From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #67 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 6 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 067 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 Hugh Foster RQR: Who's played what ? Mike Cule RQR: Why going first does matter David Cake RQR: Why going first doesn't matter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 05 Feb 95 04:20:56 EST Subject: RQR: Who's played what ? >>How many people on this list have only played RQ3? Has the Avalon Hill publication of the rules actually expanded the player base that much ?<< It's a constant pain to me that I've _never_ played RQ - I'm the only GM in reaching distance. My players hadn't played before either, and we started from fresh with RQ3 (although most of us had done some Stormbringer back in 83 or so). We started with the Games Workshop edition, because when Games Workshop stopped being a gaming shop and became a Warhammer munchkin store, they sold off the books for u2 each and we all got a full set for a tenner . I have got RQ2 but mainly use it as a refererence and "nice thing to own", plus to trace the development of rules and ideas. We've nudged the rules a bit but RQ3 works OK for now. My main hope is that you won't do a GDW/Traveller and change the base rules so much that future packages won't be compatible for those of us that prefer the old rules. Modern stuff like Dorastor can (with minimal work) IMO be used by the RQ2 die-hards, great, we all get a choice. But if RQ4 is not back-compat, new packs will _require_ RQ4 rules. This would be a very cynical thing for AH to do. Be warned; look at the plunging sales of TNE. I don't buy it any more, that's for sure...! ------------------------------ From: Mike Cule Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 18:16:05 GMT Subject: Re: RQR: Why going first does matter Eventually, one of the participants will fail a defense roll. And if all things remain equal then the one who hits first has the advantage over the one who doesn't. With the semi-realistic combat of RQ the first effective blow is often the last. It matters a lot. Just because defense may delay the first blow doesn't mean you don't need a mechanism for deciding who goes first. And about the point of running past the long spear someone raised, the new Manouvere skill should take care of that. But a good point: I'm not claiming that the SR mechanism is perfect. But it is elegant, seemingly fair and workable from the games point of view. - -- Mike Cule ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 12:21:54 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Why going first doesn't matter >Mike Cule said > >>I forget who said it but someone remarked that 'who strikes first in a combat >>rarely makes any difference'. >> >It was me, and I stand by it. Our games are well above 60% skill (but under >100%). This means people usually parry. This is important in the following >analysis -- MOST BLOWS ARE PARRIED. (Actually, it's not that important -- >if games are low skill, most attacks are missed.) > I will agree that where there is relatively high skill, and the level of damage is not extremely high, and both opponents are parrying, then who goes first is not that important. I find that in my game one of these things is not true quite often. My game is often quite high powered, but that only makes difference to some things. Sometimes they fight opponents (like ZZ Death Lords, or mounted nomads lancers) who do enough damage that they are likely to hurt you even if you do parry. Sometimes they fight Berserk or fanatic opponents. Or opponents incapable of parrying. Sometimes the opponent has an attack that cannot be parried. Sometimes they are injured, or have lost equipment, or otherwise cannot parry, or can only parry weakly. Often they are ganged up on, and cannot parry all attacks. In all these cases, who goes first makes a big difference. And in any case, sure people parry the first attack quite often, but not always. In summary, who goes first is not a big factor in all combats, but it is in a lot of them. Enough that I think throwing away the rather good rules we have for resolving these situations would be stupid. Cheers Dave Cake ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #67 ****************************** 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.