From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #17 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 16 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 017 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS RQR: Re: shamans = netrunning; real martial arts Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Re: RQR: Re: shamans = netrunning; real martial arts RE: RQR: Shamans RQR: More violence Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat RQR: "Real" fighting notes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:01:48 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: shamans = netrunning; real martial arts Rollin complains >Its unfortunate >that the spirit plane adventures are a little like net-running in Cyberpunk >games: uninteresting to the majority, while absorbing to the few actually >doing it: taking the GMs attention away from the majority of the players >(often for long periods of time.), interacting intensely with a single member >(or maybe a couple) of the players When I ran a cyberpunk game (using Ringworld or Pendragon rules), I made netrunning abstract. Not only did this avoid the syndrome you mentioned, but one of my netrunner players was really pleased that she could play such a character without having to learn lots of specialized rules. I applaud the RQ4/AiG idea of abstracting much of what shamans do. Yes, it's cool and wonderful, but it's simply not worth the game time. Even with the AiG abstraction, a shaman character takes more GM time than other characters. Liam McCauley said > I have practised with a more experienced aikidoka whose > counter attack was so fast that I parried with my jo about 1/10 of a > second too late. In RQ terms, I consider that I made my parry, it's > just that my opponent's weapon happened to be inside my guard at the > time! I consider that since you got hit, you DIDN'T make your parry. Actually, what this suggests to me is that better attackers are harder to parry (I think Brandon suggested something like this), more or less how Dodge works. Also, some attacks are harder to defend against, but also leave the attacker more open. Perhaps there should be some sort of rule where you can trade defense skill for attack skill (probably with a tradeoff, like +10% to attack at the expense of -20% defense). >you absorb > the blow by putting the tip of your weapon near the base of your > opponent's weapon, and let the weapons slide together until your > opponent's tip is near your weapon's base Odd, that sounds the opposite of fencing (where the tip of your blade is almost useless in deflecting a blow). (BTW, I consider my fencing experience about as useful as your martial arts experience. It gives a vague feel for combat, but is stylized in various ways and isn't a great model of real combat. No sport takes into account wound severity or armor penetration, for example.) ------------------------------ From: Daniel Tartaglia Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:00:17 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat >> From: Daniel Tartaglia >> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 17:35:11 -0500 >> Subject: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat >> >> Hears my idea on how one can do spirit combat. This idea would also work as >> a replacement for the resistance table. >> >> Use the following formula: yourMP / (yourMP + opponentsMP) * 100 >> >> This would give you a % chance of success that you must roll under. >[example...] >> >> Of course these chances would change as the combatants lost points. > >Have you been following the discussions on the desire to reduce the >amount of artihmetic needed during a game session? This would only >increase that... I don't think my formula would be any worse than the current one (chance = 50 + yourMP * 5 - opponentsMP * 5) Mine is actually easer, I remove the subtraction step (and change one of the multiplication steps into a division step.) Of course for the mathematically challenged, we could easily make a chart just like RQ3 has... - ----------------------+----------------------------------------------- Daniel T. | Ld. Nicolas Bradwater Clearwater, FL | Kingdom Minister of Children, Deputy Successor daniel_t@gate.net | Trimaris - ----------------------+----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Daniel Tartaglia Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:11:40 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat >> Hears my idea on how one can do spirit combat. This idea would also work as >> a replacement for the resistance table. >> >> Use the following formula: yourMP / (yourMP + opponentsMP) * 100 > >I've two problems with this formuala: 1) I don't like _any_ rule which >needs a calculator (or huge lookup-chart) in order to operate - the existing >resistance table can at least be calcualted mentally by most people - and; The lookup-chart wouldn't have to be any bigger than the current one, would it? >2) it would imply that the spirit combatant is resisting themself as much >as their opponent. Why is the Resistance roll a problem? Not at all. It says that if both participants have the same MP, then you have a 1/2 (50%) chance of success. If your MP is twice his, you have a 2/3 (67%) chance. If your MP are 3 times his you have a 3/4 (75%) chance etc... I posted my message as a response to several people who thought the current table was unfair. If I have 10 points and you only have 5 (twice your MP,) the damage chances are 75/25, if the numbers are 20 and 10 (I'm still at twice your MP) they jump to 95/05. With my idea, the chance would be 67/33 in both cases... - ----------------------+----------------------------------------------- Daniel T. | Ld. Nicolas Bradwater Clearwater, FL | Kingdom Minister of Children, Deputy Successor daniel_t@gate.net | Trimaris - ----------------------+----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Daniel Tartaglia Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 21:19:04 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: Re: shamans = netrunning; real martial arts >Also, some attacks are harder to defend against, but also leave the >attacker more open. Perhaps there should be some sort of rule where you can >trade defense skill for attack skill (probably with a tradeoff, like +10% >to attack at the expense of -20% defense). My idea was to let the attacker choose a modifier to his attack roll (after all other mods are taken into account,) if the attack hits, the defender must parry with the same mod. This would allow players to hit a downed character 100% of the time even if they only have a 5% attack chance... - ----------------------+----------------------------------------------- Daniel T. | Ld. Nicolas Bradwater Clearwater, FL | Kingdom Minister of Children, Deputy Successor daniel_t@gate.net | Trimaris ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:35:43 +0800 Subject: RE: RQR: Shamans >> Yes. It seems that most Gloranthan shamans are part of a larger >>religion [etc.] > >That should certainly keep them more competative, at that point. > It is also worth mentioning that for many of them, the spells they get work well with their shamanic abilities. Often they increase the shamans capabilities in small ways - for example the Ancestor worshippers get quite a wide variety of useful spells, enabling them to do interesting things with ancestral spirits (and to have spirits that they can rely on to help without having to beat them up and bind them). Waha shamans get extension and gnomes and Spirits of Law. Some others either get a full priests complement of Rune magic (Aldrya and Kygor Litor), or have physical rune magic to complement their magical strengths (Telmor). All in all, when you consider the amount of Rune Magic shamans can have, they are pretty good. They are even more POW hungry than priests, though! Cheers Dave >\Rollin. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:36:06 +0800 Subject: RQR: More violence While we are on the subject of real world violence, I have a few questions for all the closet wargamers and SCAers on the list. I was thinking about extending Warhamster a little more towards mainstream wargaming, adding a few rules for weapon types for a start, adding in things like the special defensive capabilities of pikes that we see in both RQ and Dragon Pass, for example. As a base for working I am using WRG7 (suggestions about its weaknesses are welcome). But it started me thinking about the weapon categories of RQ. The most important thing is that 'polearms' are not a separate class. The polearms (poleaxe, halberd, naginata) are in spears and 2H axes, which doesn't really seem right. AIG becomes even stranger, and lumps the naginata (as 'swordstick') with 2H swords. Should there be a separate polearm category? For comparison, WRG7, has only 7 categories of hand weapon, and lumps all 1H weapons except long spears under 'Side arms', but still distinguishes between 2H axes and other weapons, and polearms such as the halberd. For another comparison, Elric! has a separate category for polearms/pikes and for 2H axes (I can't say I agree about the pikes being in with the polearms, though). Is there a case for a category called 'polearms', containing at least halberd and naginata, and making both capable of impaling or slashing. In RQAIG I guess that there would have to be two groups under 2H Impaling and Slashing, 2H sword (now containing only greatsword) and polearm, containing halberd and 'swordstick'. Another comment on the weapon lists - WRG, which prides itself on its historical accuracy, reports that long spears of up to 14 feet can be used 1H. Any comments? In Warhamster I want to give some sort of CF bonuses to the Pike units (I think only the Sun Dome Templars and the Agimori), and perhaps some special bonus against charges to represent setting vs. charge and superiour length. Possibly some smaller bonus to longspear troops. Also short range throwing weapons need to be handled (things like throwing axes, pilum), the sort of thing that you throw as you close. I also want to work out some rules for bolas, just to handle those bolo lizard folk - probably does mounts DB as damage, instead of its normal 1d4? With a special bonus against the High Llama? Cheers Dave ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:36:32 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Daniel Clearwater writes > The lookup-chart wouldn't have to be any bigger than the current one, would >it? But you don't need to use the lookup chart. I can subtract two integers, multiply by 5 and subtract from 50 fairly easily in my head ie. 13 vs 16 is a mod of -15 to your 50% chance. I can't work out 13/29 nearly so fast: in fact I'd have to use a calculator or your lookup chart. > I posted my message as a response to several people who thought the current > table was unfair. If I have 10 points and you only have 5 (twice your MP,) > the damage chances are 75/25, if the numbers are 20 and 10 (I'm still at > twice your MP) they jump to 95/05. This is an advantage, but similar results can be achieved with pure dice based system ie giving a spirit combat attack and defense chance equal to 5*POW and having dodge like defenses ie a special attack needs a special defense. Of course, this requires the table to work out dodge and critical chances, but again, I can divide by 5 or 20 faster than I can divide by 29. > > With my idea, the chance would be 67/33 in both cases... > And the reputation of RQ as math heavy would get even worse... - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ From: nam@grendal.rain.com (Nicholas Marcelja) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 20:45:27 PST Subject: RQR: "Real" fighting notes Greetings, The discusion on Real fighting with Ancient/Middle ages type weapons should include some comments from SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisim). and other Dark ages recreation groups. Since the original designers of the combat system used the SCA as their base model. Basically the SCA uses wooden swords, rubber/padded axe/maces, and real armor. Full force. Full contact. with some safty restrictions. no shield bashing. no hits to the knee or below. ( the knee is fragile and it is too easy to strike at the ankle) note: I have been fighting in the SCA for over 14 years. 4 on 1 attacks. A competent fighter can win against 4 opponents if there is enough manouvering room. The single manouvers towards one end of the group therebye useing his opponents to block one another. This assumes similar weapons on both sides. A long spear will change things alot. It is difficult for the 4 attackers to keep together. As soon as one is seperated the single fighter can defeat him. this is for a set battle. In a war 4 on 1 is almost assured of victory since the one cannot look in all direction at once. Note: helms tend to limit side vision. The gravesite at Wisby ?(visby?) battlefield had many examples of war wounds. Left leg hits would be due to the mainly right handed population and the fact the a horsmans left leg would be away from his weapon and hittable by a foot soldier. There was one skeleton with both legs sheared thru obviously by a single sweep. I wear a light chainmail hauberk, Splint Vambraces (forearm gards), Splint greaves (shingards) Full helm with chainmail from the headband down. 30 inch diameter viking round. All of this addes up to 65 pounds of gear. I can attest to the fatigue that just standing and wearing this for several hours addes up. Put it on and fight is OK. Put it on and stand guard for 2 hours and then march a mile and then fight... Ack....I can do it but I do not like it at all. I will not win any spints or distance runs in this outfit. But it does not slow down my arm one bit. Different range weapons make all the difference in a fight. someone much quicker on their feet than myself with a same range weapon does not have much advantage. If the quick one has a long 12foot spear. I then have to chase this one down. THere are many times that I have succedded in blocking a blow. Also I have done the correct block for the wrong blow. ( Ah Ha.. I got that..thunk..nope I missed.) Thank you for reading my babbling. Nicholas Marcelja pacifier.rain.com!grendal!nam nam@grendal.rain.com Genie : N.Marcelja marcelja@sharpwa.com Compuserve : 76056,753 ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #17 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.