From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 21 09:03:19 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon Nov 21 08:32:58 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <001101c5eebd$7915ab20$32dd8e56@sickboy> What is with the web at the moment ! Leon's site still seems to be down., and now the ouija's site appears to have gone AWOL. Shame, both sites I enjoyed visiting. Lets hope they'll be up again soon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/b7289537/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Nov 21 08:50:05 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon Nov 21 08:50:15 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <001101c5eebd$7915ab20$32dd8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My site should be up. Please try this link: http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp Leon --- Clive Wickens wrote: > What is with the web at the moment ! Leon's site > still seems to be down., and now the ouija's site > appears to have gone AWOL. Shame, both sites I > enjoyed visiting. Lets hope they'll be up again soon.> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 21 11:05:55 2005 From: nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk (Nick Middleton) Date: Mon Nov 21 11:06:29 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Leon Leon Kirshtein wrote: >My site should be up. Please try this link: > >http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp > >Leon > It's working for me from home... *shrug* Mind I couldn't get in to Google at all from about 15.30 GMT to 16.15 GMT todat... Cheers, Nick Middleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Nov 21 11:43:46 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon Nov 21 11:43:55 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in quite a while; sorry about that, but ever since that little incident with Stafford, I've had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm On 11/21/05, Nick Middleton wrote: > > Leon > > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > >My site should be up. Please try this link: > > > >http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp > > > >Leon > > > > It's working for me from home... *shrug* Mind I couldn't get in to > Google at all from about 15.30 GMT to 16.15 GMT todat... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/7396440c/attachment-0001.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Nov 21 13:30:04 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon Nov 21 13:30:14 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <13475899.1132608604295.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Interesting. When I try to hit the site, I get: Network Error (tcp_error) A communication error occurred: "Operation timed out" The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time. David -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: Nov 21, 2005 10:50 AM To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? My site should be up. Please try this link: http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp Leon From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Nov 21 17:05:17 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:05:25 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: Eh. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, although I AM still a bit annoyed. It was all quite public, anyway. Here's the key section of the thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=57 And here's Stafford's post: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4295412&postcount=564 It's not all that interesting, actually. It changed my opinion of Greg Stafford, but that's just...my opinion. I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. On 11/21/05, murfnmurf@suscom.net wrote: > > My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in > quite a while; > sorry about that, but ever since that little incident > with Stafford, I've > had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. > ->Peter > > > Hiya Peter, > What incident did you have with Mr. Stafford? > -Ken- > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/bbe0db14/attachment.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Nov 21 17:19:34 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:19:39 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <31375348.1132622374009.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Tut tut. No self-deprecation, please. I've found your RQ site and work very enjoyable even if I don't use most of it in my campaigns. I truly get a kick from reading other people's ideas, no matter how off-the-wall, conservative, or any other label someone may or may not choose to use to describe someone's web content. The ideas of others helps me keep the cobwebs and dust off of my brain and that's just plain kewl. David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Nov 21, 2005 7:05 PM To: "murfnmurf@suscom.net" , RuneQuest-Rules Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. From devinc at aol.com Mon Nov 21 19:03:05 2005 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc@aol.com) Date: Mon Nov 21 19:03:26 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: <8C7BD2864CC0A62-1D58-86F9@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> Ah, brings back the good old days! For the record, Pete, I appreciate your belated comments on the Scholars ruining the game. As you may remember, I was the person who first introduced the whole Scholars and Players divide in RQ and eventually got hounded out of the RQ Digest mailing list because of it. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci To: murfnmurf@suscom.net ; RuneQuest-Rules Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:05:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Eh. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, although I AM still a bit annoyed. It was all quite public, anyway. Here's the key section of the thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=57 And here's Stafford's post: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4295412&postcount=564 It's not all that interesting, actually. It changed my opinion of Greg Stafford, but that's just...my opinion. I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. On 11/21/05, murfnmurf@suscom.net < murfnmurf@suscom.net> wrote: My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in quite a while; sorry about that, but ever since that little incident with Stafford, I've had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. ->Peter Hiya Peter, What incident did you have with Mr. Stafford? -Ken- -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/d6f82719/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Nov 21 22:32:19 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon Nov 21 22:32:33 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: If find that I can only view Leon's site form home as well, some sort of port/firewall issue from work. Then again my work has seen fit to block me from viewing my own site.... Howl--- You are Right Ouija www.eskimo.com is down, les just hope its for maintenance or a site move as his site is arguably (well I reckon anyway) one of the best on the net. -----Original Message----- Nick Middleton ? Leon Leon Kirshtein wrote: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 10:40:26 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue Nov 22 10:40:35 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end Message-ID: A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an interesting point: I wondered what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made for Glorantha after he died. I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in the event of my death, you all are quite welcome to take the content of my site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it as you see fit. Not that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, you never know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still be out there, even when I'm not. Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/4f92724d/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Nov 22 11:53:02 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue Nov 22 11:53:08 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39714.65.220.101.126.1132689182.squirrel@crashbox.com> How many buses does it take to kill Glorantha? -Andrew > A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an > interesting point: I wondered what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made > for Glorantha after he died. > I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. > That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in > the event of my death, you all are quite welcome to take the content of my > site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it as you see fit. Not > that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, > you > never know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still > be > out there, even when I'm not. > Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 22 12:39:25 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:09:10 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Message-ID: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> I suppose some of the co - writers eg: Sandy Peterson etc might have a claim on it. Are you sure you're not still upset by that thing with Stafford ? :-) By the way, what am I doing wrong - my posts keep appearing spread right across the page ? pps When will the archives transfer ? I've been slowly wading my way through them...... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/59badef3/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Nov 22 12:21:38 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:21:47 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> References: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> Message-ID: <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> > By the way, what am I doing wrong - my posts keep appearing spread right > across the page ? I dunno. > pps When will the archives transfer ? I've been slowly wading my way > through them...... CRAP! I knew I forgot something. When the server transfer wasn't a painful as I had expected, I should have known I forgot something. -Andrew From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 12:38:53 2005 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Steve Lieb) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:39:17 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> References: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0511221238r27f198f1lc8d8f42d05142106@mail.gmail.com> Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my longest running and most-enjoyed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/6df1b2f0/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 13:06:35 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Tue Nov 22 13:06:56 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0511221238r27f198f1lc8d8f42d05142106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The only time I?ve played in a Gloranthan setting was in the playtesting sessions with Steve & Greg in the original versions. Greg could always be rather a pompous a$$ when he felt put upon or criticized in any way. Steve Perrin was always mellow in my experience. I still use the game to this day. Sven -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Steve Lieb Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:39 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my longest running and most-enjoyed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/f8ff9f32/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Nov 22 11:20:43 2005 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Tue Nov 22 19:31:45 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. On 22 Nov 2005 at 13:40, Peter Maranci wrote: > > A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an interesting point: I wondered > what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made for Glorantha after he died. > > I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. > > That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in the event of my death, you > all are quite welcome to take the content of my site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it > as you see fit. Not that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, you never > know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still be out there, even when I'm not. > > Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 23 06:21:49 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton@invensys.com) Date: Wed Nov 23 06:22:52 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Message-ID: >Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, >and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially > turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I have a huge nostalgic fondness for early RQII Glorantha - not from playing or running it directly, but from reading about it in early White Dwarf and ransacking the supplements (Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, Pavis, Griffin Mountain) for inspiration for my own games in worlds of my own invention. Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. >I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. :D I happen to love both, the former to read, the later to game in. And funnily enough, I love reading about Tekumel as well, but like Middle-Earth, the idea of running a game there has never really appealed. But then both are settings ultimately built around their creators passion for languages... Where as I adore gaming in Jorune (a setting built from the ground up for gaming in), and Michael Moorcock's multivers , which (at least in it's 60's/70's incarnation) seems ideally suited to RPG's to me. > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. And (IMO) at the same time seems to have come over all po-faced and humourless: as happened a quarter of a century ago, I think I'll stick with my homebrew setting... ;-) But then, I think Glorantha gets over-hyped as an achievement in the history of roleplaying (and Pendragon under-hyped, to be fair to Greg Stafford). >But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) >were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. As I did on the BRP Yahoo group, allow me to quote from my copy of Call of Cthulhu hardback Edition 5.6, the Acknowledgement section of the Clear Credit sidebar on the copyright page: "Thanks are also due to the original authors (especially Steve Perrin) and play group connected with the 1978 roleplaying game RuneQuest, now owned by Hasbro#, from which the mechanics of Call of Cthulhu were adapted via the intermediary and out-of-print Basic Roleplaying. Mark Morrison has remarked that when he wishes to see how some problem of physical action is handled in a game, he turns first to RuneQuest. He is not the only one." #This was of course written before Hasbro relinquished the rights to the text of RQIII back to Chaosium and didn't dispute Issaries Inc's registering of the "RuneQuest" trademark. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Nov 23 06:57:18 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed Nov 23 06:57:26 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've bothered this mail-list about this topic before, but I like to repeat myself, so here we go: I've only ever played RQ3, never RQ2 It was my first RPG that I played, and the first RPG that I GM'ed in I totally loved the extensive and detailed Gloranthan world and the liberty it gave in character creation and cultural background. I hated that nothing seemed to happen (publications that never came, etc) -but in the long run, it made me take over Glorantha. I use Glorantha as I wish, and I only let the "official" Glorantha inspire me, not dictate me. Now I own the rulebook of HeroQuest, and I like some of the feel in that book (the saga/myth-twist it have got; more Beowulf'ish than acurate history'ish -if you know what I mean), and I think that that book will be my guide to the so called Hero-level in my Glorantha-campagins. I think that fits perfectly: The ordinary would; realistic rules in "realistic" settings (IE. RQ3 and Glorantha) The Hero-plane; mythic/saga feel with creative and elastic rules (IE. Hero Quest and the "new" Glorantha feel in that book and setting) >From: Nick.Middleton@invensys.com >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: after the end >Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:21:49 +0000 > > > >Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found >it >rather too contrived for my own tastes, > >and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) >by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially > > turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published >work. > >I have a huge nostalgic fondness for early RQII Glorantha - not from >playing or running it directly, but from reading about it in early White >Dwarf and ransacking the supplements (Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, >Pavis, Griffin Mountain) for inspiration for my own games in worlds of my >own invention. > >Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a >rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped >following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't >pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole >scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the >Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of >Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, >Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or >interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and >buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" >Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. > > >I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien >instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. > >:D I happen to love both, the former to read, the later to game in. And >funnily enough, I love reading about Tekumel as well, but like >Middle-Earth, the idea of running a game there has never really appealed. >But then both are settings ultimately built around their creators passion >for languages... Where as I adore gaming in Jorune (a setting built from >the ground up for gaming in), and Michael Moorcock's multivers , which (at >least in it's 60's/70's incarnation) seems ideally suited to RPG's to me. > > > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. > >And (IMO) at the same time seems to have come over all po-faced and >humourless: as happened a quarter of a century ago, I think I'll stick with >my homebrew setting... ;-) But then, I think Glorantha gets over-hyped as >an achievement in the history of roleplaying (and Pendragon under-hyped, to >be fair to Greg Stafford). > > >But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ >(props to Perrin) > >were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being >hitched >to Glorantha. > >As I did on the BRP Yahoo group, allow me to quote from my copy of Call of >Cthulhu hardback Edition 5.6, the >Acknowledgement section of the Clear Credit sidebar on the copyright page: > >"Thanks are also due to the original authors (especially Steve Perrin) >and play group connected with the 1978 roleplaying game RuneQuest, now >owned by Hasbro#, from which the mechanics of Call of Cthulhu were >adapted via the intermediary and out-of-print Basic Roleplaying. Mark >Morrison has remarked that when he wishes to see how some problem of >physical action is handled in a game, he turns first to RuneQuest. He >is not the only one." > >#This was of course written before Hasbro relinquished the rights to the >text of RQIII back to Chaosium and didn't dispute Issaries Inc's >registering of the "RuneQuest" trademark. > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Nov 23 07:40:38 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed Nov 23 07:41:13 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1132760438.8731098fd172b@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Personally the scholastic angle never worked for me, and I was never too taken with HeroQuest as it seemed to play on this scholars viewpoint and headed away from the 'standard' role-playing game format to a new format that never particularly caught my attention. But, heh, each to their own. Certainly some of the scholars came up with some interesting stuff, I've plundered lots of the scholarly discussions for themes for my game (along with about half of Simon Phipps campaign - played my annual RuneQuest weekend last week and they managed to screw up saving Orlanths Lost Cloud Castle, cheers Si! Your campaign ideas are still fuelling my own!) so there was some good stuff. Certainly I don't think the scholars killed RuneQuest/Glorantha, although admittedly I don't use the Gloranthan Digest anymore. But there's more to Glorantha than the Digest. Nikk From slposey at concentric.net Wed Nov 23 10:31:02 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:31:35 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> References: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> Message-ID: <4384B566.2080005@concentric.net> Tom Zunder wrote: > I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. My understanding as well. There's reputed to be a safety deposit box containing the "solutions" to the various puzzles of Tekumel. I believe the Professor's wife has instructions on what to do (or perhaps there's a will). Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 23 11:19:43 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:49:18 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about sorcery Message-ID: <000801c5f062$dc0c6bf0$396b8456@sickboy> Firstly, thanks to all folks who responded to my question about presence etc. Just to make sure I've got it nailed down correctly: If a character casts boost damage 4 on a sword, that sword would continue to have this spell on it as long as the spell was maintained, yes ? Now what happens if the person with the sword heads off on a round the world trip leaving the sorcerer behind ? Presumably as long as the spell was maintained the sword would still the spell on it even if it was thousands of miles away? Obviously the spell was dispelled it stops, othrwise it just goes on and on. Here's the big question: this would also apply to spells with a negative or unwanted effect as well ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051123/3c44b81d/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 23 11:02:36 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed Nov 23 11:02:42 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123145728.C5A4D1A46C3@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051123190236.16817.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent late-night webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later version (when this was coming out I was cash-short). How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and red). Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren James on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. I never noticed that before...LOL when did that change? I never used the setting, only the rules, but I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years and never noticed. Steve __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Nov 23 12:48:19 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed Nov 23 12:48:32 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end Message-ID: <2047497.1132778899469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> *sigh* I'd _love_ to see the contents of that safety deposit box but not at the price it'll take. Live long and prosper, Professor. David -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Posey Sent: Nov 23, 2005 12:31 PM To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] After the end Tom Zunder wrote: > I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. My understanding as well. There's reputed to be a safety deposit box containing the "solutions" to the various puzzles of Tekumel. I believe the Professor's wife has instructions on what to do (or perhaps there's a will). Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Nov 23 14:08:45 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed Nov 23 14:08:55 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123190236.16817.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Browny red or green covers usually imply that you've picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. However, if it's stapled together rather than glue bound, has tables that look like they've been photoset directly from a typewritten manuscript and has speedart as a variable spell then it's first edition. Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back cover. Cheers, Ash --- Steve Davies wrote: > I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook > that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent > late-night > webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later > version > (when this was coming out I was cash-short). > > How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? > > Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and > red). > Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, > expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren > James > on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has > Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. > > Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. > > I never noticed that before...LOL when did that > change? I never used the setting, only the rules, > but > I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years > and > never noticed. > > Steve > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 23 16:01:25 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Wed Nov 23 16:01:30 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <438502D5.4070606@sbcglobal.net> Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. Guy Ashley Munday wrote: > Browny red or green covers usually imply that you've > picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. > However, if it's stapled together rather than glue > bound, has tables that look like they've been photoset > directly from a typewritten manuscript and has > speedart as a variable spell then it's first edition. > > Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back cover. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > >>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook >>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent >>late-night >>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later >>version >>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). >> >>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? >> >>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and >>red). >>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, >>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren >>James >>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has >>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. >> >>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. >> >>I never noticed that before...LOL when did that >>change? I never used the setting, only the rules, >>but >>I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years >>and >>never noticed. >> >>Steve >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From anthony.emmel at gmail.com Wed Nov 23 16:29:41 2005 From: anthony.emmel at gmail.com (Anthony Emmel) Date: Wed Nov 23 16:29:50 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: <2047497.1132778899469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <2047497.1132778899469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Chello! On 11/23/05, David Smart wrote: > *sigh* I'd _love_ to see the contents of that safety deposit box but not > at the price it'll take. Live long and prosper, Professor. Roget that!!! I hope the professor lives another 70 years!!!! -- Anthony N. Emmel Scholar & Catholic Gentleman 6? The high praises of God shall be in their mouth: and two-edged swords in their hands: 7 To execute vengeance upon the nations, chastisements among the people: 8 To bind their kings with fetters, and their nobles with manacles of iron. 9 To execute upon them the judgment that is written: this glory is to all his saints. Alleluia. Psalm 149, DRV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051123/de8d966c/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Nov 23 16:40:35 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed Nov 23 16:40:43 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <438502D5.4070606@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20051124004035.33831.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ... and likewise in RQ II so that's no help... --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. > > Guy > > Ashley Munday wrote: > > Browny red or green covers usually imply that > you've > > picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. > > However, if it's stapled together rather than glue > > bound, has tables that look like they've been > photoset > > directly from a typewritten manuscript and has > > speedart as a variable spell then it's first > edition. > > > > Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back > cover. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > > > > >>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook > >>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent > >>late-night > >>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later > >>version > >>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). > >> > >>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? > >> > >>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and > >>red). > >>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, > >>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren > >>James > >>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has > >>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. > >> > >>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" > throughout. > >> > >>I never noticed that before...LOL when did that > >>change? I never used the setting, only the rules, > >>but > >>I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years > >>and > >>never noticed. > >> > >>Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>__________________________________ > >>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > >>http://mail.yahoo.com > >>_______________________________________________ > >>RQ-Rules mailing list > >>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Nov 23 18:11:08 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Wed Nov 23 18:11:21 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about sorcery In-Reply-To: <000801c5f062$dc0c6bf0$396b8456@sickboy> References: <000801c5f062$dc0c6bf0$396b8456@sickboy> Message-ID: <4385213C.8070802@talmeta.net> Clive Wickens wrote: > Here's the big question: this would also apply to > spells with a negative or unwanted effect as well ? yes, yes, and most certainly, yes. -- talmeta@talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.6/179 - Release Date: 11/23/2005 From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Nov 23 19:52:30 2005 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Wed Nov 23 19:52:50 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123190236.16817.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 1st edition is a greyish cover with brown ink and red ink. The title and author is in red, the picture of a woman in breastplate with shield fending off a reptilian creature is in brown. The book is saddle stitched with 116 pages (with pull-out reference charts in the center). Some of the typesetting looks like a typewriter. Some differences between RQ I && II: The monster chapter is broken up by type (Intelligent Humanoid Monsters, Intelligent Non-Humanoid Monsters, Non-Intelligent Monsters, Horses and Other Riding Animals). In the spells, Padding and Protection as separate spells have been replaced by the variable spell Protection. A new variable spell Spirit Shield exists. Frank From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Nov 24 02:05:13 2005 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu Nov 24 02:05:30 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book References: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <438502D5.4070606@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <000e01c5f0de$900db2f0$0401a8c0@hera> And in RQ2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Hoyle" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book > Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. > > Guy > > Ashley Munday wrote: >> Browny red or green covers usually imply that you've >> picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. >> However, if it's stapled together rather than glue >> bound, has tables that look like they've been photoset >> directly from a typewritten manuscript and has >> speedart as a variable spell then it's first edition. >> >> Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back cover. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ash >> >> --- Steve Davies wrote: >> >> >>>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook >>>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent >>>late-night >>>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later >>>version >>>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). >>> >>>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? >>> >>>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and >>>red). >>>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, >>>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren >>>James >>>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has >>>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. >>> >>>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. >>> >>>I never noticed that before...LOL when did that >>>change? I never used the setting, only the rules, >>>but >>>I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years >>>and >>>never noticed. >>> >>>Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>__________________________________ >>>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>RQ-Rules mailing list >>>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >>>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Nov 24 02:19:42 2005 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu Nov 24 02:19:44 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book References: <20051124004035.33831.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001701c5f0e0$95e0ded0$0401a8c0@hera> Apologies Guy - I should have read all my mail. :-) And Steve - The RQ1 rules does have a monochrome cover, the RQ2 rules have a colour cover (the same picture but in colour). Glorantha is spelt right through out the RQ2 version and Glorontha in RQ1 (I referred to my copy of the most excellent Meints Index of Glorantha II for this information), so you have the RQ1 version of the rules. RQ1 and 2 has Rurik's saga and was published by Chaosium alone, while RQ3 has Cormac's saga and is published by Avalon Hill. The sagas are rules illustrations for character generation and rules. Gordy From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Nov 24 02:46:37 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu Nov 24 02:46:46 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <438502D5.4070606@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20051124104637.54301.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> And in RQII, so that's not a great differentiator I'm afraid. Cheers, Ash --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. > > Guy > > Ashley Munday wrote: > > Browny red or green covers usually imply that > you've > > picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. > > However, if it's stapled together rather than glue > > bound, has tables that look like they've been > photoset > > directly from a typewritten manuscript and has > > speedart as a variable spell then it's first > edition. > > > > Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back > cover. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > > > > >>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook > >>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent > >>late-night > >>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later > >>version > >>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). > >> > >>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? > >> > >>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and > >>red). > >>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, > >>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren > >>James > >>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has > >>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. > >> > >>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" > throughout. > >> > >>I never noticed that before...LOL when did that > >>change? I never used the setting, only the rules, > >>but > >>I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years > >>and > >>never noticed. > >> > >>Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>__________________________________ > >>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > >>http://mail.yahoo.com > >>_______________________________________________ > >>RQ-Rules mailing list > >>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Nov 24 02:56:16 2005 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu Nov 24 02:56:28 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book References: Message-ID: <002a01c5f0e5$b19f6ec0$0401a8c0@hera> Apologies to all who I've duplicated. :-) We're all eager to help here and the emails must have zipped through cyberspace at the same time. :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank L Filz" To: "'Discussion of RuneQuest rules.'" Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:52 AM Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book > 1st edition is a greyish cover with brown ink and red ink. The title and > author is in red, the picture of a woman in breastplate with shield > fending > off a reptilian creature is in brown. The book is saddle stitched with 116 > pages (with pull-out reference charts in the center). Some of the > typesetting looks like a typewriter. > > Some differences between RQ I && II: > > The monster chapter is broken up by type (Intelligent Humanoid Monsters, > Intelligent Non-Humanoid Monsters, Non-Intelligent Monsters, Horses and > Other Riding Animals). > In the spells, Padding and Protection as separate spells have been > replaced > by the variable spell Protection. A new variable spell Spirit Shield > exists. > > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Nov 24 10:12:37 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu Nov 24 10:12:49 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <20051123145728.C5A4D1A46C3@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051124181237.94930.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All > Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it > rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the > 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars > essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the > published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally > fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. > > But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ > (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite > its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my > longest running and most-enjoyed. When I was playing RQ at university (1982-1985) there was a gaming group who played RQ but only used the RQ2 rulebook. When I pointed out there was so much more stuff in Cult of Prax, Cults of Terror, Trollpak etc they basically said they'd never need that kind of stuff. Similarly, there are people who still won't touch RQ3 and only play RQ2. RQ2 had some excellent supplements, but so did RQ3 and Hero Wars/HeroQuest. There's so much stuff on Glorantha that can be converted to RQ that we have huge amounts of fairly relevant background material. OK, I know that some people will still play in Pavis and Prax (where my new campaign is set) or in Balazar and wouldn't do things in Sartar, Tarsh or wherever, but that is neither here nor there. For people playing outside of Glorantha, there is a lot of Gloranthan stuff that can be adapted into a non-Gloranthan setting. Nick Middleton: > Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a > rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped > following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't > pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole > scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the > Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of > Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, > Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or > interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and > buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" > Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. Well, everyone who played RQ in those days agreed that AH ripped people off by re-releasing all the RQ2 products as RQ3 ones. But, there are still loads of good stuff for RQ3 and HW/HQ that can be used in RQ. It is interesting that AH were slagged off for bringing out the RQ2 stuff again for RQ3, but Rick Meintz is lauded for bringing out reprints of the RQ2 material. As for the players vs scholars debate, it is pretty much irrelevant. When I get into Glorantha, I can be as nit-picky as the rest of them, especially when they are wrong about something, but Glorantha, and RQ, are about playing. They are game rules and game settings, nothing more. Fine, let people write down histories and mythologies and let us use them or ignore them. As long as they keep producing interesting material I'll be happy. As for the comments about what happens to Glorantha after Greg Stafford retires, or whatever, it probably all depends on who owns Issaries and whrther they want to keep it going. It's all pretty irrelevant as he seems to be in good health. After all, what happened to Middle Earth after Tolkein died? See Ya Simon From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Nov 24 10:18:05 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu Nov 24 10:18:14 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Sucking up for no tangible gain In-Reply-To: <20051124004044.777191A7D86@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051124181805.65751.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Nikk Effingham: > Certainly some of the scholars came up with some interesting stuff, I've > plundered lots of the scholarly discussions for themes for my game (along > with > about half of Simon Phipps campaign - played my annual RuneQuest weekend > last > week and they managed to screw up saving Orlanths Lost Cloud Castle, cheers > Si! > Your campaign ideas are still fuelling my own!) so there was some good > stuff. > Certainly I don't think the scholars killed RuneQuest/Glorantha, although > admittedly I don't use the Gloranthan Digest anymore. But there's more to > Glorantha than the Digest. Good to see I'm still good enough for one RQ session per year :-) BTW, what's wrong with the other half?? See Ya Simon (Called Si by probably a handful of people and Simes by 2) From vikingjarl at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 11:26:13 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Thu Nov 24 11:26:23 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <20051124181237.94930.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Why am I getting double posts? - I get 2 of every posts that have been sent out lately. Thanks, Sven vikingjarl@gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Simon Phipp Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:13 AM To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Hiya All > Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it > rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the > 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars > essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the > published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally > fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. > > But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ > (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite > its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my > longest running and most-enjoyed. When I was playing RQ at university (1982-1985) there was a gaming group who played RQ but only used the RQ2 rulebook. When I pointed out there was so much more stuff in Cult of Prax, Cults of Terror, Trollpak etc they basically said they'd never need that kind of stuff. Similarly, there are people who still won't touch RQ3 and only play RQ2. RQ2 had some excellent supplements, but so did RQ3 and Hero Wars/HeroQuest. There's so much stuff on Glorantha that can be converted to RQ that we have huge amounts of fairly relevant background material. OK, I know that some people will still play in Pavis and Prax (where my new campaign is set) or in Balazar and wouldn't do things in Sartar, Tarsh or wherever, but that is neither here nor there. For people playing outside of Glorantha, there is a lot of Gloranthan stuff that can be adapted into a non-Gloranthan setting. Nick Middleton: > Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a > rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped > following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't > pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole > scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the > Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of > Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, > Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or > interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and > buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" > Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. Well, everyone who played RQ in those days agreed that AH ripped people off by re-releasing all the RQ2 products as RQ3 ones. But, there are still loads of good stuff for RQ3 and HW/HQ that can be used in RQ. It is interesting that AH were slagged off for bringing out the RQ2 stuff again for RQ3, but Rick Meintz is lauded for bringing out reprints of the RQ2 material. As for the players vs scholars debate, it is pretty much irrelevant. When I get into Glorantha, I can be as nit-picky as the rest of them, especially when they are wrong about something, but Glorantha, and RQ, are about playing. They are game rules and game settings, nothing more. Fine, let people write down histories and mythologies and let us use them or ignore them. As long as they keep producing interesting material I'll be happy. As for the comments about what happens to Glorantha after Greg Stafford retires, or whatever, it probably all depends on who owns Issaries and whrther they want to keep it going. It's all pretty irrelevant as he seems to be in good health. After all, what happened to Middle Earth after Tolkein died? See Ya Simon _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Nov 24 11:57:39 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Thu Nov 24 12:00:00 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end References: <20051124181237.94930.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003401c5f131$95540450$68417442@wizard> > Nick Middleton: >> Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a >> rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather >> stopped >> following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and >> didn't >> pay proper attention until the late nineties... > Simon > Well, everyone who played RQ in those days agreed that AH ripped people > off > by re-releasing all the RQ2 products as RQ3 ones. But, there are still > loads > of good stuff for RQ3 and HW/HQ that can be used in RQ. In those days, all this material was produced by the Chaosium. It was a conscious effort to bring the best of RQ2 into RQ3, and theoretically get stuff out quicker because all the work had been done. It didn't work; we all wanted to "improve" everything and ended up doing about as much work as we would have on new products. Then it turned out that Avalon Hill considered one release a quarter to be a maximum, not a minimum. They had no idea of what was needed to be a successful RPG. > It is interesting that AH were slagged off for bringing out the RQ2 stuff > again for RQ3, but Rick Meintz is lauded for bringing out reprints of the > RQ2 > material. It has been a good many more years since the material was first published. Rick is doing a very nice service. Thank you, Rick. Steve Perrin From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 24 16:46:01 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu Nov 24 16:46:08 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Edition, Identify Thyself In-Reply-To: <20051124181816.6B6EE1AC75A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051125004602.42914.qmail@web53912.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks to all for the spirited responses to my "which edition is it" question! In case anyone's curious, my copy appears to be first edition. I've been using RQIII to run for a while, but wanted Walktapi to throw at a party that had stranded itself on an island. So I pulled down my original book, then started wondering which edition it was. The web references I found were difficult to pin down exactly, so this list was invaluable. Thanks. Steve __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Thu Nov 24 17:12:29 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Thu Nov 24 17:12:33 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051124004035.33831.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051124004035.33831.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <438664FD.8020603@sbcglobal.net> Damn... versionitis, I guess. OK, in RQ1 Battle Magic, I seem to recall that there was a 1-point spell called Padding that vanished out of succeeding versions. Invisibility was a regular Battle Magic spell, too, whereas later it wasn't commonly available. Guy Lev Lafayette wrote: > ... and likewise in RQ II so that's no help... > > --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > > >>Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. >> >>Guy >> >>Ashley Munday wrote: >> >>>Browny red or green covers usually imply that >> >>you've >> >>>picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. >>>However, if it's stapled together rather than glue >>>bound, has tables that look like they've been >> >>photoset >> >>>directly from a typewritten manuscript and has >>>speedart as a variable spell then it's first >> >>edition. >> >>>Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back >> >>cover. >> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Ash >>> >>>--- Steve Davies wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook >>>>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent >>>>late-night >>>>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later >>>>version >>>>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). >>>> >>>>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? >>>> >>>>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and >>>>red). >>>>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, >>>>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren >>>>James >>>>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has >>>>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. >>>> >>>>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" >> >>throughout. >> >>>>I never noticed that before...LOL when did that >>>>change? I never used the setting, only the rules, >>>>but >>>>I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years >>>>and >>>>never noticed. >>>> >>>>Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>__________________________________ >>>>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 >>>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>RQ-Rules mailing list >>>>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >>>>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >>>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>RQ-Rules mailing list >>>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >>>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Thu Nov 24 22:04:33 2005 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Thu Nov 24 22:04:55 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <438664FD.8020603@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: > OK, in RQ1 Battle Magic, I seem to recall that there was a > 1-point spell called Padding that vanished out of succeeding > versions. Invisibility was a regular Battle Magic spell, too, > whereas later it wasn't commonly available. Yep, padding and protection used to be non-variable spells. Padding was 2 points, protection was 4 points. In RQII, they were combined to a standard variable spell. Frank From slposey at concentric.net Fri Nov 25 13:34:22 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri Nov 25 13:34:55 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4387835E.9070602@concentric.net> Frank L Filz wrote: >>OK, in RQ1 Battle Magic, I seem to recall that there was a >>1-point spell called Padding that vanished out of succeeding >>versions. Invisibility was a regular Battle Magic spell, too, >>whereas later it wasn't commonly available. > > Yep, padding and protection used to be non-variable spells. Padding was 2 > points, protection was 4 points. In RQII, they were combined to a standard > variable spell. Tweaks like those to the magic system were the MAJOR differences between RQ1 and RQ2 as best as I recall. Pretty much everything else was organization (some sections were re-arranged), layout (typeset tables), and typo fixing, plus a few wording clarifications here and there. If these were published nowadays, I'd say RQ2 would probably end up being called RQ1.5, as the books and systems are so generally similar. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net From andrew at crashbox.com Fri Nov 25 16:26:55 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Fri Nov 25 16:27:10 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] DragonQuest boxed set for sale. Message-ID: Y'all, I found a boxed set of DragonQuest at my local gamestore (In Pittsburgh PA) called 'Game Master's' for $30. It looks like it is in decent condition has the three core books. I can stop by an take a better look. If anyone interested I can get more info (phone #, etc.) if you can't google them. -Andrew From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Mon Nov 28 02:30:21 2005 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Mon Nov 28 02:30:46 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about sorcery Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE6032EEF31@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Clive Wickens: >Now what happens if the person with the sword heads off >on a round the world trip leaving the sorcerer behind ? >Here's the big question: this would also apply to >spells with a negative or unwanted effect as well ? I raised this question with Sandy, and one idea that I suggested was that some spells should have their range measured from the caster (and so drop when the spell target goes out of range), and other spells should have their range measured from the target, so the effect goes with them when they travel. Another idea would be for active spells (such as dominate) to become passive (and therefore their effects be suppressed) when they go out of range, and passive spells (such as damage boosting) should just keep on working. If you dominate a creature with a range of 100m, you should not be able to instruct it to go to another city and kill someone. As to whether you could use spells as a form of communicaton is another matter - "I'll cast a one point spell on this stick, you dispel it if you need me to come and help you", for instance. Does the caster immediately know that a point of presence has been freed up? I don't think so, not instantly anyway. __________________________________________________ Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham __________________________________________________ This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini 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 gianni at basicrps.com Mon Nov 28 05:50:46 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon Nov 28 05:51:00 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Message-ID: <20051128135054.E7FDC1C4E23@mini.thinbits.net> hi gang, > It has been a good many more years since the material was first published. > Rick is doing a very nice service. Thank you, Rick. BTW... did anybody get his Gloranthan Classics IV yet? Cheers Gianni From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 28 15:49:33 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon Nov 28 15:19:03 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell - comments sought Message-ID: <000801c5f476$623f21b0$29ba8956@sickboy> I'll openly admit I'm crap at writing spells, the following is a sorcery idea I've been mulling over recently. It is gloranthan in nature, in that it deals with rune metals. Thus I must say in reference to a certain fan policy: This spell is copyright me, and may not be used in any kind of product without my express permission Like I said I'm rubbish at writing spells, but I think you can see what I'm striving for, advice gratefully sought DISTEMPER Ranged, passive. This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensity must equal the ENC of the object to be affected. For the duration of the spell any special properties that the forged rune metal status bestows are negated, and the object is considered to be in it's raw state .Physical shape is not affected ( ie an Iron breastplate remains an iron breastplate ) but special properties eg: increased armour points etc are lost. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051128/ba2475ff/attachment.html From gloomshark at hotmail.com Mon Nov 28 15:43:02 2005 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Mon Nov 28 15:43:08 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell - comments sought In-Reply-To: <000801c5f476$623f21b0$29ba8956@sickboy> Message-ID: Ok, I am also bad at writing spells, so dont feel qualified to comment aside from it looks ok, but I have to say, you do know distemper is a type of disease right :) Sorry to side track, but it was the first thing to pop into my head as I was reading the spell. >From: "Clive Wickens" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: >Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell - comments sought >Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:49:33 -0000 > >I'll openly admit I'm crap at writing spells, the following is a sorcery >idea I've been mulling over recently. > >It is gloranthan in nature, in that it deals with rune metals. > >Thus I must say in reference to a certain fan policy: > >This spell is copyright me, and may not be used in any kind of product >without my express permission > > > >Like I said I'm rubbish at writing spells, > >but I think you can see what I'm striving for, > >advice gratefully sought > > > > > >DISTEMPER > >Ranged, passive. > > > >This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensity must equal >the ENC of the object to be affected. For the duration of the spell any >special properties that the forged rune metal status bestows are negated, >and the object is considered to be in it's raw state > >.Physical shape is not affected ( ie an Iron breastplate remains an iron >breastplate ) but special properties eg: increased armour points etc are >lost. >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 28 16:39:03 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon Nov 28 16:08:29 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: New sorcery spell - comments sought Message-ID: <000801c5f47d$4cb38550$43dd8e56@sickboy> Dana myers wrote "Ok, I am also bad at writing spells, so dont feel qualified to comment aside from it looks ok, but I have to say, you do know distemper is a type of disease right :) Sorry to side track, but it was the first thing to pop into my head as I was reading the spell" I know - it just appealed to my appalling taste in puns -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051129/9ea13dca/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Tue Nov 29 06:24:05 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue Nov 29 06:24:30 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <1133274245.c0ce363538cb9@webmail7.leeds.ac.uk> Good stuff. Do you think that it requires a magic points veruss magic points? A resistance roll if cast on, say, a weapon someone is wielding? I'd suggest not (mainly because the effect of the spell isn't that powerful). Nikk From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Nov 29 06:52:39 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue Nov 29 06:52:46 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <20051129145239.98937.qmail@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have a problem with this spell and I do consider it very powerful. Imagine someone casting it on an attuned alluminium shield. For a few magic points, the shield is now not only useless for the combat, but easily destroyed since its armor points are negligable. Cast on iron it has an effect of lowering the chance of any spell being cast by the target. And, what happens to a lead scimitar? It took POW to enchant these things, there should definently be some sort of a resistance roll involved and I would consider making this spell substance specific such as Distemper Silver, Distemper Iron, and so on. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > Good stuff. Do you think that it requires a magic points veruss magic points? A > resistance roll if cast on, say, a weapon someone is wielding? I'd suggest not > (mainly because the effect of the spell isn't that powerful). > > Nikk > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Nov 29 08:18:12 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue Nov 29 08:18:19 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell - comments sought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051129161812.14118.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Dana Myers wrote: > Ok, I am also bad at writing spells, so dont feel > qualified to comment aside > from it looks ok, but I have to say, you do know > distemper is a type of > disease right :) Sorry to side track, but it was the > first thing to pop into > my head as I was reading the spell. Isn't the process (heat and allow to cool slowly) to remove temper called aneal? Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 29 13:53:12 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue Nov 29 13:22:39 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <000801c5f52f$4bd7d070$675c8456@sickboy> Leon wrote: >>I have a problem with this spell and I do consider it very powerful. Imagine someone casting it on an attuned alluminium shield.<< I'd agree, It's potentially quite powerful >>For a few magic points, the shield is now not only useless for the combat, but easily destroyed since its armor points are negligable. Cast on iron it has an effect of lowering the chance of any spell being cast by the target. And, what happens to a lead scimitar?<< This was why I asked for help. For some metals eg gold the effects are minor, ie: no 'glow', no double bonus for light spells. Others are more drastic - iron I don't have a problem with, it's precisely what I had in mind when thinking about it, but as Leon points out the problem comes when you're dealing with possible permanent effects. A silver or aluminium object would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily breakable with the result the enchantment would be broken. Unfortunately the Genertala secrets book isn't very forthcoming about the strength or durability of metals in their raw state. Does the fact something gains as many armour points as Bronze mean that it can take an edge like bronze ? Just because it's as strong as Bronze does it mean it's as sharp as Bronze ? With regards to Lead the implication in the book is that it already has the same AP as Bronze, but that enchantment gets rid of the ENC penalty, so could it be used to forge a scimitar anyway? >>It took POW to enchant these things, there should definently be some sort of a resistance roll involved and I would consider making this spell substance specific such as Distemper Silver, Distemper Iron, and so on.<< I don't have a problem with a resistance roll, I'd considered something like " the intensity of the spell must overcome the ENC of the target in a resistance roll in order to take effect " I'd also considered substance specific spells as I like the idea of different schools of sorcery having access to different spells eg trollish sorcerers might have Distemper Gold,Distemper Copper and so on I've got a similiar spell with almost the reverse effect which I'll post if anyone is interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051129/28b18c8f/attachment-0001.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Nov 30 03:24:11 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed Nov 30 03:24:20 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Distemper In-Reply-To: <20051129212242.159601CF7E5@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051130112411.26488.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Clive Wickens: > I'll openly admit I'm crap at writing spells, the following is a sorcery > idea I've been mulling over recently. Not that crap after all. > DISTEMPER > > Ranged, passive. > > > > This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensity must equal > the ENC of the object to be affected. For the duration of the spell any > special properties that the forged rune metal status bestows are negated, > and the object is considered to be in it's raw state Nikk Effingham: > Good stuff. Do you think that it requires a magic points veruss magic > points? A > resistance roll if cast on, say, a weapon someone is wielding? I'd suggest > not > (mainly because the effect of the spell isn't that powerful). It is probably as powerful as, say, Dullblade which requires a Magic Resistance roll. Leon Kirshtein: > I have a problem with this spell and I do consider it > very powerful. Imagine someone casting it on an > attuned alluminium shield. > > For a few magic points, the shield is now not only > useless for the combat, but easily destroyed since its > armor points are negligable. Cast on iron it has an > effect of lowering the chance of any spell being cast > by the target. And, what happens to a lead scimitar? > > It took POW to enchant these things, there should > definently be some sort of a resistance roll involved > and I would consider making this spell substance > specific such as Distemper Silver, Distemper Iron, and > so on. Since the spell's effects are not permanent, and presumably can be dispelled anyway, I don't think this is too powerful at all. In the examples, an aluminium shield would have reduced APs and its ENC would count underwater, but apart from that the shield is still usable. Unenchanted Iron does reduce the chance of casting spells, but not by much, so I wouldn't think this is too much of a game-breaker. It would also increase the ENC of the Iron (if you use the RQ2-ish interpretation). I like the idea of having metal-specific versions of the spell. It makes it slightly less powerful and slightly more Gloranthan. Clive Wickens: > This was why I asked for help. For some metals eg gold > the effects are minor, ie: no 'glow', no double bonus > for light spells. Others are more drastic - iron I don't > have a problem with, it's precisely what I had in mind > when thinking about it, but as Leon points out the > problem comes when you're dealing with possible > permanent effects. A silver or aluminium object > would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily > breakable with the result the enchantment would > be broken. Unfortunately the Genertala secrets > book isn't very forthcoming about the strength or > durability of metals in their raw state. I wouldn't say as soft as putty, they would probably only have half the APs of bronze. > Does the fact something gains as many armour > points as Bronze mean that it can take an edge > like bronze ? Just because it's as strong as Bronze > does it mean it's as sharp as Bronze ? I would say so, yes. > With regards to Lead the implication in the book > is that it already has the same AP as Bronze, but > that enchantment gets rid of the ENC penalty, > so could it be used to forge a scimitar anyway? Yes, I don't see the problem with lead scimitars. Maybe in the rules, it says that lead edged weapons don't get the +1, so a scimitar would do 1D8 rather than 1D8+1, sounds vaguely familiar. But, there again, most leaden weapons are blunt and still get the +2 for being very heavy. > I don't have a problem with a resistance roll, I'd considered > something like " the intensity of the spell must overcome > the ENC of the target in a resistance roll in order to take > effect " I'd also considered substance specific spells > as I like the idea of different schools of sorcery > having access to different spells eg trollish sorcerers > might have Distemper Gold,Distemper Copper > and so on MPs vs MPs would be better, keeping it in line with Dullblade etc. If trollish or Aldryami sorcerers used Distemper Iron, would it stop the Ironburn (double damage)? I can't remember whether untempered iron burns them or not. If it does, then there would be a trollish school in the Holy Country teaching this, probably from The Only Old One. > I've got a similiar spell with almost the reverse effect > which I'll post if anyone is interested. It's always good to see new spells, so please post away. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Nov 30 06:34:36 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed Nov 30 06:34:56 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Distemper Message-ID: <20051130143436.40731.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dullblade only requires a resistence roll if the target weapon contains a spirit. I believe unattuned iron still does double damage to elves and trolls. At least we always played it that way. BTW, we have always played that unattuned gold would also double Light spells. I would rule that unattuned lead scimitar would do 1d6 damage and be a crushing weapon. It would also take damage if used as such. Lead and silver weapons and armor should have at most 1/3 the armor points of bronze. These metals are just too soft to offer any meaningfull protection while unattuned. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > Clive Wickens: > > > I'll openly admit I'm crap at writing spells, the following is a sorcery > > idea I've been mulling over recently. > > Not that crap after all. > > > DISTEMPER > > > > Ranged, passive. > > > > > > > > This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensity must equal > > the ENC of the object to be affected. For the duration of the spell any > > special properties that the forged rune metal status bestows are negated, > > and the object is considered to be in it's raw state > > Nikk Effingham: > > Good stuff. Do you think that it requires a magic points veruss magic > > points? A > > resistance roll if cast on, say, a weapon someone is wielding? I'd suggest > > not > > (mainly because the effect of the spell isn't that powerful). > > It is probably as powerful as, say, Dullblade which requires a Magic > Resistance roll. > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > I have a problem with this spell and I do consider it > > very powerful. Imagine someone casting it on an > > attuned alluminium shield. > > > > For a few magic points, the shield is now not only > > useless for the combat, but easily destroyed since its > > armor points are negligable. Cast on iron it has an > > effect of lowering the chance of any spell being cast > > by the target. And, what happens to a lead scimitar? > > > > It took POW to enchant these things, there should > > definently be some sort of a resistance roll involved > > and I would consider making this spell substance > > specific such as Distemper Silver, Distemper Iron, and > > so on. > > Since the spell's effects are not permanent, and presumably can be dispelled > anyway, I don't think this is too powerful at all. > > In the examples, an aluminium shield would have reduced APs and its ENC would > count underwater, but apart from that the shield is still usable. > > Unenchanted Iron does reduce the chance of casting spells, but not by much, > so I wouldn't think this is too much of a game-breaker. It would also > increase the ENC of the Iron (if you use the RQ2-ish interpretation). > > I like the idea of having metal-specific versions of the spell. It makes it > slightly less powerful and slightly more Gloranthan. > > Clive Wickens: > > > This was why I asked for help. For some metals eg gold > > the effects are minor, ie: no 'glow', no double bonus > > for light spells. Others are more drastic - iron I don't > > have a problem with, it's precisely what I had in mind > > when thinking about it, but as Leon points out the > > problem comes when you're dealing with possible > > permanent effects. A silver or aluminium object > > would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily > > breakable with the result the enchantment would > > be broken. Unfortunately the Genertala secrets > > book isn't very forthcoming about the strength or > > durability of metals in their raw state. > > I wouldn't say as soft as putty, they would probably only have half the APs > of bronze. > > > Does the fact something gains as many armour > > points as Bronze mean that it can take an edge > > like bronze ? Just because it's as strong as Bronze === Message Truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Nov 30 07:31:08 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed Nov 30 07:31:24 2005 Subject: [Rq-rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <1133364668.a55db7e9e0c3a@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I've also played that dullblade requires no resistance roll, and would be tempted to do the same here. Considering the points raised, it seems sensible to limit the spell to affect only one type of metal (as already suggested). Simon is right that your aluminium shield will get bashed in, but I'm tempted to say 'tough' : ) That's just an upside of the spell, we can mangle your nicely enchanted ceremonial armour and weapons. This is no problem for iron, and whilst you lose the extra armour points and get the penalty to magic this is not a big problem in my eyes - iron is so amazing normally that the fact that Distempered iron would be a bugger to deal with is no problem just as long as Distemper is a rare spell (which is fine). So only every now and again would Distempered get cast on your PCs. As for your PCs casting it on the enemy, make sure getting that spell is tricky (and it'd also take a while to affect the iron plate, say, that'd be a pretty high intensity to knock off). So it's not a big deal if you take the pain after the sorceror has spent two or three full rounds casting a spell that affects all my armour so I take the iron penalty to magic and lose the armour points bonus. Again, I'm tempted to say 'ditto' for cults which use other metals, although I must admit IMG all cults use iron whenever they can so an enchanted tin shield getting the crap beaten out of it would be rare anyhow. The problem would be lead, at least for me. Lead is commonly used (by trolls at least) and is mushy and pliable when unenchanted. Given that I'd be tempeted to say that Distemper only eliminates 'special features' and not the strengthening that makes it as strong as lead. At worst, this is a bit ad hoc. But it's magic. Magic can be ad hoc if you want it to. Nikk From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Nov 21 09:03:19 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <001101c5eebd$7915ab20$32dd8e56@sickboy> What is with the web at the moment ! Leon's site still seems to be down., and now the ouija's site appears to have gone AWOL. Shame, both sites I enjoyed visiting. Lets hope they'll be up again soon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/b7289537/attachment-0002.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Nov 21 08:50:05 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <001101c5eebd$7915ab20$32dd8e56@sickboy> Message-ID: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My site should be up. Please try this link: http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp Leon --- Clive Wickens wrote: > What is with the web at the moment ! Leon's site > still seems to be down., and now the ouija's site > appears to have gone AWOL. Shame, both sites I > enjoyed visiting. Lets hope they'll be up again soon.> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 21 11:05:55 2005 From: nick at gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk (Nick Middleton) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Leon Leon Kirshtein wrote: >My site should be up. Please try this link: > >http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp > >Leon > It's working for me from home... *shrug* Mind I couldn't get in to Google at all from about 15.30 GMT to 16.15 GMT todat... Cheers, Nick Middleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Nov 21 11:43:46 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in quite a while; sorry about that, but ever since that little incident with Stafford, I've had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm On 11/21/05, Nick Middleton wrote: > > Leon > > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > >My site should be up. Please try this link: > > > >http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp > > > >Leon > > > > It's working for me from home... *shrug* Mind I couldn't get in to > Google at all from about 15.30 GMT to 16.15 GMT todat... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/7396440c/attachment-0002.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Nov 21 13:30:04 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <13475899.1132608604295.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Interesting. When I try to hit the site, I get: Network Error (tcp_error) A communication error occurred: "Operation timed out" The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time. David -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: Nov 21, 2005 10:50 AM To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? My site should be up. Please try this link: http://68.197.33.44:8245/main.asp Leon From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Nov 21 17:05:17 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: Eh. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, although I AM still a bit annoyed. It was all quite public, anyway. Here's the key section of the thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=57 And here's Stafford's post: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4295412&postcount=564 It's not all that interesting, actually. It changed my opinion of Greg Stafford, but that's just...my opinion. I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. On 11/21/05, murfnmurf@suscom.net wrote: > > My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in > quite a while; > sorry about that, but ever since that little incident > with Stafford, I've > had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. > ->Peter > > > Hiya Peter, > What incident did you have with Mr. Stafford? > -Ken- > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/bbe0db14/attachment-0002.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Nov 21 17:19:34 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: <31375348.1132622374009.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Tut tut. No self-deprecation, please. I've found your RQ site and work very enjoyable even if I don't use most of it in my campaigns. I truly get a kick from reading other people's ideas, no matter how off-the-wall, conservative, or any other label someone may or may not choose to use to describe someone's web content. The ideas of others helps me keep the cobwebs and dust off of my brain and that's just plain kewl. David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Nov 21, 2005 7:05 PM To: "murfnmurf@suscom.net" , RuneQuest-Rules Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. From devinc at aol.com Mon Nov 21 19:03:05 2005 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc@aol.com) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? In-Reply-To: References: <20051121165005.75048.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <43821A93.7050600@gallowglass.fsnet.co.uk> Message-ID: <8C7BD2864CC0A62-1D58-86F9@FWM-R19.sysops.aol.com> Ah, brings back the good old days! For the record, Pete, I appreciate your belated comments on the Scholars ruining the game. As you may remember, I was the person who first introduced the whole Scholars and Players divide in RQ and eventually got hounded out of the RQ Digest mailing list because of it. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci To: murfnmurf@suscom.net ; RuneQuest-Rules Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:05:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Eh. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, although I AM still a bit annoyed. It was all quite public, anyway. Here's the key section of the thread: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203416&page=57 And here's Stafford's post: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4295412&postcount=564 It's not all that interesting, actually. It changed my opinion of Greg Stafford, but that's just...my opinion. I hope that eventually I'll get over it and go back to working on RQ some time. But so far, I just can't bring myself to do it. Which is no great loss for anyone, I'm sure. On 11/21/05, murfnmurf@suscom.net < murfnmurf@suscom.net> wrote: My site's still up too. Although I haven't updated it in quite a while; sorry about that, but ever since that little incident with Stafford, I've had zero enthusiasm for RuneQuest. ->Peter Hiya Peter, What incident did you have with Mr. Stafford? -Ken- -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051121/d6f82719/attachment-0002.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Nov 21 22:32:19 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Death by a thousand web failures ? Message-ID: If find that I can only view Leon's site form home as well, some sort of port/firewall issue from work. Then again my work has seen fit to block me from viewing my own site.... Howl--- You are Right Ouija www.eskimo.com is down, les just hope its for maintenance or a site move as his site is arguably (well I reckon anyway) one of the best on the net. -----Original Message----- Nick Middleton ? Leon Leon Kirshtein wrote: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 10:40:26 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end Message-ID: A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an interesting point: I wondered what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made for Glorantha after he died. I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in the event of my death, you all are quite welcome to take the content of my site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it as you see fit. Not that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, you never know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still be out there, even when I'm not. Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/4f92724d/attachment-0002.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Nov 22 11:53:02 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39714.65.220.101.126.1132689182.squirrel@crashbox.com> How many buses does it take to kill Glorantha? -Andrew > A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an > interesting point: I wondered what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made > for Glorantha after he died. > I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. > That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in > the event of my death, you all are quite welcome to take the content of my > site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it as you see fit. Not > that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, > you > never know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still > be > out there, even when I'm not. > Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Nov 22 12:39:25 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Message-ID: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> I suppose some of the co - writers eg: Sandy Peterson etc might have a claim on it. Are you sure you're not still upset by that thing with Stafford ? :-) By the way, what am I doing wrong - my posts keep appearing spread right across the page ? pps When will the archives transfer ? I've been slowly wading my way through them...... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/59badef3/attachment-0002.html From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Nov 22 12:21:38 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> References: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> Message-ID: <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> > By the way, what am I doing wrong - my posts keep appearing spread right > across the page ? I dunno. > pps When will the archives transfer ? I've been slowly wading my way > through them...... CRAP! I knew I forgot something. When the server transfer wasn't a painful as I had expected, I should have known I forgot something. -Andrew From styopa1 at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 12:38:53 2005 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Steve Lieb) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> References: <000801c5efa4$d3c2a130$76588456@sickboy> <43903.65.220.101.126.1132690898.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0511221238r27f198f1lc8d8f42d05142106@mail.gmail.com> Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my longest running and most-enjoyed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/6df1b2f0/attachment-0002.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 13:06:35 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Viking Jarl) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0511221238r27f198f1lc8d8f42d05142106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The only time I?ve played in a Gloranthan setting was in the playtesting sessions with Steve & Greg in the original versions. Greg could always be rather a pompous a$$ when he felt put upon or criticized in any way. Steve Perrin was always mellow in my experience. I still use the game to this day. Sven -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Steve Lieb Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:39 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. My fantasy Europe campaign was one of my longest running and most-enjoyed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051122/f8ff9f32/attachment-0002.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Nov 22 11:20:43 2005 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. On 22 Nov 2005 at 13:40, Peter Maranci wrote: > > A while back in a discussion with a Glorantha fan I came up with an interesting point: I wondered > what (if any) arrangements Stafford had made for Glorantha after he died. > > I couldn't care less, of course, but it's an interesting issue. > > That said, it seems appropriate (although kind of morbid) to say that in the event of my death, you > all are quite welcome to take the content of my site (the stuff that *I* created, anyway) and use it > as you see fit. Not that I'm expecting to die, mind you; my health is excellent. But, well, you never > know. And I'd like to think that maybe some of my stuff will still be out there, even when I'm not. > > Sorry, I suppose this is a bit OT. > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Nov 23 06:21:49 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton@invensys.com) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end Message-ID: >Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found it rather too contrived for my own tastes, >and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially > turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published work. I have a huge nostalgic fondness for early RQII Glorantha - not from playing or running it directly, but from reading about it in early White Dwarf and ransacking the supplements (Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, Pavis, Griffin Mountain) for inspiration for my own games in worlds of my own invention. Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. >I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. :D I happen to love both, the former to read, the later to game in. And funnily enough, I love reading about Tekumel as well, but like Middle-Earth, the idea of running a game there has never really appealed. But then both are settings ultimately built around their creators passion for languages... Where as I adore gaming in Jorune (a setting built from the ground up for gaming in), and Michael Moorcock's multivers , which (at least in it's 60's/70's incarnation) seems ideally suited to RPG's to me. > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. And (IMO) at the same time seems to have come over all po-faced and humourless: as happened a quarter of a century ago, I think I'll stick with my homebrew setting... ;-) But then, I think Glorantha gets over-hyped as an achievement in the history of roleplaying (and Pendragon under-hyped, to be fair to Greg Stafford). >But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ (props to Perrin) >were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being hitched to Glorantha. As I did on the BRP Yahoo group, allow me to quote from my copy of Call of Cthulhu hardback Edition 5.6, the Acknowledgement section of the Clear Credit sidebar on the copyright page: "Thanks are also due to the original authors (especially Steve Perrin) and play group connected with the 1978 roleplaying game RuneQuest, now owned by Hasbro#, from which the mechanics of Call of Cthulhu were adapted via the intermediary and out-of-print Basic Roleplaying. Mark Morrison has remarked that when he wishes to see how some problem of physical action is handled in a game, he turns first to RuneQuest. He is not the only one." #This was of course written before Hasbro relinquished the rights to the text of RQIII back to Chaosium and didn't dispute Issaries Inc's registering of the "RuneQuest" trademark. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Nov 23 06:57:18 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've bothered this mail-list about this topic before, but I like to repeat myself, so here we go: I've only ever played RQ3, never RQ2 It was my first RPG that I played, and the first RPG that I GM'ed in I totally loved the extensive and detailed Gloranthan world and the liberty it gave in character creation and cultural background. I hated that nothing seemed to happen (publications that never came, etc) -but in the long run, it made me take over Glorantha. I use Glorantha as I wish, and I only let the "official" Glorantha inspire me, not dictate me. Now I own the rulebook of HeroQuest, and I like some of the feel in that book (the saga/myth-twist it have got; more Beowulf'ish than acurate history'ish -if you know what I mean), and I think that that book will be my guide to the so called Hero-level in my Glorantha-campagins. I think that fits perfectly: The ordinary would; realistic rules in "realistic" settings (IE. RQ3 and Glorantha) The Hero-plane; mythic/saga feel with creative and elastic rules (IE. Hero Quest and the "new" Glorantha feel in that book and setting) >From: Nick.Middleton@invensys.com >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: after the end >Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:21:49 +0000 > > > >Re the topic of that discussion, while I always liked Glorantha I found >it >rather too contrived for my own tastes, > >and Peter's comments about the 80's-90's Gregging (into the current day) >by Gloranthaphile scholars essentially > > turned me off it despite my own meagre contributions to the published >work. > >I have a huge nostalgic fondness for early RQII Glorantha - not from >playing or running it directly, but from reading about it in early White >Dwarf and ransacking the supplements (Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, >Pavis, Griffin Mountain) for inspiration for my own games in worlds of my >own invention. > >Whilst I liked some of the RQII material, the AH boxed sets did seem a >rather obvious repackaging to maximise profit approach and I rather stopped >following what was going on in the latter part of the eighties, and didn't >pay proper attention until the late nineties... So I missed the whole >scholars thing, but was increasingly uncomfortable with Hero Wars and the >Glorantha it was describing (or rather, trying to describe in the case of >Hero Wars itself...) I fairly rapidly realised that, like Hero wars/Quest, >Glorantha in its current form is a setting I have little sympathy for or >interest in, so I've been quietly completing my RQ collection via eBay and >buying up the Gloranthan Classics and largely ignoring where "modern" >Glorantha (and Hero Quest) are going. > > >I prefer my fantasy slightly familiar to the totally fantastic - Tolkien >instead of Jorune, if that doesn't date me too much. > >:D I happen to love both, the former to read, the later to game in. And >funnily enough, I love reading about Tekumel as well, but like >Middle-Earth, the idea of running a game there has never really appealed. >But then both are settings ultimately built around their creators passion >for languages... Where as I adore gaming in Jorune (a setting built from >the ground up for gaming in), and Michael Moorcock's multivers , which (at >least in it's 60's/70's incarnation) seems ideally suited to RPG's to me. > > > Glorantha just got to be too rococo for my tastes. > >And (IMO) at the same time seems to have come over all po-faced and >humourless: as happened a quarter of a century ago, I think I'll stick with >my homebrew setting... ;-) But then, I think Glorantha gets over-hyped as >an achievement in the history of roleplaying (and Pendragon under-hyped, to >be fair to Greg Stafford). > > >But that's why I continue to lurk here, since I think the mechanics of RQ >(props to Perrin) > >were and still are one of the best systems ever, despite its being >hitched >to Glorantha. > >As I did on the BRP Yahoo group, allow me to quote from my copy of Call of >Cthulhu hardback Edition 5.6, the >Acknowledgement section of the Clear Credit sidebar on the copyright page: > >"Thanks are also due to the original authors (especially Steve Perrin) >and play group connected with the 1978 roleplaying game RuneQuest, now >owned by Hasbro#, from which the mechanics of Call of Cthulhu were >adapted via the intermediary and out-of-print Basic Roleplaying. Mark >Morrison has remarked that when he wishes to see how some problem of >physical action is handled in a game, he turns first to RuneQuest. He >is not the only one." > >#This was of course written before Hasbro relinquished the rights to the >text of RQIII back to Chaosium and didn't dispute Issaries Inc's >registering of the "RuneQuest" trademark. > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Nov 23 07:40:38 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: after the end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1132760438.8731098fd172b@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Personally the scholastic angle never worked for me, and I was never too taken with HeroQuest as it seemed to play on this scholars viewpoint and headed away from the 'standard' role-playing game format to a new format that never particularly caught my attention. But, heh, each to their own. Certainly some of the scholars came up with some interesting stuff, I've plundered lots of the scholarly discussions for themes for my game (along with about half of Simon Phipps campaign - played my annual RuneQuest weekend last week and they managed to screw up saving Orlanths Lost Cloud Castle, cheers Si! Your campaign ideas are still fuelling my own!) so there was some good stuff. Certainly I don't think the scholars killed RuneQuest/Glorantha, although admittedly I don't use the Gloranthan Digest anymore. But there's more to Glorantha than the Digest. Nikk From slposey at concentric.net Wed Nov 23 10:31:02 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end In-Reply-To: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> References: <43836F8B.22466.180B644@localhost> Message-ID: <4384B566.2080005@concentric.net> Tom Zunder wrote: > I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. My understanding as well. There's reputed to be a safety deposit box containing the "solutions" to the various puzzles of Tekumel. I believe the Professor's wife has instructions on what to do (or perhaps there's a will). Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Nov 23 11:19:43 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about sorcery Message-ID: <000801c5f062$dc0c6bf0$396b8456@sickboy> Firstly, thanks to all folks who responded to my question about presence etc. Just to make sure I've got it nailed down correctly: If a character casts boost damage 4 on a sword, that sword would continue to have this spell on it as long as the spell was maintained, yes ? Now what happens if the person with the sword heads off on a round the world trip leaving the sorcerer behind ? Presumably as long as the spell was maintained the sword would still the spell on it even if it was thousands of miles away? Obviously the spell was dispelled it stops, othrwise it just goes on and on. Here's the big question: this would also apply to spells with a negative or unwanted effect as well ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051123/3c44b81d/attachment-0002.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 23 11:02:36 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123145728.C5A4D1A46C3@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051123190236.16817.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent late-night webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later version (when this was coming out I was cash-short). How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and red). Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren James on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. I never noticed that before...LOL when did that change? I never used the setting, only the rules, but I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years and never noticed. Steve __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Nov 23 12:48:19 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:13 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] After the end Message-ID: <2047497.1132778899469.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> *sigh* I'd _love_ to see the contents of that safety deposit box but not at the price it'll take. Live long and prosper, Professor. David -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Posey Sent: Nov 23, 2005 12:31 PM To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] After the end Tom Zunder wrote: > I believe MAR Barker has made very careful plans.. My understanding as well. There's reputed to be a safety deposit box containing the "solutions" to the various puzzles of Tekumel. I believe the Professor's wife has instructions on what to do (or perhaps there's a will). Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Nov 23 14:08:45 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:13 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123190236.16817.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Browny red or green covers usually imply that you've picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. However, if it's stapled together rather than glue bound, has tables that look like they've been photoset directly from a typewritten manuscript and has speedart as a variable spell then it's first edition. Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back cover. Cheers, Ash --- Steve Davies wrote: > I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook > that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent > late-night > webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later > version > (when this was coming out I was cash-short). > > How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? > > Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and > red). > Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, > expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren > James > on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has > Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. > > Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. > > I never noticed that before...LOL when did that > change? I never used the setting, only the rules, > but > I've looked at them A LOT over the last 20+ years > and > never noticed. > > Steve > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Nov 23 16:01:25 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sun May 21 09:36:13 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sorta OT: Identify RQI Rule Book In-Reply-To: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20051123220845.86552.qmail@web86111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <438502D5.4070606@sbcglobal.net> Spirit Magic spells are called Battle Magic in RQ1. Guy Ashley Munday wrote: > Browny red or green covers usually imply that you've > picked up a second ed. refugee from a box set. > However, if it's stapled together rather than glue > bound, has tables that look like they've been photoset > directly from a typewritten manuscript and has > speedart as a variable spell then it's first edition. > > Oh, and it's got the Glorontha typo on the back cover. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Steve Davies wrote: > > >>I've been running my campaign from an old rulebook >>that I always thought was RQ1, but a recent >>late-night >>webcrawl made me wonder if I picked up a later >>version >>(when this was coming out I was cash-short). >> >>How can you identify RQ1 rulebooks? >> >>Mine has a monochrome cover (or maybe brown and >>red). >>Authors are Steve Perrin & Friends on the cover, >>expanded to Ray Turney, Steve Henderson, Warren >>James >>on TOC. Copyright 1978. Back cover blurb has >>Chaosium spelled "Chosium" in one place. >> >>Oh, and Glorantha is spelled "Glorontha" throughout. >