheers, Ash _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --__--__-- Message: 7 From: "Den, Tony T" To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:22:20 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Human variation? Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Pete Maranci wrote asking about human variations etc. I also wonder why many games tend to ignore variations other than to the basics like SIZ, STR etc. I reckon variations can be fun to play, not only as a human character. Imagine a suspiciously tall dwarf, or and Orc with emerald eyes and blond hair and a very "elfish" look about it (Mary Gentle's - Grunts! refers). And yes, how would people react to a midget in a fantasy scenario. outcast from humans as a halfling, outcase from halflings because he is human. Also, insofar as other birth defects ect, such as a tendance towrards alcoholism, one could always opt for a Top Secret SI setup, where characters can take advantages but must also take disadvantages. These are done at levels, so One may have advantage of being able to see well in the dark at 1, but also be alcoholic 1 (disadvantage) etc. then again, one could just work it into a characters history and play it. Ave atque vale T?ny Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Standard Bank Investment Corporation(Stanbic) is proprietary to the company. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Stanbic does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Stanbic. The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. Stanbic can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. --__--__-- Message: 8 From: "N.J. Effingham" Organization: University of Leeds To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:36:18 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Researching spells Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Has anyone come up with rules for characters > researching a new sorcery spell? I have a several > players asking me about it, but I do not remeber > seeing anything like that for RQ. I've got a system on my webpage for Sandy's rules at http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/sorc.htm Hope that helps! Nikk __________________________________ Nikk Effingham Work E-mail address: phlnje at leeds.ac.uk Permanent E-mail address: nikk at MailAndNews.com URL: http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/ --__--__-- Message: 9 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:59:52 EDT To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Transfer [Characteristic] spell Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Hi gang (assuming anyone's still out there) :) While re-working my Sorcery document (I had such a document previously, but it didn't make the jump over to our new computer very well--Hence the reworking. THIS'll sure show me to back stuff up on disc, I'll tell you), I ran across a note about a Transfer [Characteristic] spell that I'd wanted to include, but there's no description. I think it allowed both characteristic and skill transfer--anyone have the *slightest* idea about this? Am I imagining it? Help! :) -Ken Murphy- --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --__--__-- Message: 10 From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:28:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 = rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's = base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species?=20 I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on = categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, = a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a = -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone = already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? Big thankies, J. McCrackan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --__--__-- Message: 11 From: "Steve Perrin" To: Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 16:52:34 -0700 Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Actually, this was a conscious attempt to simplify things. One rationale is that if all these races are living in the same world, virtually cheek-by-jowl, then you learn everyone's First Aid, just like the citizens of a country like Switzerland learn French and German and Italian. That said, a system like you propose would probably work, particularly for a world in which everyone isn't quite so neighborly. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "J and/or Ellen" To: Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:28 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? Big thankies, J. McCrackan --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:09:34 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Movement Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Weird. I kept expecting other people to mention the system I have used for a while... Did I make it up??? Anyway, in my campaign, we use SIZ + DEX, divided by 8 for humans and trolls. We divide by 6 for elves and broo, and 10 for dwarves and ducks. This still averages at about 3 for humans and elves, slightly higher for broo (they had 4 in the monster book) and significantly lower for dwarves. However, in our party, we have people who move from 3.1 to 4.2. This accounts for longer strides and lets us say, "We need to get a message out fast - Kylei, you go." And, "Gee, our slowest guy needs a horse!" Since I dropped SR, I'm moving to a system of Move x1 free in combat, x3 walking, x5 running, ... I've also realized that this as an hourly move (in miles) works well - about 25 miles a day on an 8 1/2 hour forced march. What do you guys think? Jeremy Guy Hoyle wrote: > In most of the iterations of RQ that I have seen, movement is always fixed (for humans, 3m/round). This seems curious to me, as it doesn't really allow for people who can move really really fast (except via magic). Am I missing something? has anybody experimented with other movement methods? > > Guy > > Galactic Overlord. Drama Critic. Swear fealty to Torgon at http://www.cafepress.com/torgonthrone/ . Torgon has spoken. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --__--__-- Message: 13 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:28:27 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Dammit, Jim--I'm a doctor, not a veterinarian! Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Hey, I've been pushing Lore skills in my campaign, so you need a [Race] Lore to be able to Heal at full effect. It started from the old 'Heal spell is only 1/2 effective on other races - use Xenohealing' from RQII. Since Xenohealing isn't in 3rd, I added "a successful Animal Lore or Racial Lore check allows you to Heal at full skill". >From there, I'd say 1/2 skill (or -25% for more similar races), unless you can also make a [race] Lore check. If you don't want so many Lores, use Mineral Lore for Dwarves and Plant Lore for Elves? Thus our Chalana healer also is training up their Racial Lore for races we run into... Hope that helped. Jeremy J and/or Ellen wrote: > I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? > > I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? > > Big thankies, > > J. McCrackan > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --__--__-- Message: 14 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:26:26 -0700 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Movement Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Weird. I kept expecting other people to mention the system I have >used for a while... Did I make it up??? This sounds like a good idea to me. And no I don't recall ever seeing this before. >Anyway, in my campaign, we use SIZ + DEX, divided by 8 for humans >and trolls. We divide by 6 for elves and broo, and 10 for dwarves >and ducks. Looks nice and straightforwrd. It looks like it would be easy to put in a STR scaling factor for encumberance. So a normal human might be divide by 8. Then with varing levels of encumberance (pribobably in terms of STR) increase by 1 or so. So a lightly encumbered human would be 9, a moderatley encumbered human would be 10, and a really encumbered human would be 11 or more. I can remember what AiG used. I think it used something similar, but was table based. -Andrew -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ --__--__-- Message: 15 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" To: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:48:45 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow - Too close to shoot Reply-To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Bow - Too close to shootThere are a couple of players in the group I am = GM'ing that have specialized on the bow, and think they can shoot arrows = at their opponent after being engaged in melee. One of their favorite = tactics is to fire arrows without moving and letting the enemy come to = him. Then to stand there going toe to toe while shooting arrows at the = opponent who is trying to hit them with a melee weapon. (sword, axe, = mace, spear) I am simply saying that once engaged in melee, the bowman can not notch, = draw and loose an arrow at an attacker. Especially with someone swing a = weapon at them. I am currently stressing two points with them;=20 1. in melee the bowman can not draw and loose the arrow at the opponent. = =20 2. the arrow must be completely free of the bow string to get momentum = to cause damage.=20 Their biggest complaint is that they have to take time to change weapons = and could miss out on an attack.=20 Am I totally off base here, or should I allow bowmen to fire while in = melee? I just don't see it.=20 Jim=20 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --__--__-- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules End of RQ-Rules Digest From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "Casters get 2 points of spirit magic, 2 points of sorcery magic (25 bonus) or 1 point of divine magic per spell they can cast. Basic knowledge (25 bonus) of a sorcery skills (art) costs the equivalent of 1 spell. Increases in casting skill, manipulation skills or rituals costs 1 point per 25 increase in the skill." Cheers, Ash > from: Leon Kirshtein > date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:11:21 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Characters POW > > But then how do you determine the amount of Divine > magic to give to your 7th level cleric or your 10th > level Paladin that you are converting? > > Leon > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > Not spent - characteristic only - essentially it's > > the average of the characters chance of affecting > > others and resisting magic. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > > --- aescleal at btinternet.com wrote: > > > > I use: > > > > > > > > POW 10 the average of saving throw modifier > > and > > > > will save bonus. > > > > > > > > eg I: A first level Cleric with WIS 16 has 4 > > saving > > > > throw modifier (for first level spells) and 5 > > will > > > > save bonus giving POW 10 (4 5)/2 = 15 > > > > > > > > eg II: A 7th level fighter with WIS 09 has no > > saving > > > > throw modifier and 1 will save bonus giving POW > > 10 > > > > (0 1)/2 = 11 > > > > > > Is this POW "to be spent for things" or the > > > character's stat? > > > > > > I always take the WIS = POW and then give the > > > additional POW for ench and such. > > > ===== > "No good deed shall go unpunished." > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: fun and would be stopped in short order... Hoping he won't get flamed too much. And maybe still invited to games occasionally... Jeremy DevinC at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/20/2002 2:34:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, aragan at ucla.edu writes: > > > Amazing isn't it? Yet some people still do. I had one fellow regularly > > use the "drop and grab" dice-rolling method. I finally made him leave > > the dice on the table until I verified each roll. He left > > not long > > thereafter. > > I I've seen plenty of other folks cheat over the years...you bet! > > We caught one person who had pre-read all the scenarios used for the game. The GM, catching on, shifted some things around and when she tried to do things per the scenario and they didn't come out the way the scenario read, you could tell by her reaction that she had been cheating. > > I've seen many folks who like to sit at the far end of the table and use non-coloured in dice so that the GM cannot read the result from his position at the table. And rare is it that one player will tattle on another. > > Devin > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Cheers, Ash > from: DevinC at aol.com > date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:09:51 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] D20 Runequest/Glorantha > > In a message dated 1/9/2003 4:43:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: > > > Funny how people are equating death of RQ with death of Glorantha. As far as I can tell there's about 3 times the number of people playing games in Glorantha now Hero Wars is out as was this time two years back. Providing the powers that be can maintain interest long enough to keep turning out new stuff I can't see it going the way of the dodo for a long while > > yet. > > Well first, how can you tell? Did you take a survey or something? > > Second, two years ago HW was just being released or had just been released. > > The fact is that HW (shortly to become HQ) is a very inaccessible system and is not likely to become very popular in the future. It is definitely not the type of system that will hold any interest to a 16 year old wanting to get into the hobby. > > Devin > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Currently running my guys in the classic pavis setting with RQ3 much adapted Thanks guys ... that gives us an overview Ciao Paul sommer --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Cheers, Ash > from: "Hibbs, Phil" > date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:29:21 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Character Concept: The Iron Surfer > > Simon Phipp: > >If he used the bound sylph with the condition that the sylph stays > >bound and flies where the person standing on the shield directs, > > The only way to direct a Sylph is to have a Control/Command/Dominate spell > in effect. The sylph cannot interpret vocal commands or gesticulations, it > has no INT. I don't like the idea of inventing new abilities just with a > condition. > > The efficient way to do this within the rules is to get a Control Sylph > spell from a Kolating shaman. > > >A Wind Lord / acolyte of another cult could get around the no > >RuneLord-Priests in RQ3. In any case, I like the idea of multiple > >Rune Lord/Priest membership and so I scrapped that restriction. > > So which cult requirement do they ignore - the 90% time & money for being > Rune Lord, or the 50% for being an Acolyte? > > I'm starting to understand why the power level of your game seems > unattainable to me - you're using substantially different rules. > > >...none of my players dared fly in Dorastor in > >case they were spotted by nasty things. > > Yes, it does make things interesting. > > Phil Hibbs. > > > ******************************************************************************************** > " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and > is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for > the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use > this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please > notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". > ******************************************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: My wife reads English far better than she can write it, she reads English better than she can speak it. I can read French reasonably well, at least well enough to skip through fanzine articles, but I can't speak it as well. I can speak Russian far better than I can read it and can read it far better than I can write it. I used to be able to speak/read/write Spanish to a certain level. I would suggest that we need more language skills rather than less - Read (Language), Write (Language), Speak (Language), Understand (Language). Calligraphy is not the same regardless of language. I could read and write Spanish and French fairly easily, because the alphabet is similar to the English alphabet, being variations on the Latin alphabet. It is a lot harder to read/write Russian because that is based on the Cyrillic alphabet. There are several forms of the Cyrillic alphabet depending on which language you want to read/write. Handwritten script is different again to printed words. You would need a Calligraphy (Language Group) for each alphabet/set of symbols. > Communication > skills (Orate, Fast talk,...) would also be limited by the=20 > Language skill so used (let say a maximum of twice the Language used).=20 > Even Listen could be so limited to understand a conversation. That makes sense, but I always limited them to double the lowest of the partners' language skill, so if a character had Speak Sartarite 50% and he was trying to seduce a lady who had Speak Sartarite 20% then his Seduce would be limited to 40%, for instance. > This concept could be used for other skills which are too numerous per=20 > cat=E9gory (Ride [animal], Combat [weapon]... ? This was tried in RQ3 with Devise and Sleight, but I didn't like that idea particularly. Also, riding a camel is substantially different, I am told, to riding on horseback. Alan Chambers: > Here's an interesting question. If an Undead creature has been created > using > magic, can it be dispelled using something like Dismiss Magic? Serazh: > I would say no, normally it takes ritual enchantments to make undead, and > enchantments cannot be dispelled, although if you find the foci and destroy > it, that will disrupt a enchantment. I'd agree with Serazh. Zombies can be destroyed by making them eat salt or knocking the head off or destroying the enchantment but not by dispelling the enchantment. Simon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: because Light isn't an Element. Each of the five senses has an elemental association: Fire Sight Air Smell Dark Hearing Water Taste Earth Touch Only some kind of transelemental that embodied the power of more than one element could affect more than one sense. But as the great man says, YGMV. Phil Hibbs. ******************************************************************************************** " This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ". ******************************************************************************************** From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ Beasties > MurfNMurf at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/2/2003 1:49:49 PM Central Standard Time, > > slposey at concentric.net writes: > > > >>"Prydain" as in Lloyd Alexander's Taran books? > > > > Yup. Though Alexander's books are derivitive of earlier epic era stuff. > > While my campaign was centered for the most part on Ireland, there were > > always side trips to nearby Prydain. To keep pesky mapping chores to a > > minimum, I decided to only work up a couple of areas (Whales and Cornwall's > > ancient equivalents), and have the rest of England covered almost entirely of > > ancient-growth forest :) > > Cool, have you spec'ed out any of the critters from the books? > > In particular Llyan the giant cat? Or the Cauldron Born? > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: That's the name from the Norse mythology of the winged women who brought slain worriers that they found worthy -to erernal life in Midgard and Valhall, the Odin's home. >Simon (Phipp, not Hibbs, Philips, Pipp or anything else) posted: > >>Where you would struggle is with the exotics, such as broos, >>scorpionmen or >>wind children which are definitely Gloranthan in nature and >>wouldn't fit into >>many settings. You would also struggle with creatures particular to >>the game >>setting, these would have to be written up for that game setting. > >Greg took scorpionmen from the real world epic of Gilgamesh, wind >children from northern European mythologies (aren't they also >featured in the RQ _Viking_ boxed set?). I think beastmen, such as >broos or D&D's gnolls, are also from real world mythologies, but I >can't recall specifics . >-- > >Brad Furst >esoteric at crashbox.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ MSN Messenger ------------------------------------------ - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: can be applied against a single foe to reduce the foe's attack chance by the Defense skill. If the foe missed his roll because of the Defense modifier, then the defender gets a Defense tick. Experience is gained by rolling below INT%, without any modifiers. We played that characters could split Defense between more than one opponent, regardless of the Defense skill. Defense was useful in that a character with a high defense could apply it against a single opponent and "Defend Him Out" or reduce his skill to 5%, thus negating his attack. It could also be used to reduce an attack skill and reduce the Anti-Parry effect. I think that it could be used against all missile weapons by running and jiggling about, in this case the character applied half the Defense skill against all missile attacks. So, Xena has a Defense of 80%, she fights three soldiers, each with 70% attack. She attacks A, parries B and applies her defense against C, reducing his attack to 5% (it cannot go below 0), giving her effectively two opponents. Then, Xena attacks a Rune Lord of Ares, who has 150% Attack, so she applies all her defense against him. This reduces his attack to 150-80=70%. He then goes Berserk, increasing his attack to 225% (In RQ2, Beserk multiplies attack by 1.5 or 2 against Chaos), so after Defense his attack is 225-80=145%, this reduces her parry chance by 45% rather than by 125%, giving her a chance to parry. Having despatched the Rune Lord, Xena is shot at by archers. She jiggles about and reduces their attack chance by 80/2=40%. Of course, watching Xena jiggling about is enjoyable in itself. Thomas M. Cantine: > I think the problem with knockback as it's written in RQ3 is that it is > completely out of touch with the falling damage. You take way more damage > being shoved three meters into a tree than you would falling three meters > straight down onto solid rock. I have therefore written up the following, > my own treatment of knockback and falling damage: Looks pretty good. > Falling > > The damage for falling can be left as it is in RQ3 (i.e. 1d6 per 3 m of > height). I agree that armour should not substantially affect falling > damage, which is primarily due to rapid deceleration on impact. However, a > tiny amount of incidental damage is from contact with the surface of the > ground itself, and armour should help against that, hard armour being > slightly more effective. Thus, for falling damage, allow soft armour (of > any type) to count for 1 armour point, and hard armour (of any type) as 2 > armour points. This won't make much difference when someone falls off a 30 > m cliff, but will save someone tripping over a cobblestone from a few > scratches and bruises. Seems reasonable, but I would put a top limit on this, just because I like the idea of falling being affected by Terminal Velocity (a bit technical, but I don't like open-ended falling damage). > The better protection from falling damage should be provided by the Jump > skill, but one critical detail seems to have been omitted from the RQ3 > rules: the benefit of landing on your feet instead of your head. Since all > falling damage goes to total hit points anyway, a successful Jump roll will > have no effect on one's likelihood of surviving a fall whatsoever. > Solution: allow legs to have 3 armour points each for the purposes of > falling damage, and arms to have 2 armour points, not cumulative with the > worn armour protection mentioned above. On a failed Jump, a lucky faller > might still land on an arm or leg and enjoy the benefit of this protection, > but on a fumbled Jump limbs have no armour points for falling damage. A > special success allows the faller to spread the impact over two chosen > locations, and on a critical success the faller may distribute the impact > over any number of chosen locations. So, a normal Jump reduces damage by 3, a special by 6 and a critical by a maximum of 10. Seems a bit low to me. Perhaps reducing by 1D6 per location might be better, giving a range of damage reduction. > Note: The basic principles for falling damage also apply to adventurers > colliding with surfaces at any angle, such as when one sprints into a brick > wall. The damage given in RQ3 for knockback into solid objects (1D6 for > every meter of movement) is way out of line with falling damage. In > general, a movement rate of 5 m per strike rank is equivalent to a fall > from 3 m of height. Unfortunately, while kinetic energy increases linearly > with height, it does not do so for speed. I offer therefore the following > simplified scale of impact damage for typical speeds: > > Damage Equivalent speed Typical situation > 1D3 1-2 m/SR Walking into wall; tripping > over cat > 1D4 3-4 m/SR Running into wall; falling > from 1 m > 1D6 5-6 m/SR Sprinting into wall; > falling from 2-3 m. > 2D6 7-8 m/SR Trotting horse. > 3D6 9-10 m/SR Charging horse I always wondered what would be the result of a charging horse with Mobility cast. A running horse runs at 10m/SR, a horse charging at full tilt goes at double this - 20m/SR, a charging horse with Mobility can be going a lot faster. When would this happen? I had a centaur who would break through doors by casting Mobility and charging at absolutely full tilt into the door. Any ideas about extending this to, say, Move 30 (30m/SR)? > While it may not be necessary to calculate beyond this speed, it's > interesting to note that kinetic energy increases as the square of > velocity. This means that an unhappy adventurer travelling at 60 m/SR > should suffer approximately 100D6 damage on impact, demonstrating why > trebuchets are not a viable means of personal transportation. In any case, > since the same amount of kinetic energy is applied to the adventurer on > launch (though over several meters of acceleration) for maybe 50D6, it > doesn't matter how one lands; the launch will kill you. > One might wonder how it is that a person being hit with a boulder > flung by a trebuchet would take only 12D6 damage, but 100D6 damage from a > wall at the same relative speed of impact. While dead is dead, the > ballistic adventurer will leave fewer recognizable bits behind, because > every one of those bits will make the same abrupt splattering deceleration. > In contrast, the trebuchet ball might carry away with it a couple of hit > locations, leaving behind several relatively intact portions. Indeed, an > adventurer struck in the arm by a trebuchet might well survive, since no > more than twice a limb's hit points may be done to total hit points through > ordinary damage. No such luck with falling damage. Once again, having this open-ended doesn't seem realistic. > (2) Special success with a blunt or slashing weapon. I have > omitted slashing weapons from this, for reasons discussed above. Presumably this works for Crushing/Impaling weapons, not crushing/slashing weapons. > (3) A moving adventurer or monster collides with another. This can > happen when one adventurer is knocked back into another, or when one runs > (deliberately or blindly) into another. To determine if knockback takes > place, match the mover's SIZ + current movement rate (in meters per strike > rank) against the stationary adventurer's SIZ on the resistance table. If > the stationary adventurer is aware of the impending collision, he may > include his DEX with his SIZ on the resistance roll, or he might already be > bracing against knockback with STR instead (as per RQ3). If the moving > adventurer is moving under her own power (rather than simply having been > knocked back herself), and actually intends to collide, she may also add > her DEX for the resistance roll. On a success, knockback occurs; see below > for magnitude and effects. On a failed resistance roll, the moving > character suffers knockback of 0 meters; see below for effects. (The > stationary character could alternatively Set Spear vs. Charge, precluding > the use of DEX in the resistance roll if the spear attack misses. If it > hits, though, it preempts the knockback attempt...) > (4) An adventurer or monster deliberately pushes, shoves, trips or > otherwise attempts to knockback (or knockdown) someone. This is similar to > RQ3's old intentional knockback rules, with the resistance roll of > (SIZ+STR) vs (SIZ+DEX), but requires the establishment of a connection for > the transmission of force in the first place. This is done with a > successful attack roll, and the weapons usable for this are Fist, Kick (for > swashbucklers especially), Grapple, Shield Attack, or any hafted weapon > used with both hands (the classic quarterstaff shove). A successful attack > does no damage, but if it is neither parried nor dodged, it allows the > attacker to attempt the same old resistance roll as per RQ3. This takes > place on the same strike rank as the attack. This kind of attack should be able to be avoided with a Dodge, simply because that it exactly what dodge is designed to cope with. So, 3 and 4 are quite similar, except that 4 moves at 0 and requires an attack roll. > How much knockback? > The amount of knockback is easy to calculate: it's usually just the > attacker's rolled damage bonus in meters, minus the target's rolled damage > bonus, plus the attacker's current movement rate in meters per strike rank. > When a character is knocked back, you may treat that character's movement > rate at any point as the number of meters remaining in the knockback. Thus, > if Throg is knocked back 5 meters by Lulu, and he bumps into Grothnar 2 > meters away, his movement rate on impact with Grothnar for damage and > knockback purposes is 3. How does this work? If Lulu has a 3D6 damage bonus and Throg has a 2D6 damage bonus, does Lulu roll 3D6 and subtract Throg's 2D6 from the result? Do you add movement to the result? So, if Lulu rolls 11 and Throg rolls 8, does Throg move back 3m? What if Lulu runs at Throg with Movement 3, does Throg move back 6m? Simon __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Panic (Fright aspect of Trickster) 2 points ranged, temporal, nonstackable, reusable If the user overcomes the targets magic points with his own the target = is seized with an overpowering terror. He cannot cast any spells or attack in melee, though he can parry or dodge normally. = Usually, he runs away. /Pontus -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr=E5n: rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-admin at crashbox.com] = F=F6r Gianni Skickat: den 9 maj 2003 14:32 Till: rq-rules at crashbox.com =C4mne: [RQ-Rules] Panic spell Hello all 'Lords of Terror' mentions a divine magic spell called Panic. Could = someone explain me what the spell does? (I own neither Gods of Glorantha, nor FC = #4, nor Questlines) Cheers, Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: GOBLINS: These are thought to be creatures of Darkness (possibly related to Trolls, who embraced Chaos rather than fought it during the Great Darkness. They were twisted and warped, but glory in their chaotic natures. There are two versions. Goblins: Str 4D6, Int 2D6+2, Pow 2D6+1, Con 3D6, Dex 2D6+6, Cha 3D6, Siz 2D6, Move 6, Skin 2 points Hobgoblins: Str 3D6+6, Int 3D6, Pow 3D6, Con 2D6+6, Dex 2D6+6, Cha 3D6, Siz 2D6+4, Move 7, Skin 3 points It is thought that there is little difference in the ancestry of the two species, and the distinctive names merely describe different sizes and positions of importance. No one knows and the Goblins aren't saying. BIRTHRATE: Due to their Chaotic nature, the birthrate of Goblins is very bad. Most of those born with Chaotic features tend to kill Mother and child during birth. They are known to hate most Trolls, but several have been known to befriend Cave Trolls, who also partake in part of a Chaotic nature. Chaotic features rarely appear (Their great strength is though to be the main manifestation of Chaos among them). For game purposes, a roll on D100 equalloing the Goblin's POW or less would indicate the presence of a Chaotic feature. CULT - TOKAZ VARAZ, The Wild Dark: A gibbering son of Kyger Litor, spirit of all that's mysterious and spooky in the night. Because of his example, Goblins will as often play pranks as attack, and vary from helpful to antagonistic in a matter of hours. Rune Lord and Rune Priest status is almost never open to Goblins, just Hobgoblins. RUNE SPELLS: USUAL ONE AVAILABLE - Absorb, Mindlink, Reflection, Shield, Warding, Divination (only works 1/2 the time), Divine Intervention (Can only use 5 points at a time, 50% chance). UNUSUAL - Chaos Gift: As Lunar Spell, but with NO control over Feature obtained, 1 point Dark Fear: 3mx3m area of Darkness which demoralizes all within as if a Battle Magic spell had struck each one. Stackable, each point either adding 3 m in some direction of coverage of another two points behind the Demoralize spell. Bump in the Night: Creates spooky sound in a 10x30m area. Only works at night or underground. Those hearing must make an INT roll or be demoralized. Successful Oratory by a non0affected character can bring victims out of their funk. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: known from time to time to use house rules or rules modifications. In Glorantha, the Compromise prevents gods from directly interfering. So that means they can grant other beings magic which can be used against others, but they can't directly attack others themselves. So, giving a HeroQuestor Shield 20 is fine for a DI on a HeroQuest (although perhaps a bit gross), making all his cast spells available again would be fine as well, but slaying a living creature himself would not be allowed. In other worlds, there might not be an objection to this. So, someone could call on Zeus to strike an enemy with a thunderbolt, for instance. Steve Perrin: > I would say that divine Intervention cannot be used to do anything against > another living creature than one of the god's other spells couldn't do. So > a Humakti doing in some undead would be kosher. So an Orlanthi using a Thunderbolt would be OK as well. And people say that *my* games are too powerful. > The main prohibition is supposed to be (or was when we were tweaking it > around the time of 2nd Edition) that one god's DI does not work in the holy > place of another god. I saw an article somewhere, maybe Wyrms Footnotes, saying that you couldn't use DI in another god's Holy Place, but the restriction on DIing people dead was stil there, I think. Anyway, we always played that you could use DI in a Temple of an opposing god, but not on the HeroPlane of an opposing god. This was purely because the idea of going into a Thanatar Great Temple without DI being available was so terrifying that we abandoned the idea. > Then again, Your World May Vary (otherwise known as YWMV) I always wondered what that meant, but didn't like to show my extreme ignorance. (I hate acronyms and abbrevations). David Smart: > ROFLMAO! > > To quote a priest from my younger days: > > "All prayers are answered. > > The problem is, most of the time the answer is "No"." We had a rule of thumb for Rune Lord DI: Healing one person was always granted. Resurrecting one person was always granted (unless asking Humakt or helping cult enemies). Casting defensive magic on a person was usually granted. Casting weapon-enhancing spells on a person was sometimes granted. Casting one's own spells on oneself was usually granted. Dispelling hostile magic on somebody was usually granted. A little bag of gold in the corner was often granted, but only when it came at the end of a long list of requests. A god would grant one request without a problem. For good/powerful Rune Lords a second request would normally be granted. For people attacking an enemy stronghold, a third request was normally granted. Anything else had a percentage chance of being granted, depending on the GM. POWx5 for the first one, POWx4 for the next and so on, if a roll failed then no further requests would be granted. This had the advantage that it helped good worshippers, it forced players to be careful about what they asked for and it could provide help in very dangerous circumstances. So, for example, Derak is fighting a horde of vampires in Dorastor and is poisoned and slain. He DIs to Zorak Zoran and asks for Healing/Resurrecting Self, Berserker and Shield, cast from his own spells, all his Crush cast from his own spells, Healing the rest of the party, Resurrecting a fallen comrade, a little bag of gold in the corner. He is on a cult mission and is fighting Chaos, so the GM decides that the first 2 are automatic, the third is POWx5, the fourth is POWx4, the fifth POWx1 because the person died in a cowardly fashion, and the Little Bag of old in the corner becomes a Little bag of lead in the corner. Derak makes the POWx5 and POWx4, but fails the POWx3, so he gets Resurrected and tooled up with Berserker, Shield and Crush, his friends are healed but the fallen comrade stays dead, which Derak doesn't mind as he never liked him anyway. There is a clink as a little bag of lead falls into a corner and Derak charges after the rapidly disappearing vampires. (Something similar actually happened, with Derak using DI to ask for Berserker, something he never, ever normally did, the vampires ran off, but stayed just far enough in front so that he could catch sight of them and run after them, he got lost in the caves, came out of Berserker after 15 minutes and was Enthralled, Befuddled, Mind Blasted, Madnessed and clapped in Slave Bracelets, with all his items taken. We found it funny at the time, but Stuart didn't, for some reason.) Leon Kirshtein: > In which case he just as well may strike dead anyone > at all since he has access to Sever Spirit. I would > say no to this. Me too. > The most he could do, IMO, is give his follower > imediate use(uses) of of Turn Undead, but it would be > up to the follower to cast the spell. Sounds reasonable. Steve Perrin: > Leon, have you evaluated this? > > RuneLord Quackmire the bold uses his DI to kill an opponent (who gets the > usual resistance against it). Since Quackmire has a POW of 15, let's say he > loses half of it, or 9 points of POW. He has to build this back up again. > > Meantime, Daphfee the Demented, High Priest of Humakt, uses the Sever > Spirit > he paid 3 points of POW for under controlled conditions and achieves > exactly > the same thing. > > Having had a Rune Lord thoroughly screwed after doing one DI, I really > don't > see the problem with Quackmire taking the chance here. Putting it that way, it doesn't sound too bad. However, a Rune Lord can only DI once a week (if memory recalls, as we had a house rule that did away with that), so if he succeeds in attempting a Sever Spirit attack against an oppenent and fails, then he is stuffed if he is badly injured by the opponent and needs more Divine help. > Unless your campaign > has ways for a Rune Lord to immediately reclaim expended POW, he is taking > a > helluva a long term chance for a short term gain. We played that a successful DI counted as a successful use of POW and the PC got a POW gain roll out of it. Not much consolation for a Rune Lord on 3 POW, though, but it saves him trying to find some zombies or skeletons to Disrupt. Leon Kirshtein: > I do not use DI as Rune spell as was the case in RQ2, > I mostly use RQ3 mechanics for cult status and Rune > spells. In which case a Rune Lord with a power of 15 > will always get a DI (even if it costs him 10 POW) > while a priest still has to roll under his POW and may > kill himself. Or, indeed, to happily join his God in the afterlife without all that mesisng about. lepus at anthrobunny.com: > This is exactly my take on it as well. Rune spells are just future > promises of miracles from a god to the worshipper in exchange for a chunk > of the worshipper's spirit. Divine Intervention is a miracle on-the-spot > in exchange for what could be all of the worshipper's spirit. It's the > worshipper's fault for not taking the Rune spell in the first place -- > it's not the god's fault. So, in RQ2, if a Zorak Zoran PC DIs and asks for a Sever Spirit to cast at a foe and he rolls a 01, losing 0 POW, he gets a 3 point one-use spell for 0 POW? In RQ3, he can roll a D10 and roll 1, getting a 3 point one-use spell for 1 POW. And that would be OK, then? Let's gloss over the fact that Rune Lords cannot actually sacrifice for Divine Magic that is One-Use for Priests, so he gets a spell that he couldn't have sacrificed for. OK for Rune Lord/Priests, though. See Y'all Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: not all, of their Runepower in order to survive the encounter. So, they have to ration their castings and be careful what they do. Each encounter weakens them and restricts their ability to react to the next encounter. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: the invading PCs. Very rarely does an NPC survive such an encounter to go back and appear later on. So, the NPCs will use all their Runepower to defeat the PCs. So, they will use Dispel Magic, Crush or whatever without thought of what will happen later. This means that the PCs are at a very grave disadvantage because of the Runepower rules. If they could only cast the spells they had, the NPCs would not be able to cast ridiculous levels of magic. That is why I agreed that the variation spoken of elsewhere is far batter and could work. > These arguments remind me of those put forward in the early 80s as to why > certain spells were "unbalancing.*" Generally it was a GM using Johny One > Notes to try and liquidate a particular character in a party. You have the > same problems with "standard" Divine Magic - I've seen it happen with one > adventurer piling all his Divine Magic into Lightning. As I said before, it > must be differences in play, 'cause I don't seem to have these problems > anymore. Personally, I allow any spells that are in the book and a lot that aren't. If the players want to try and abuse them, I let them. After all, as a GM I can abuse the rules a lot easier than they can. They soon learn that if they don't abuse the rules then neither will I (much). Trevor Ellis: > > Simon > >=20 > > The trouble with broo groups is that the weakest ends up with a couple = > of > > dozen broo larvae growing inside him. Players don't like their PCs = > being the > > butt of broo activities. > > > > BROO TROOPS > > I'm trying to imagine a Broo troop where the weakest (and therefore the = > nearly always the youngest) is used as a one-use breeding vessel. = > Firstly the average age of the troop would be getting younger and = > younger. Secondly any youngster with even a little intelligence would = > probably try to run away. Unless that is you play Broo like the Borg, = > where there is no sense of the individual and everyone is willing cannon = > fodder to those above them. Broos can always make more broos. All broos know this and enthusiastically prove it at every opportunity. Obviously, bros would prefer to make broos on things that don't fight back, such as cattle, sheep, goats, captives and so on. However, by their very nature, bros are bullies and have a nasty pecking order. They prey on the weak and defenceless. If they are sat in a cave because it's raining outside and there's nothing on the telly, and little No-horns is annoying someone again, what's to stop them pulling him into a corner and giving him something to bleat about? Broos are not very nice creatures. Of course, if little No-horns turns out to be able to spit on them and make them dissolve then he will be unharmed and they will turn their attentions on someone else. That way, the broos with nasty chaos features, those who a god in combat or are magically skilled, those with powerful friends and so on will survive and the group will become stringer rather than weaker. Unnatural selection at its finest. > What advantage would the senior Broo gain by having an unprotected = > massive pile of larvae, and very few members of the troop? Just one = > encroachment from a Troup with greater numbers (i.e. that allowed its = > young to grow) would prove fatal. The basic ecological/evolutionary = > principles (and common sense) still apply in Glorantha IMO. Broos can = > not both live in groups and wantonly prey on their young. I always seek = > for social organisations that are sustainable (with a few odd exceptions = > to keep the players on their toes). =20 Not the young, the weakest. Sometimes the young broos are stringer or more powerful than their elders. In any case, they can always make some more broos. Quite often the leader of the group will stop things happening, or will ensure that the group does not die out. > Instead I prefer to see Broos more like a wolf pack, where each member = > is constantly looking to increase there position in the hierarchy, = > whilst at the same time suppressing those below them. Most 'conflicts' = > must be non-lethal IMO. Only a very weak Broo, or someone who made the = > mistake of pushing a superior too hard might well be punished as you = > describe. Exactly, "Only a very weak Broo, or someone who made the mistake of pushing a superior too hard might well be punished as you describe." There is often a weak broo or a pushy one, although not always. The broo gangs from the Big Rubble are powerful enough to protect themselves from each other. Leon Kirshtein: > > Nasty stackable offensive spells: Lightning, Crush, Slash, Chomping, > Create Fissure, Shake Earth, Earthwarm, Firespear, Swallow, Venom Boosting > Out of all of these the only one that gives me the "fits" is -- Swallow > Why? No POW vs. POW required and it (no matter what it is!!!) is gone > forever!!! I always liked the combination of Second Mouth and Swallow. Virtually indetectible until the last minute when it is all too late. Also, the victim's mind will probably be on other things than checking for assassination attempts. Simon ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Seems fairly cut and dried to me... > from: DevinC at aol.com > date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:33:09 > to: rq-rules at crashbox.com > subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] The Nature Of RPGs (was something else...) > > In a message dated 7/10/2003 11:16:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, aescleal at btinternet.com writes: > > > No they're not. Games by definition have an element of competition, RPGs can't have if they're going to work. The GM isn't a traditional, impartial referee in an RPG - he's an > > active, living part of the whole experience. > > Sorry, but there is no required element of competition to define the term game. > > The first entry in www.dictionary.com for "game" is: > > An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. > > Solitaire is a game. With whom are you competing? > > RPGs are games. The G stands for game. > > Devin > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: items (why do Broos have no blacksmiths yet always have full sets of = plate armour) there must be an OVERALL consistency and sustainability to = the world that the players can understand. Small pockets of un-logic = can (and should) exist. Occasionally every GM must have failed to fully paint some aspect of the = background story and get the question, "I do not understand the options = in this situation but I feel that my character would have such = knowledge. Please explain my character's thoughts on this issue.". To = get this question all the time, before every action simply removes the = RP from RPG.=20 The only exception to all the above is the dungeon hack, where the = gameplay does not relate to the world in any way ,and where no rational = is required as to why Trolls, Kobolds, and Green Slime all live in = adjoining rooms with no visible means of support. There was a time = when I quite enjoyed that type of game and so I will not criticise those = who wish to play it.=20 Trevor Ellis --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 8 15:16:31 2008 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:16:31 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: list in the past, is that game mechanics do not fall under copyright laws. Ie... any game can use a d20 rolling mechanic or a percentile one, etc... So could someone strip out text bits and just pass on a copy of the final mechanics? greg --- Steve Perrin wrote: > The closest thing to a copyright holder on RuneQuest > these days is Greg > Stafford. Last I heard, his Issaries Inc (?) managed > to persuade Hasbro to > give the title trademark back to him. Also last time > I heard, from Greg, he > hadn't figured out what to do with it. > > Since he didn't much like the final result of RQIV, > getting his permission > to make a copy of RQIV (assuming he has any real > claim) is problematic. I > just don't know. > > It might be legally possible to issue the manuscript > as Adventures in > Glorantha after excising all mentions of RuneQuest. > Greg certainly has claim > to the Glorantha name, so I could be wrong about > this, but I doubt he has > trademarked the Adventures in Glorantha name. I am > not a trademark expert or > lawyer, however. > > If you are looking for the Glorantha/RuneQuest > connection, I believe it was > the manuscript's portrayal of Gloantha that Greg > most objected to. > > Steve Perrin > www.limitedchaos.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Richards" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 6:22 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] greetings > > > > Dear all > > > > I am going to break the cardinal rule of newsgroup > netiquette, > > apologies for this, by setting down thoughts on > several topics in no > > particular order. > > > > One 'Happy Holidays' > > > > My parents lived in the US for a number of years > and when I visited > > them around December the phrase 'happy holidays' > used to drive me nuts. > > Partly because it smacked of "lets reduce all > these festivals to a > > commercial opportunity." And partly because one > particularly uptight US > > citizen had a real go at me for saying 'Happy > Christmas' to a Christian > > vicar! This is in the most racially segregated > nation I have visited > > (and yes that includes South Africa and No I > haven't visited Jerusalem > > or Dubrovnik). > > > > However two weeks ago I went on a course at work, > one of the other > > delegates was an ethnically Indian lad (ethnically > but not nationally; > > I for one have not got the cross of St. George > tattooed on my neck as > > he has!) who complained that he wished everyone a > 'Joyous Divalli' > > (spelling?) but no one ever wished him a 'Merry > Christmas'. So I am > > beginning o think that 'Happy Holidays' is as good > a greeting as any > > other! > > > > > > Secondly Runequest 4 (or RQ4, RQIV, AiG, or .. you > get the idea) > > > > This newsgroup and the RQ Addicts group seem to be > split into two camps. > > > > Those who have a copy of the above manuscript, and > who for moral or > > legal reasons don't feel comfortable passing it > on. > > > > And > > > > Those (like me) who don't have it but would dearly > like to. (Even if > > just to look at 'new' rules and say 'actually I > prefer my house rule'). > > > > > > There is a classic (and out of print) 80's RPG. > Called Dragon Warriors > > (DW) sold in six books. For various reasons the > Sixth (and best) book > > was not marketed as widely and lots of fans never > got hold of a copy. > > The author (and copyright holder) gave permission > for a PDF document to > > be uploaded to the Yahoo group for DW. > > > > Does anyone know who is the copyright holder to > RQ4 (or RQIV, etc.)? > > Has anyone attempted to contact him/her/it/them > and ask if a similar > > thing might be done? > > > > I would LOVE to have a copy. But I would not like > to pressure anyone > > who doesn't feel comfortable (legally or morally) > to pass one my way. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/