From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #101 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Saturday, 18 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 101 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 Staffan Tjernstrom Spirit Combat Staffan Tjernstrom Is One Parry roll too many a Defense? Staffan Tjernstrom Do you have enough DI credit? David Dunham via RadioMail [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Feb 95 18:10:40 EST Subject: Spirit Combat Loren replying to Nigel Smith: <> Yes, why I liked the RQ4v2 version (with spirit combat skill and combat options). Still fast and deadly, but a lot harder to bind spirits than in RQ2 without the artificial mechanic of restricting availability of Spirit Binding. Reading later posts I notice that BraddonQuest looks similar, but I feel it maybe goes too far (or not far enough - as I write I'm no longer sure) in it's critical effect. I still like the idea (RQ4) of the amount of damage done based upon POW/WILL/MP/whatever you are attacking with. BTW I have modified the POW regain (I don't like unlimited POW apart from HQ effects) system to use an extrapolated table from the RQ4 'POW damage' table. Ie Pts below max Regain 0 0 1-5 1 6-10 1D2 11-15 1D3 16-20 1D4 21-25 1D6 etc.. This works quite well for levels up to about POW 40. Above this I haven't tried and I'd hate to have to roll for the CBat after a hard day's city-destroying. Staffan Tj ///Only one thing is certain in life .... Uncertainty, but I'm not sure/// ------------------------------ From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Feb 95 18:11:05 EST Subject: Is One Parry roll too many a Defense? Having returned from my time in the Real World[tm anybody?] I have purused the last week's comments and felt the need to add my own tuppence hapenny's (roughly 1 cent) worth. IMHO parries is what makes the combat system work. It copes better than anything else I've seen so far with the concept of 'needing a critical to block a critical'. It gives the players (and NPC monsters) a fighting chance (at least when I use my dice). The closest I have seen is something like the block maneouvere in Hero, which is dependent on how well the attack could have been made. They also provide the opportunity for some MGF when the 'villains' make an 'misconceived tactical decision' behind the GM's screen. As for defense, I think it's needed, and I prefer the RQ2 version (you subtract your defense from your opponents' attacks) to RQ3 dodge. Yes, it does lead to a lot of instant math, and needs careful handling by the GM to avoid the "I've got 45% defense, which saved my butt, so I get a roll at my INT to make it go up again come a spare week in the campaigning season" syndrome. However it does neatly reduce the attacker's 'impale/special/ttyf' and critical chance, which to my mind is the main benefit (especially since my interpretation is that against skin armour [that cannot be bypassed - includes parrying characters] a critical 2H long spear thrust does 2 * (10 + 1 + 1D10 +1) damage). My way of handling high defense characters is to only allow ticks in exceptional circumstances, plus after 25% defense the chance to go up goes down rapidly (after 45% it's 1%). Having now read Steve P's mail of the 13th I hasten to add my system for levels of success. I don't count a fumble as a level of success, it's always a fumble. This serves to keep my 'superheroes' on their toes. Rule 1: An opposing roll at same level of success negates roll opposed at no cost (ie critical parry completely negates critical attack) Rule 2: An opposing roll of one level less serves to reduce the level of success achieved by one level (ie normal parry vs slash by sword - parry weapon/shield takes normal attack damage). Rule 3: Normal opposing roll vs critical - Damage is applied first against opposing item (see rule 4 below). Rule 4: Criticals vs natural armour (anybody got scaly skin?) or parrying items do double damage, but apply armour from/blow up parrying item. All criticals do a base of impale/special/ttyf damage. Comments about lots of rolls are rebutted with my experience (with most systems) is that the less the number of rolls, the longer [real time] the combat takes. This is due to more math having to be done to establish the results of the few rolls that do occur. Extreme example Hero System (12 seconds can easily take 15-30 minutes). Staffan /**************************************************************************\ | What are we going to do today Bill? The same thing as every day every | | day John, continue taking over the World. | \**************************************************************************/ ------------------------------ From: Staffan Tjernstrom <100303.141@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Feb 95 18:10:49 EST Subject: Do you have enough DI credit? Mustafa: <> ****Aroka Flame Follows**** Total disagreement and howls of torment. Taking the Gloranthan view (apologies to non-G readers) gods _cannot_ interfer on the Mundane Plane. They have _no_ option who they listen to. In order to break through to Godtime a _lot_ of personal power is required (the DI sacrifice). How easy this is to make _does_ depend on your standing with your god (ie if you're a RP with 10 pts DI, it's pretty easy, however, you have probably just performed several HQs to strengthen your god). An ordinary initiate just has to rely on his own personal strength of conviction/luck (POW again). Staffan 'Oh no, I'm @ 4 POW again, but at least I'm alive' Tj ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 18:25:16 -0800 Subject: [none] GAWINTER@aol.com said >sorcery-- everyone hates that I never thought RQ3 sorcery was broken. I do like some of the proposed changes (dropping Free INT would be OK), but I ran a RQ3 sorcerer for a while and didn't have any real problems. >we the list participants are really >not the most significant audiance for RQ4 ... >The real audiance for RQ4 might be >the unconverted masses of AD&Ders who yearn to play a meatier game. Perhaps >the RQ4 rules should be written specifically with them in mind. Hear, hear! Steve Barnes wondered >I'm using Pendragon virtues in my RQ game, but I am a bit vague about >what they are going to be used for. I have a dim idea that they will >be rolled when the PCs attempt to become Rune level... The obvious use is trait tests (can the Orlanthi control his pride? can the Yelmalion negotiate with the trolls despite his Hate Trolls passion?). In PenDragon Pass, I require virtue rolls rather than POW*n to become initiate or rune level. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #101 ******************************* 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.