From andrew at crashbox.com Sat May 6 09:04:56 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sat May 6 09:03:09 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats Message-ID: <0F565027-8BC4-4C8E-AF4F-EFC13C5FEE7B@crashbox.com> Everyone, I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that has them? I don't need the profession tables, just the basic STR, DEX, etc. rolls. Thanks! -Andrew From gianni at basicrps.com Sat May 6 09:21:38 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat May 6 09:22:03 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats Message-ID: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> Hi Andrew, > I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and > Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email > me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that > has them? According to Rick Meints' site [http://www.glorantha.info/creatures/creatures.html], the newtling is described in both the Gloranthan Bestiary and the RQ2 Rulebook. Gianni From andrew at crashbox.com Sat May 6 09:53:04 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Sat May 6 09:51:17 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Newtling Stats In-Reply-To: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060506162155.1698C6DF6EC@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <4EC62FA9-4C47-44CD-A580-A3822CEDE3F7@crashbox.com> Well, I'll be, there they are! I haven't pulled this book out in ages. Thanks for the tip! -Andrew On May 6, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Gianni wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and >> Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email >> me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that >> has them? > > According to Rick Meints' site > [http://www.glorantha.info/creatures/creatures.html], the newtling is > described in both the Gloranthan Bestiary and the RQ2 Rulebook. > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon May 8 02:23:53 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon May 8 02:24:01 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 8 03:35:04 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon May 8 03:35:17 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: Good post! The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the field's fertility, etc.) One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. >From: Guy Hoyle >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 04:23:53 -0500 > >It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit >magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that >non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of >the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be >used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill >household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a >variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr >smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting >spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches >spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) >skills of its merchants and traders? > >Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, >too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? > >-- >--Guy Hoyle > >"Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns >people you bite into zombies." >The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42•04 > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 8 03:47:04 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon May 8 03:47:32 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Shapechange/Newtling Stats In-Reply-To: <20060506162204.EEF896DF738@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508104704.45130.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Greg: >> I am the rules of nature, I can >>decree that magic stops working one day. What an >>interesting adventure as your magic using characters >>go into panic! > > I'm afraid my reaction to that would be "Oh no not again, I wonder what we > have to do this time?" Not becoming jaded by any chance, are we? Personally, I get the same feeling every time I play an "Initiation Quest" scenario at Continuum/Convulsions/Conjunction as THEY ARE ALL THE BLOODY SAME!!!! Fred Vogel: > I've lost track of this thread over time. However, I am a big advocate of > the GM is the God of his gaming world. Consistency is important but not > 100% of the time. There are exceptions. The bottom line is this. Do you > want to play a game with a member with a dismembered leg or not? Will your > player still have fun playing or not? This is more important than the game > mechanics of the moment. Make them suffer for a bit - don't give them the leg back straight away, but give them an INT roll or something to let them "remember" about someone from a neighbouring clan/town who had a similar problem and got it cured. That way, they can go and do a scenario or series of scenarios to get the leg back. > If your PC is a role player who will find this a challenge, then great guns. > If he is just gonna look for a way to get killed in a hurry to replace his > character so he can get a new one, the find an out for him, and next time > decide that if your pc is going to be this way, cut to the chase and let him > bleed out. If someone throws a tantrum just because they lost a leg, then give them hell. My second RQ character had his tongue cut out by a fellow PC and spent the rest of the campaign as a mute. It didn't stop him much, as he bought Mindspeech and was just as annoying :-) (Yeah, I know, you have to subvocalise, but we played it as telepathy) From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" > I can seem to find my copy of the bestiary and the Cradle and > Elder Gods don't reprint the RQIII Newtling stats. Can anyone email > me these, or point me to them, or tell me some other supplement that > has them? I don't need the profession tables, just the basic STR, > DEX, etc. rolls. I hope this doesn't take a month to arrive. From RQ2: STR 3D6, CON 3D6, SIZ 2D6, POW 3D6, DEX 2D6+6, CHA 3D6 Move 6, Hit Points Average 9-10, Treasure Factor 5, Defense 5% Trident SR 5 (1D6+1) 30% / 30% (12) Sling SR 2 (1D8) 25% Small Shield Parry 25% (8) Armour: leather Body and Limbs (2 points), cap helm (2 points) Other Skills: Swimming 80%, Tracking 50%, Spot Traps 40%, Hide in Cover 50% See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/fe377aca/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon May 8 03:50:20 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon May 8 03:51:06 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: I concur. I have been trying to invest the concept of enchanting metal implements by singing etc while smithing (which could basically be like invoking spirits into the artefact) alla Michael Scott Rowan's books with my players but so far nowt has really come of it. Off the top of my head: -A mason would look for some sort of stone or holding spirit to ensure that blocks stay together, or cement binds better (H,,, old style cement was mostly limestone, which is to a large extent made up of bone/shell, so maybe the spirits of the long dead limestone donor). - A brewer would call on spirits to stop his ale spoiling, or maybe enhance its POT. - A fetcher maybe call on the spirit of the bird who donated its feathers to make the arrow fly true. - And so on Hmm, My brother recently played a primitive who ended up in a civilised army. He made a bit of a killing hand carving javelin shafts and flogging them off to the soldiers as magically enhanced to fly true etc. Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Guy Hoyle Sent: 08 May 2006 11:24 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42*04 _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon May 8 04:38:21 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon May 8 04:38:32 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics Message-ID: Ah botany. Now there is something I agree is way overlooked. It can really spice (doh!) up your campaign, but the main caution is to be like an accountant - consistant. So if a herb is decided does X in the game and then someone finds out that it actually has a different effect (Y) - player terms, not game tesrm, remain consistent, keep its effects as X , don't change it or the players mty get confused etc. There are plenty normal earth herb/botany etc books and, depending onteh group, onc could vary from their mudane earth name, to their scientific latinm name to a new name made up for your reality. -----Original Message----- Bjorn Stolen Good post! The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the field's fertility, etc.) One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 8 05:16:46 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon May 8 05:17:04 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508113835.E97FA6EE2F8@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Guy Hoyle: > It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit > magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that > non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of > the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be > used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill > household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a > variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr > smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting > spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches > spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) > skills of its merchants and traders? Well, when I did some conversions of HW cults, I had to make up far too many skills/spells. Some of them can boost craft skills. The list is at http://www.soltakss.com/hwconv04.html The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your campaign, you wouldn't want to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point writing up speciality spells for all the different crafts. Bjorn Stolen: > The norwegian RPG-community (on the forum I'm on) are currently allso beeing > frustrated over many RPG's overfocusation on Combat-related skills, spells > and rules; compared to domestic/social activities. > I suggest you do somthing about it and create your own stuff! And post it somewhere so that other people can use it. > Personally, I haven't placed too much focus on spells, but there are some > focus on crops in the "Sun County" book (harvest-stones for increasing the > field's fertility, etc.) Minor magic items are very useful for this sort of thing and there should be a lot more of them. > One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession with > a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been making > a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was inspired by > the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements + an article > I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. In RQ2, Healers had Find Healing Plants, a skill that has been subsumed into Plant Lore. This allowed you to find healing plants (surprisingly enough) with bonuses depending in the season and locality. They also had Preserve Herbs and Refine Medicine, two spells useful to botanists. Have you finished the compendium? Is there an on-line version for us to use and be impressed by? Den, Tony T: > I concur. I have been trying to invest the concept of enchanting metal > implements by singing etc while smithing (which could basically be like > invoking spirits into the artefact) alla Michael Scott Rowan's books > with my players but so far nowt has really come of it. Enchanting Spirits into items to give them special abilities is an interesting idea. Of course, you need special classes of spirits but that's always a good idea. From my spell list comes Imbue Sword With Magic. You could use it as a divine spell as written or change it to be a Spirit Magic spell or even a Shamanic Ability, whatever takes your fancy. Imbue Sword With Magic (1 point, non-stackable, one-use, permanent) This spell must be cast when a weapon is forged. If the smith succeeds in his Craft (Weaponmaking) then the smith can add one special power to the sword, a special success allows two extra powers, a critical three extra powers. A fumble or failure means the weapon has shattered. Each extra power may cost the smith POW or Divine Magic as appropriate. So, Halban the Smith casts Imbue Sword With Magic on a Bastard Sword and gets a critical roll, he knows he can put three powers into the sword, and decides on Sharpen Weapon, Strengthen Weapon and Swift Weapon, a power he has gained on a HeroQuest. He rolls his Craft (Swordmaking) three times and gets a normal, a critical and a special, so the sword does 1D10 + 2 damage, has an extra 3D3 HPs and attacks with -2 SR. It is a sword fit for a Hero and he takes it to the local Orlanth Temple as an offering. > Off the top of my head: > -A mason would look for some sort of stone or holding spirit to ensure > that blocks stay together, or cement binds better (H,,, old style cement > was mostly limestone, which is to a large extent made up of bone/shell, > so maybe the spirits of the long dead limestone donor). Well, we have Glue, Support and Mould Rock (From Flintnail). In the new Glorantha, Flintnail would have Sorcery spells (pah!) and other masons would have spirits or daimones. In RQ terms, they would have spirits to hold things together, to hold things up and so on. Even sacrificing someone nd burying them beneath the foundations would be a good idea. > - A brewer would call on spirits to stop his ale spoiling, or maybe > enhance its POT. Or to give it special abilities, making it a magical brew. > Hmm, My brother recently played a primitive who ended up in a civilised > army. He made a bit of a killing hand carving javelin shafts and > flogging them off to the soldiers as magically enhanced to fly true etc. Until the priests come around and burn him for witchcraft or perverting the good people of the army with his mumbo-jumbo. > Ah botany. Now there is something I agree is way overlooked. It can > really spice (doh!) up your campaign, but the main caution is to be like > an accountant - consistant. So if a herb is decided does X in the game > and then someone finds out that it actually has a different effect (Y) > - player terms, not game tesrm, remain consistent, keep its effects as X > , don't change it or the players mty get confused etc. There are > plenty normal earth herb/botany etc books and, depending onteh group, > onc could vary from their mudane earth name, to their scientific latinm > name to a new name made up for your reality. It depends how detailed you want to be. If you want to mimic real world botany, then you can either say "your character knows that so-and-so plant is good for such-and-such" or you could have a document with all the plants and what effects they have on various ailments. I would prefer the first as it is quicker and easier. I don't care that hemlock is good for heart ailments, I would only care that the healer knows a plant that is good for heart ailments. Of course, it could do X and Y, depending on whether it was boiled and drank or steeped in wine and used as an enema, or whatever. Of course, if someone else came up with such a document and made it available, I would probably use it. I just wouldn't attempt it myself. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/a472779d/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon May 8 05:34:35 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon May 8 05:34:47 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >writing up speciality >spells for all the different crafts. This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write up a warrior cult." The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more importaint" than other fields. I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other factors, like setting, the anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by the GM to have more influence of the focus of the game than the (focus on combat in the) rules, but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity of having special-rule upon special-rule when it comes to solving combat-situations. From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon May 8 07:25:59 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon May 8 07:30:02 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060508142559.93342.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have always had spirit spells which affect induvidual skills. Basically, the spell will add either +10% or +5%/+1, if applicable, per point (they are all variable) to some skill. I did not bother listing them all in my database since there are too many skills. I have had characters in my game take the following spells amongs others: Cover (adds to Hide) Draw Poison (adds to Treat Poison) Glib Tongue (adds to Fast Talk) Deal (adds to Bargain) Copy (added +5% to Write and +5% to Forgery) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > > > The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your > >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a > >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >writing up speciality > >spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. > > I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other factors, like setting, the > anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by the GM to have more > influence of the focus of the game than the (focus on combat in the) rules, > but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity of having special-rule > upon special-rule when it comes to solving combat-situations. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Mon May 8 07:34:33 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon May 8 07:34:44 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060508143433.78563.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Watcha, You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a non-combat emphasis then there are probably better games to use than RQ? Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when it's used, let the player call it whatever they want and leave it at that. Cheers, Ash --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > The trouble with this idea is that unless you > have a potter in your > >campaign, you wouldn't want >to write up a potter > cult. So, unless you've a > >lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point > >writing up speciality > >spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some > Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you > wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to > make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) > should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards > other fields in life. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing > between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that > indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. > > I don't concur with this wiew, as I find other > factors, like setting, the > anticipation of the players and the focus chosen by > the GM to have more > influence of the focus of the game than the (focus > on combat in the) rules, > but their wiew have made me reflect on the nessecity > of having special-rule > upon special-rule when it comes to solving > combat-situations. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon May 8 07:41:31 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon May 8 07:41:43 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> References: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0605080741h248fe6b2tcc7533a11c3ce465@mail.gmail.com> A sorcerer in my current campaign often uses a spell called "Clean Clothes". While snickered out for being a bit fastidious, his spell has had some surprising uses in non-laundry day situations. And there are a number of divine spells used by Mostali, according to the RQ3 publications on Gloranthan gods by Avalon Hill. Herders can use the Beast Speech and Call [Animal] spells. Farmers and ranchers can use the Bless Earth, Bless Animals, and Bless Crops spells while midwives could use the Comfort Song spell. And the Trickster offers the Clever Tongue spell to help his followers with get out of tight situations (or cause one) , which in its turn can be counteracted by the Detect Truth spell offered by either Lhankor My or Humakt (I forget which). For spirit magic, try *COMPREHENSION Variable, Touch, Temporal, Passive* This spell increases the target's mental capacity, though his INT remains constant. Each point of *Comprehension* adds 5% to all his Knowledge skills while under the spell's influence. David On 5/8/06, Guy Hoyle wrote: But where are the Craft-enhancing spells for smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) skills of its merchants and traders? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/f1a9a6a0/attachment-0001.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon May 8 08:19:52 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon May 8 08:22:01 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508144145.AEBA56EFB8A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060508151953.42491.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> So, CTRL-W closes the current window. That's interesting and extremely annoying when you've almost finished your email :-( Bjorn Stolen: >> The trouble with this idea is that unless you have a potter in your >>campaign, you wouldn't want >>to write up a potter cult. So, unless you've a >>lot of time on your hands, there isn't much point >>writing up speciality >>spells for all the different crafts. > > This is an example of stuff that irritates some Norwegian RPG'ers: We don't > say "unless you have a warrior in your campagin, you wouldn't want to write > up a warrior cult." Well, yes I would. I wouldn't write up yet another warrior cult for the sake of writing a warrior cult up, unless someone wanted to play a warrior from that cult and the cult had an established mythos. When I wrote up some cults for Alternate Earth Arthurian Britain, I was struck by the enormous number of Celtic (and Saxon) gods of "Warrior With a Spear and Shield", all essentially the same. Why write up loads of variants? It doesn't achieve anything. I don't have a lot of spare time and what time I have has to be focussed on writing things up that I am interested in. If one of my players wanted to play a potter then I would develop the potter cult. Otherwise I won't. > The point the "anti combat focus people" tries to make, is that a RPG (that > doesn't confess to be a pure combat-driven RPG) should not have any more > focus/specialisation towards combat than towards other fields in life. Well, Rq has non-combat spells and skills. Land of Ninja has Ki/Chi abilities for crafts such as calligraphy. If I wanted to run a Bushido/Nippon game then I would expand these, I don't so I won't. > In RQ3, there are special rules for combat (choosing between sweeping > attacks or overhead-blow-attacks, etc) that indicates that combat is "more > importaint" than other fields. There are too many combat rules in RQ, and much too many in more recent versions of RQ, which are getting a bit silly in the number of extra combat rules. However, it depends on the amount of abstraction you want in a game. I know almost nothing about Farming and all I need to play a farmer is Animal Lore, Plant Lore, Craft farming, Craft Herding and Craft Animal Husbandry. Everything else works off bonuses and penalties. Of course, I have spells such as Sunripen, Bless Crops, Bless Beasts or whatever that will help me. I could also have special magic that increases my skills or magical items such as a plough that ploughs any sized field in a day, a black bull that always sires twins, a bucket that doubles the yield of cows milked into it and so on. These would help me, but there will always be a level of abstraction that I am not interested in going past. Other people might want a more detailed model and name all the animals. In the Irish Legends, they list the acceptable crafts that a village/clan should have and there are loads of them. One Hero tries to get into the Clan Hearth, but is denied. He says he is a smith, but they have a smith, he is a farmer but they have a farmer and so on. He lists all the crafts and each position is filled, then he asks if they have anyone who can do all those things. Of course, they don't and he is let in. His cult has spells to enhance craft skills and gain mastery in various crafts. Do we need more of these? Almost certainly. Am I going to do it? Almost certainly not. Would I use the spells if someone else did them? Almost certainly. Leon Kirshtein: > I have always had spirit spells which affect > induvidual skills. Basically, the spell will add > either +10% or +5%/+1, if applicable, per point (they > are all variable) to some skill. I did not bother > listing them all in my database since there are too > many skills. They could be listed as a single generic spell - Enhance (Skill) or whatever. That's a bit generic for my tastes as they should live in a cult, but it is a way around the problem. Ashley Munday: > You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a > non-combat emphasis then there are probably better > games to use than RQ? Well, RQ can be used for loads of settings, so it is valid. > Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells > and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit > magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when > it's used, let the player call it whatever they want > and leave it at that. Yes, that's the easy way. But then there are divine spells that are more complex. David Smart: > And there are a number of divine spells used by Mostali, according to the > RQ3 publications on Gloranthan gods by Avalon Hill. Herders can use the > Beast Speech and Call [Animal] spells. Farmers and ranchers can use the > Bless Earth, Bless Animals, and Bless Crops spells while midwives could use > the Comfort Song spell. And the Trickster offers the Clever Tongue spell to > help his followers with get out of tight situations (or cause one) , which > in its turn can be counteracted by the Detect Truth spell offered by either > Lhankor My or Humakt (I forget which). Yes, there are loads of craft-enhancing spells, if you go and look for them. If you can't find them, write some up and put them on the web. Got to go and play RQ tonight. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060508/2bf0ff31/attachment.html From pmj at comhem.se Mon May 8 13:40:40 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon May 8 13:41:08 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> References: <445F0E29.4010502@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <445FACC8.2040203@comhem.se> A lot of things have already been said about this subject so I'll keep it short. I seem to remember that in Borderlands there is a rope that works as a matrix for Climbing. Spend the MP and you get 5% extra in climb per point spent for 2 minutes or so (i.e. ordinary battle magic a la RQ2). And if there is a matrix, there should be a spell. Perhaps some kind of cult secret though considering the rarity of the item. So it is not unheard of, just very seldom used I guess for reasons mentioned in other mails (combat driven game etc...). Cheers, /Peter J Guy Hoyle wrote: > It has often seemed to me that there are some missing types of spirit > magic in RQ, in almost every edition. These are the types of spells that > non-fighters use almost every day in their professions. True, many of > the magics involved can be used in non-combat roles; Bladesharp can be > used on plows, for example, while Disruption can be used to kill > household pests. Spells such as Coordination and Haste can be used in a > variety of professions. But where are the Craft-enhancing spells fopr > smiths, potters, weavers, and carpenters? Where are the Lore-boosting > spells employed by Lhankor Mhy lawspeakers? Surely Issaries teaches > spells to increase the Barter and Fast Talk (and, dare I say it, Bribe) > skills of its merchants and traders? > > Divine Magic and Sorcery should probably have versions of these spells, > too. Has anybody else had thoughts along these lines? > From pmj at comhem.se Mon May 8 13:48:50 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon May 8 13:49:06 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445FAEB2.4060802@comhem.se> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" > proffession with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and > others have been making a compendium for plants and their (special) > abilities. This was inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in > one of the Uz-supplements + an article I found in a "Tales of the > reaching Moon"-magazine. Have you published this somewhere for downloading or is it possible to get a copy of this sent via e-mail? I would really appreciate it, since I've been to lazy to work on one myself. Even if it is in Norwegian, it is not a huge problem. ;-) /Peter J From pmj at comhem.se Mon May 8 13:51:47 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Mon May 8 13:51:57 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060508121646.85154.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <445FAF63.7020800@comhem.se> This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? /Peter J Simon Phipp wrote: > From my spell list comes Imbue Sword With Magic. You could use it as a > divine spell as written or change it to be a Spirit Magic spell or > even a Shamanic Ability, whatever takes your fancy. > > *Imbue Sword With Magic* (1 point, non-stackable, one-use, permanent) > > This spell must be cast when a weapon is forged. If the smith succeeds > in his Craft (Weaponmaking) then the smith can add one special power > to the sword, a special success allows two extra powers, a critical > three extra powers. A fumble or failure means the weapon has > shattered. Each extra power may cost the smith POW or Divine Magic as > appropriate. So, Halban the Smith casts Imbue Sword With Magic on a > Bastard Sword and gets a critical roll, he knows he can put three > powers into the sword, and decides on Sharpen Weapon, Strengthen > Weapon and Swift Weapon, a power he has gained on a HeroQuest. He > rolls his Craft (Swordmaking) three times and gets a normal, a > critical and a special, so the sword does 1D10 + 2 damage, has an > extra 3D3 HPs and attacks with -2 SR. It is a sword fit for a Hero and > he takes it to the local Orlanth Temple as an offering. From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon May 8 16:47:37 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon May 8 16:47:47 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445FAF63.7020800@comhem.se> Message-ID: <20060508234737.58010.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > This looks like a really useful spell. My players > have always complained > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I > haven't really dealt with > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? > > /Peter J I take a bit different approach in creating magical items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional spells, and pay addtional POW www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp BTW, this is the spirit I use for all none combat skills: Name: Improve [Skill] Resistence Roll: No Casting Cost: Variable Duration: Temporal Combat Description: Miscellaneous Range: Touch Rarity: Common Descripion This is a wide collection of spells that improve specific skills. Skills are granted a +10% for pure skill enhancement. No skill may be improved beyond twice the base skill. Several examples follow with common names for the individual spells: Improve (Ride): Suremount. Improve (Dodge): Suppleness. Improve (Fast Talk): Eurmals Tongue. Improve (Orate): Yelm's Voice. Improve (Bargain): Silvervoice. Improve (Craft Masonary): Dress Stone Improve (Evaluate): Weights and Measures Improve (Craft Gardening): Greenthumb Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 9 06:10:07 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue May 9 06:10:18 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060508143433.78563.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a >non-combat emphasis then there are probably better >games to use than RQ? This was just a little rezyme from the Norwegian discussion that started because some fealt that most RPG's were combat-driven, rather than story/conflict/intrigue-driven, and that others didn't agree with the first party. I think RQ have a good emphasis on non-combat, and I don't agree with the first party in that the rules holds such a big influence over the focus of the game. >Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells >and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit >magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when >it's used, let the player call it whatever they want >and leave it at that. This was allso the conclution of the "anti combat-driven"-party. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue May 9 06:17:50 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue May 9 06:17:59 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <445FAEB2.4060802@comhem.se> Message-ID: I might have gone out a little high on this one; I started writing it, but I didn't bother following it up. I have resorted to improvising plants and their effects on the go (writing them down, thus including them in my personlal botany of Glorantha for later play). Currently no of my players are interrested in botany, so it haven't been done for a while. I've basically invented names of plants, that enhances some ability, or who can exorsise certain desease-spirits. I just remembered that in the Dorastor-campagin there are some nice rules on farming, how to calculate outcome. >From: Peter Johansson >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Forgotten Magics >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:48:50 +0200 > >Bjorn Stolen wrote: > >>One area that I feal suffer greatly is botany. The "healer" proffession >>with a high plant-lore; what do you use it for? So I and others have been >>making a compendium for plants and their (special) abilities. This was >>inspired by the fungi and other "plant"-stuff in one of the Uz-supplements >>+ an article I found in a "Tales of the reaching Moon"-magazine. > >Have you published this somewhere for downloading or is it possible to get >a copy of this sent via e-mail? I would really appreciate it, since I've >been to lazy to work on one myself. Even if it is in Norwegian, it is not a >huge problem. ;-) > > /Peter J >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 9 06:20:46 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue May 9 06:20:54 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060509132046.22224.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Let one point of spirit magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when its used I would say it has to be +10% to maintain parrity with combat spells like Bladesharp or Parry which add +5% and +1 Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > > >You ever thought that if you want an RPG with a > >non-combat emphasis then there are probably better > >games to use than RQ? > > This was just a little rezyme from the Norwegian discussion that started > because some fealt that most RPG's were combat-driven, rather than > story/conflict/intrigue-driven, and that others didn't agree with the first > party. I think RQ have a good emphasis on non-combat, and I don't agree with > the first party in that the rules holds such a big influence over the focus > of the game. > > > >Also, why bother having specific spirit magic spells > >and be arsed writing them up? Let one point of spirit > >magic enhance an item and give it a +5% bonus when > >it's used, let the player call it whatever they want > >and leave it at that. > > This was allso the conclution of the "anti combat-driven"-party. > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed May 10 02:33:32 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed May 10 02:33:48 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics In-Reply-To: <20060509131019.0661E6F8E19@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060510093332.4100.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Johansson: [Imbue Sword With Magic] > This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? Well, the "standard" price for magic items and enchantments is raw item cost + 1000L per point of POW spent in making the item, including one-use divine magic. So, the example had 3 powers, so cost 3 POW to create but he didn't have to use any other one-use magic except the Imbue Sword With Magic spell, so it would cost 4000L + cost of the sword. If you thought that was too cheap then you could say that the Strengthen Weapon cost 3 POW and the Swift Weapon cost 2 POW, so the total cost is 6 POW + 1 spell, so sword cost + 7000L. That's probably better. Of course, you can put extra enchantments into the sword at any time, including when the sword was created. Leon Kirshtein: > I take a bit different approach in creating magical > items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, > all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant > Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional > spells, and pay addtional POW > www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp That keeps things nice and generic, so any smith can make pretty much any type of enchanted sword, as long as he has Enchant Bronze. Do you restrict the powers, or is it purely dependent on the smith's imagination and available POW? See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060510/d6bf5d03/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed May 10 06:48:07 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed May 10 06:48:18 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Forgotten Magics Message-ID: <20060510134807.46974.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The other powers of the weapon are determined by what other spells are cast at the same time. In a way the system is similar to the one used in D&D3. The cost for additional powers are 1 POW per point of spirit or sorcery magic and/or 5 POW for divine spells. So for example if one want to have a +5 Holy sword which would work as a Turn Undead with each strike, it would cost 16 pts of POW. 1 for the Enchant bronze + 5 for Bladesharp 5 + 10 for Strike Undead (2pt divine spell) Granted this is too much for one person to do make at one time, but there are provisions for multiple people participating and certain things can be made in steps. For example this same sword could originally be enchanted to +5 for 6 POW and then at a later stage have the Undead slaying ability added for another 11 POW. Enchant Bronze would have to be cast both times. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > Peter Johansson: > > [Imbue Sword With Magic] > > This looks like a really useful spell. My players have always complained > > that they can only buy "normal" weapons and I haven't really dealt with > > it yet. However, how would you price such a weapon? > > Well, the "standard" price for magic items and enchantments is raw item cost + 1000L per point of POW spent in making the item, including one-use divine magic. So, the example had 3 powers, so cost 3 POW to create but he didn't have to use any other one-use magic except the Imbue Sword With Magic spell, so it would cost 4000L + cost of the sword. If you thought that was too cheap then you could say that the Strengthen Weapon cost 3 POW and the Swift Weapon cost 2 POW, so the total cost is 6 POW + 1 spell, so sword cost + 7000L. That's probably better. > > Of course, you can put extra enchantments into the sword at any time, including when the sword was created. > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > I take a bit different approach in creating magical > > items (including weapons). To make a sword magical, > > all you need to do is enchant it with the Enchant > > Bronze spell. To add other abilites cast aditional > > spells, and pay addtional POW > > www.godlearner.d2g.com/MagicItems/rules.asp > > That keeps things nice and generic, so any smith can make pretty much any type of enchanted sword, as long as he has Enchant Bronze. Do you restrict the powers, or is it purely dependent on the smith's imagination and available POW? > > See Ya > > Simon > > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Mon May 15 18:21:18 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Mon May 15 18:21:46 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ II and III for many years) and have seen no traffic as yet... Is anyone else here? Is there a way of accessing the archives? Cheers Rusty From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon May 15 18:27:40 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon May 15 18:27:55 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: <20060516012740.20428.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a topic we can discuss. Leon --- "Hoyle, Russell" wrote: > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > II and III for many years) and have seen no traffic > as yet... > > Is anyone else here? > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > Cheers > Rusty > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon May 15 18:33:11 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon May 15 18:33:35 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <20060516012740.20428.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516013311.56423.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Attempted Topic: Seeming that the MRQ list is in the inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this list who has used or is using the rules? All the best, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a > topic we can discuss. > > Leon > > --- "Hoyle, Russell" > > wrote: > > > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by > the > > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > > II and III for many years) and have seen no > traffic > > as yet... > > > > Is anyone else here? > > > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > > > Cheers > > Rusty > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Mon May 15 20:13:11 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Mon May 15 20:13:47 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FD1@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> You mean playtesters, right, because it hasn't actually been released yet, has it? Rusty -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2006 09:33 To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Attempted Topic: Seeming that the MRQ list is in the inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this list who has used or is using the rules? All the best, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > We are here, but are waiting for someone to raise a > topic we can discuss. > > Leon > > --- "Hoyle, Russell" > > wrote: > > > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by > the > > upcoming Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ > > II and III for many years) and have seen no > traffic > > as yet... > > > > Is anyone else here? > > > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > > > Cheers > > Rusty > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 16 00:21:46 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton@invensys.com) Date: Tue May 16 00:22:24 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FD1@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: Lev said: >>Seeming that the MRQ list is in the >>inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this >>list who has used or is using the rules? Rusty said: >You mean playtesters, right, because it hasn't actually been released yet, has it? Well yes - Mongoose yanked the open playtest group (without a word to the group), and whilst I'm pretty sure that a couple at least of the regulars here are in the "closed" playtest, there really is naff-all to talk about until something more substantive is made public. There has been some discussion on this list ( http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules should help you find the portion of the archive that's currently online) of MRQ, but until Mongoose actually produce the long promised preview (or the actual books, or some definitions and solid terms to back up the empty marketing puff about "a truly open game") the only thing served by speculation is Mongoose's marketing - and personally (after the shoddy way the open playtest group, which had included substantive constructive contributions from people like Steve Perrin, was treated) I don't think they deserve any more freebies... Alternatively, I may have taken too many grumpy pills this morning... Cheers, Nick Middleton From Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au Tue May 16 01:01:49 2006 From: Russell.Hoyle at health.wa.gov.au (Hoyle, Russell) Date: Tue May 16 01:02:01 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? Message-ID: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FDA@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> >There has been some discussion on this list ( >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules should help you find the Thanks Nick, for the link and the goss! Rusty From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue May 16 03:20:45 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue May 16 03:20:59 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060516031349.9E38E730F79@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Lev Lafayette: > Attempted Topic: > > Seeming that the MRQ list is in the > inactive/non-existent phase, is there anyone on this > list who has used or is using the rules? Well, I started off my current RQ campaign using the MRQ V1.4 rules with every intention of working the rules to the death and getting the bugs out. I think we used the full rules for two sessions, then dropped half of the rules in favour of RQ3, then dropped another quarter or so. We are currently using RQ3 with some things from MRQ. We use the new experience rules, heavily adapted Spirit Magic/Runes and combat options. I'm not particularly impressed with combat options, but my players like them. All in all, the last version of MRQ I saw was held together with bubblegum and wasn't really playable. I hope it has improved as I intend to buy it when it comes out and I don't really want to be wasting my pennies. Had the rules been playable, we would have stuck with them, but I had several player revolts against them. I won't go into specifics, as the old version is now obselete and it would be worthless to complain about it. Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like a hot knife through butter. In older versions of RQ, giving something a lot of armour seemed to work when you wanted to give the PCs a challenge or slow them down a bit, now that doesn't happen. Maybe I'll get some NPCs to ignore the PCs' armour and show them what it is like. Experience works very well, a lot better than in RQ2 or RQ3, although we haven't reached post-100% skills yet. We combined Hero Points and Experience Points rather than having two sets of points and never looked back. Hero Points also work very well, with players using them to: 1. Reroll failed attacks/parries or NPCs' criticals 2. Reroll low damage rolls or NPCs' high damage rolls 3. Reroll failed experience rolls, especially POW gain rolls 4. Automatically succeed in a skill that only just failed (within 10% of the skill) They haven't used Hero Points to alter plot points or make things happen, yet, but they will. It brings some of the flexibility of HeroQuest to RQ and makes it a far more flexible and dynamic game. Apparently, they want something similar in DBRP but it doesn't work the same way and doesn't look half as useful. As for magic, we are using Divine Magic pretty much from RQ3, but we do have a pool or Presence, the concept taken from MRQ but used differently. So, someone with Shield 3 and Orlanth Presence 10 could cast Shield 3 but use Presence instead, thus being able to cast Shield 3 a number of times. We are using the idea of Runes based loosely on MRQ, but made to work. You can collect Runes, attuning a Rune costs 1 POW (no roll), this gives you a Runecasting Skill for that Rune that is used to cast Spirit Magic belonging to that Rune. There are no variable spells, all spells take 1 INT to store and can be manipulated using the Runecasting skill and the number of Runes of that type possessed by the PC. So, you could cast Bladesharp 10 if you had a high enough Runecasting or enough Death Runes, for instance. Spirit Magic spells are tied to Runes, but I am being flexible, so Disruption could be tied to Death, Air, Fire or whatever. Sorcery uses a similar mechanism to Spirit Magic, but is not Runic, relying on Arts instead, but nobody in the campaign uses sorcery so it hasn't come up. The players seem to prefer this approach as they can cast more powerful spells without spending fortunes on buying the spells. It is a heavy drain on Magic Points, though, and they are spending a lot of POW on runes, although I give them a POW Tick if they attune a rune. They are routinely casting Spirit Shield 6, Disruption 6 and Bladesharp 4-6 and the trainee shaman has even made a Spirit Shield 4 matrix herself. Of course, they moan about having to pay 1000L for a Rune and 2000L for a spell, but they moan about everything. So, MRQ was unplayable, but some parts of it were useful. Hopefully, the new version will be both playable and useful. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060516/8bec41f8/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue May 16 06:41:17 2006 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Tue May 16 06:41:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. > > We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat > than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another > is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I > prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore > armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of > 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, > just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos > (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like > a hot knife through butter. I would argue that aiming around the armor wouldn't work on natural skin armor... and would have penalties depending on how dense the coverage of the armor. One nation in my game world has armor with extremely elaborate designs but where it protects it is very good nigh magical Folks would be better off to do the aim for chinks in the armor trick against them but it wouldn't be effective at all against the giant wolves. I like the ideas of these combat options, sounds like some interesting stuff which could be fine tuned... Stormbringers random die roll for armor I considered elaborating on... so that you had a different die roll depending on the design of the armor then allow this strategy to affect it. Shrug... Armor made of the same substance might be... 6 points skin like coverage d2 + 4 full dense coverage impairs agility and other factors d3 + 3 less agility impairment but d4 + 2 d6 very patchy but no impairment to abilities. Trading sr in trying to aim past the armor could then be used to penalize the armor roll. possibly just by changing a d4+2 into a d6... or a d3+3 into a d4+2. From andrew at crashbox.com Tue May 16 07:03:12 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue May 16 07:03:20 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> References: <20060516102045.90317.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> <4469D67D.2010205@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Simon Phipp wrote: >> Using parts of the MRQ rules, I have noticed a few niggles. >> >> We use the Combat Options, which allow people to do more in combat >> than they could before. One option is to aim for a location, another >> is to aim to ignore armour. Aiming for a location is fine, but I >> prefer to use SR delays to move the location die. Aiming to ignore >> armour is potentially campaign destroying. At the moment, our group of >> 50%-70% PCs can pretty much take out foes with any armour, given time, >> just by ignoring armour. They went up against a group of Rhino Broos >> (6 point skin and 6 point rhino cuirboilli) and went through them like >> a hot knife through butter. > I would argue that aiming around the armor wouldn't work on natural > skin armor... and would have penalties depending on how dense the > coverage of the armor. I haven't had an opportunity to follow MRQ rules at all, but my first reaction is that NOT allowing aiming around natural armor is a Bad Idea. Natural armor must be more flexible in certain areas (armpits, for example) that allows movement. So to say that it is uniform is unrealistic. Without knowing the exact rules I can't provide a numeric suggestion. However, doing something based on 'armor density' sounds like something that should be investigated. Maybe require different modifiers for different densities when trying to aim around, or something like that. -Andrew From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue May 16 07:50:27 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton@invensys.com) Date: Tue May 16 07:51:07 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: Well, finally Mongoose have started to release some information: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1232&qsSeries=RuneQuest# http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1180&qsSeries=RuneQuest# For those of you who can't access the site: "RuneQuest - Main Rulebook Series: RuneQuest Price: $19.95 Format: Hardback (100 pages) Distributor on sale date: 10th July 2006 Designed to bring the original RuneQuest up to the 21st Century, this main rulebook contains all you need to explore the many fantasy worlds possible with RuneQuest. Attention has been applied to keep this main rulebook down to a sensible (and easy on the wallet!) 100 pages, while layout has been refined to make the book easy to read and fast to pick up, allowing players to comprehend sections of the rules with a mere glance - meaning less time flicking through the book and more time playing! As well as character creation, the RuneQuest main rulebook provides full rules for skills, cults/guilds, combat, adventuring, monsters and Rune Magic, the first magic system introduced for the latest edition of RuneQuest. Eminently expandable to any fantasy setting, RuneQuest is supported in 2006 by Mongoose Publishing with the Glorantha and Lankhmar worlds, while other publishers are free to introduce their own settings, due to the Open Content licence available for the game. RuneQuest has come of age. Go adventuring with one of the most powerful and flexible rules systems available." Leaving aside the arrogant vacuous marketing speak, it's pretty much s expected: $19.95 for 100 page core book, competent but uninspiring cover art. The idea of Mongoose "refining layout" is quite alarming (to say the least...), but we shall see. The interesting bit is that the OTHER license is Lankhmar - if ever there was a setting NOT suited to the usual RPG company approach to licensed settings#, it's Leiber's Nehwon, but equally it's always seemed a natural fit for BRP / RQ to me - so I am genuinely intrigued to see what Mongoose do with Lankhmar. Cheers, Nick Middleton # The last thing Lankhmar / Nehwon needs is papering over with second rate RPG writers ideas about what Leiber might have done if it been writing an RPG supplement. One could cover the entire setting in single book - the key thing is to capture and instruct the GM/Players in Leiber's sense of inventiveness, sly wit and ironic plotting. Interminable setting books ("This month, the secrets of Quarmall, with complete floor plans, four new character backgrounds and an entire new Quarmallian magic system!") would not so much miss the charm of the setting as to trample all over it in size 12 hob-nail boots. From viktor.haag at gmail.com Tue May 16 08:00:22 2006 From: viktor.haag at gmail.com (Viktor Haag) Date: Tue May 16 08:00:44 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] MRQ In-Reply-To: References: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <1786319f0605160800m59e2ce8cqdb213a983c752251@mail.gmail.com> On 16/05/06, Nick.Middleton@invensys.com wrote: > Leaving aside the arrogant vacuous marketing speak, it's pretty much s > expected: $19.95 for 100 page core book, competent but uninspiring cover > art. The idea of Mongoose "refining layout" is quite alarming (to say the > least...), but we shall see. Indeed. I've generally liked the /content/ of the Mongoose things I've picked up (Slaine, and Conan), but as for their layout skills... err.... > The interesting bit is that the OTHER license is Lankhmar - if ever there > was a setting NOT suited to the usual RPG company approach to licensed > settings#, it's Leiber's Nehwon, but equally it's always seemed a natural > fit for BRP / RQ to me - so I am genuinely intrigued to see what Mongoose > do with Lankhmar. In an interesting, but perhaps related, note: I've heard that Dark Horse have secured rights to Lankhmar letting them publish a comic series for Lankhmar a la their series for Conan. They've apparently also secured the rights to reprint Mignola's Fafhrd and Mouser comics (originally publishd by Marvel/Epic). And rumblings of film rights owned by Dark Horse have also been heard. I wonder if this confluence of Conan+Lankhmar at Dark Horse have anything at all to do with Conan+Lankhmar at Mongoose? For example, did the Conan properties guys acquire Lankhmar rights from Leiber's estate, and since they'd already had deals in place with both Dark Horse and Mongoose, they had an edge up in expanding their license to also include the Lankhmar stuff? At any rate, I think this is wonderful news, and am eagerly looking forward to MRQ. Knowing that Ken Hite's name was associated with the final revision of the book makes me feel positive. And knowning the guy who was tapped to right the Glorantha sourcebook also leads me to feel positively about the whole thing... -- v. From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue May 16 09:18:41 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue May 16 09:19:09 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Is this list dead? In-Reply-To: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> References: <8240650E1B5AC84BBDF990D48CB29DF7103FCE@w3fm403mx.hdwa.health.wa.gov.au> Message-ID: <5857FE79-9BB5-48D9-B1F5-7AA84C9B1AFE@zunder.org.uk> When Mongoose RuneQuest (MRQ) hits the shelves there will a deluge of mail. Flamewars will erupt as to the relative heresy of the new edition. I have been part of the playtest so I will say no more.. This isn't dead, just a bit quiet. On 16 May 2006, at 02:21, Hoyle, Russell wrote: > Hi, I subbed a few days ago (inspired in part by the upcoming > Mongoose Press game, but I have played RQ II and III for many > years) and have seen no traffic as yet... > > Is anyone else here? > > Is there a way of accessing the archives? > > Cheers > Rusty > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 14:23:37 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue May 16 14:23:55 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: MRQ Product Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <20060516145111.345B27352DE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060516212337.83243.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> I saw that Mongoose put up marketing information about MRQ over the weekend, but the previous copy implied that Steve Perrin had a significant contribution to the new version. Given the history of this edition, I thought THAT was creative marketing. It's nice to see that the copy has toned down and is more accurate. I'll have to ask my FLGS to order me a copy. Now if DBRP would just come out, it will be a banner summer. Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue May 16 17:25:57 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (MALCOLM WICKENS) Date: Tue May 16 17:26:08 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell Message-ID: <000601c67948$7978e490$50628456@sickboy> Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's somewhat predictable counterpart :-) ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) Ranged, passive This spell is cast upon objects forged of Bronze and temporarily allows them to acquire the magical properties of the named rune metal. Intensity must equal the ENC of the object to be affected. The object is not transformed into the rune metal named, but simply acquires it's magical properties. Thus a Bronze sword with Assume virtue of iron cast upon it would not register on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive increased armour points. A family of closely related spells exist each specific to an individual rune metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, Assume virtue of Iron etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060517/3b732f3a/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue May 16 21:57:33 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue May 16 21:57:49 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell In-Reply-To: <000601c67948$7978e490$50628456@sickboy> Message-ID: <20060517045733.3127.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can see this as a Divine spell rather than a sorcery spell. To be a sorcery spell, it should have some sort of progression based on Intensity. Leon --- MALCOLM WICKENS wrote: > Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery > spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's > somewhat predictable counterpart :-) > > ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) > > Ranged, passive > > This spell is cast upon objects forged of > Bronze and temporarily allows them to > acquire the magical properties of the > named rune metal. Intensity must equal > the ENC of the object to be affected. > The object is not transformed into > the rune metal named, but simply > acquires it's magical properties. Thus > a Bronze sword with Assume virtue > of iron cast upon it would not register > on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive > increased armour points. > > A family of closely related spells exist > each specific to an individual rune > metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, > Assume virtue of Iron etc> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue May 16 23:14:38 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue May 16 23:15:26 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell References: <20060517045733.3127.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004c01c67979$2d7f50c0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Look again, its Intensity must match the ENC of the object. Steve Perrin, entirely too sensitive to how Intensity can be used in spells...:) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] New sorcery spell >I can see this as a Divine spell rather than a sorcery > spell. To be a sorcery spell, it should have some sort > of progression based on Intensity. > > Leon > > --- MALCOLM WICKENS > wrote: > >> Back before Christmas I posted a new sorcery >> spell: Mask virtue of ( rune metal ). Here is it's >> somewhat predictable counterpart :-) >> >> ASSUME VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) >> >> Ranged, passive >> >> This spell is cast upon objects forged of >> Bronze and temporarily allows them to >> acquire the magical properties of the >> named rune metal. Intensity must equal >> the ENC of the object to be affected. >> The object is not transformed into >> the rune metal named, but simply >> acquires it's magical properties. Thus >> a Bronze sword with Assume virtue >> of iron cast upon it would not register >> on a Detect Iron spell, but would receive >> increased armour points. >> >> A family of closely related spells exist >> each specific to an individual rune >> metal eg: Assume virtue of Lead, >> Assume virtue of Iron etc> > _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From gianni at basicrps.com Wed May 17 09:10:56 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed May 17 09:11:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules Message-ID: <20060517161106.6F2B373EDCD@mini.thinbits.net> Simon, I feel version 1.5 of the playtest rules tackled combat way better than 1.4. On the other hand, the Rune magic rules didn't convince me yet, so I'll keep your post and re-use it in July in case the Rune magic rules of the published version of MRQ still suck :-) (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Cheers Gianni From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 18 02:20:49 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu May 18 02:21:49 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Runemetal ENC In-Reply-To: <20060516031349.9E38E730F79@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060518092049.12168.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Laura Kneedler sent me an email asking me a question I couldn't answer. I know that you lot will have the sources to hand and can show off your knowledge :-) How much do rune metals (e.g., iron, silver, etc.) weigh, and how much do they cost per ENC? I know the info is in Elder Secrets (RQ3) and, maybe, Wyrms Footnotes/Footprints (RQ2). If anyone has the cources, prehaps they could look it up? I thought that Iron had the same ENC as bronze in RQ3 but was one ENC lighter in RQ2, Copper was ENC / 2, Gold and Lead was ENCx2, but I remember lead as being odd and Aluminium Tin and Silver were normal ENC. As for costs, I seem to recall that Iron was 5xcost and the others were 3xcost. But, I am hazy. Thanks Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/0d2c94ed/attachment-0001.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu May 18 04:08:27 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu May 18 04:08:47 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518092150.B8B277456A2@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Gianni: > I feel version 1.5 of the playtest rules tackled combat way better than 1.4. > On the other hand, the Rune magic rules didn't convince me yet, so I'll keep > your post and re-use it in July in case the Rune magic rules of the published > version of MRQ still suck :-) Let's hope they don't. By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. My version simply takes the parts that I liked (Runes, scaleability of Spirit Magic) and turned them around to mimic what we used to have in RQ2/3, making them spell-centered rather than specifically Rune-centered. Does that make sense? If so then I'm a monkey's uncle. > (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Not at all. I see these as being house rules independent of the unpublished game, sort of a halfway house between RQ3 and RQM. Of course, when RQM comes out, these can fly as fully-fledged House Rules. Anyway, I'm going to buy the new version of RQm at Continuum, so I hope I get value for money. As I've already bought Mythic Russia and DBRP is due to come out around then, I can see that I won't be able to afford to eat for the first half of August. By the way, is anyone else going to Continuum this year? I know Ashley is, and I hope he runs some RQ (NOT ANOTHER INITIATION QUEST, PLEEEEASE!), but I'm too lazy to check the members list. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/3d737147/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu May 18 04:39:16 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu May 18 04:39:31 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that >I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. >Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I totally agree with you that wether you are pompous or not is irellevant. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. I diagree with your wiew, but I'll defend your right to write any roleplay-rule you like! (I like the consept that the runes were there even before the gods, like the remainings of a system from an agelost in time; allmost inconprehensible to even the gods. Perhaps the God Learners were the ones closest to understanding it. So (In my game) -when Orlanth is a god of wind, it's because he's aquired the wind-rune. From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 04:48:22 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu May 18 04:48:51 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c67a70$f7a10a90$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> _____ From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipp Sent: 18 May 2006 12:08 To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm so pompous and self-important that I rewrote the magic system from the RQM playtest, here's an explanation. Ok, so I am pompous and self-important, but that's by-the-by. I hope this isn't going to turn into a flame war? So I ask all (and this isn't aimed at you Simon or anybody on the list in particular so forgive me for stating the obvious) to respect that you all have opinions and it's healthy to debate. :-) I've purposely stayed out of this debate - so far - because I'm one of the moderators of this list. :-) I was on the first phase of MRQ playtests - up to v1.4 - but I am staying on the fence. And I'm also on the DBRP playtest so I should to stay on the fence. I don't like, and have never liked, runic approaches to magic that rely on "all people with the storm rune can cast all stormy magic". One of the great strengths about RQ2/3 and Glorantha in particular (with HQ) is that the deities have specific spells that are based on their own powers and history. So, Orlanth gets some storm powers because he is the prime Storm God not because he has the Storm Rune, and Orlanth's Storm Powers are different to Storm Bull's and Valind's. Steve's magic system for RQM didn't reflect that, in my opinion. I had the same problems with using Runes on HeroQuests, as was the vogue 20 years ago. Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. My version simply takes the parts that I liked (Runes, scaleability of Spirit Magic) and turned them around to mimic what we used to have in RQ2/3, making them spell-centered rather than specifically Rune-centered. Does that make sense? If so then I'm a monkey's uncle. I can see your point about runic associations - if you associated the Air rune with Storm. People forget that the runes are really the basic association. So the swirly celtic (Isle of man like) pattern is really 'Air' - this allows for the greatest flexibility when combined with other runes. To assume that Air is just Storm is a narrow view. So if you play it that that rune is Air you can see that Air plus Harmony would have a different magical effect to Air plus Death, for instance. A rune on it's own is powerless - only when combined with another can you have an effect - that's my opinion anyway. This would allow you to use a system similar to Egyptian Talismanic magic where you could call upon the power of runes (and thus a god perhaps - if you assumed combined runes to be an expression of a god) to do what you want. Of course - RQ2 diverged from that a lot - with Storm Bull and Orlanth all using Air in a storm fashion. I always felt how the runes were combined for gods in Gloranthan RQ were never looked at with clarity enough to make it a working system. Instead, the runes just became labels instead of a possible way to construct magic. > (Isn't it crazy to have to use house rules _already_ on a new rolegame?!) Not at all. I see these as being house rules independent of the unpublished game, sort of a halfway house between RQ3 and RQM. Of course, when RQM comes out, these can fly as fully-fledged House Rules. Anyway, I'm going to buy the new version of RQm at Continuum, so I hope I get value for money. I'll wait for the reviews and a playtest before I hand over my hard earned cash. I've already got so many BRP rules to use that I don't need to really buy another one. And nearly all my games are being rationalized and some sold off because of lack of space. However, I got the impression that the MRQ rules were aimed at a new generation of RPGers - not diehards like us, but perhaps the new D20ers (and I don't mean the Heroquesters! :-) ) who might be interested in moving on from D&D, at least that was the impression I read from Matt Sprange's mails on the MRQ playtest group. That's how I began back in 1980 - with AD&D and when I came across RQ2 it just seemed natural to move on. I'm interested to see what develops - we might end up with a whole new generation of BRPers joining the throng who will be surprised to see that other BRP material has been around for decades - people who already buy stuff from Mongoose. I could be wrong but I don't feel that BRP has the size of community that D20 has. It would be good to entice some of those players over to another way of gaming. Lankhmar sounds interesting - it could be used with any BRP game. In fact all the MRQ source books could be used as just that - source books for BRP rules. As I've already bought Mythic Russia and DBRP is due to come out around then, I can see that I won't be able to afford to eat for the first half of August. By the way, is anyone else going to Continuum this year? I know Ashley is, and I hope he runs some RQ (NOT ANOTHER INITIATION QUEST, PLEEEEASE!), but I'm too lazy to check the members list. I'll be at Continuum - I'm helping the committee and part of the Gwenthian world building Design Mechanism - and I'll be running a Gwenthian game using either RQ3 or Elric! Still yet to finish playtesting the scenario with my own game group - and write up the player hand outs. See Ya Simon See ya too. Gordy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/91641f63/attachment-0001.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 04:51:24 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu May 18 04:51:37 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004701c67a71$640685c0$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Bjorn Stolen Sent: 18 May 2006 12:39 To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules (I like the consept that the runes were there even before the gods, like the remainings of a system from an agelost in time; allmost inconprehensible to even the gods. Perhaps the God Learners were the ones closest to understanding it. DG> it's worth reading the excellent essay in Cults of Terror which details the runes and the court that existed before Orlanth and many gods appeared on Glorantha. You see the runes beginning to be almost like gods in their own right but it's only when they associate with other runic gods that they begin to create effects in Glorantha. So (In my game) -when Orlanth is a god of wind, it's because he's aquired the wind-rune. DG> Yeah - my kind of idea too. DG> Gordy From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu May 18 04:56:59 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu May 18 04:57:09 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <40903.65.220.101.126.1147788192.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: I can neither give you any numbers as I don't run the MRQ-system. I can only blurb in general terms: Aiming is a pain in the certain spot in most RPG-systems, as the ones that masters it become invincible. I happen to fence from a historical Martial Manual, and have some reflections as a result of that. The easies thing to do is to drop any aiming-special-rules. This can be done easily, as when people fence, they allways seek out theese weak-spots in the first place! -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked club can do piercing/bashing, etc. If people insist on having aimingrules, I suggest they do somthing about the use of armor. Nobody wear only full plate armor, for instance. If you find a weak-spot in a fully plated 15th century knight, he'll often have other protection beneath; for instance textile-armor or chainmail. So by letting NPC's and PC's using armor the way it was actually used in real life, you can limit the extraordinarily bonus of hitting an "unprotected" area. An other thing is the fact that in order to hit an armpit, or a groin, you cannot commit "full force" to a blow, it have to be a fast, timed hit. (If you have pinned the opponent, so that he cannot defend himself, it's another matter, but in those cases, I don't roll any dice for hitting/damage.) From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu May 18 05:11:47 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Thu May 18 05:11:58 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <003c01c67a70$f7a10a90$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> Message-ID: <004b01c67a74$3d772010$0b01a8c0@D47R652J> Doh! My brain is frazzled of late. I'm a moderator of the BRPsystem list NOT this list. That'll teach me to have the same mails filter to the same folder! So ignore my out of place mail below. Doh! Mea culpa! _____ I hope this isn't going to turn into a flame war? So I ask all (and this isn't aimed at you Simon or anybody on the list in particular so forgive me for stating the obvious) to respect that you all have opinions and it's healthy to debate. :-) I've purposely stayed out of this debate - so far - because I'm one of the moderators of this list. :-) I was on the first phase of MRQ playtests - up to v1.4 - but I am staying on the fence. And I'm also on the DBRP playtest so I should to stay on the fence. See ya too. Gordy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/3d8e6b4a/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu May 18 06:49:00 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu May 18 06:49:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518134900.44192.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi Simon, I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a twist, however crap) at a convention. You just happened to play in it... I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I doubt it'll be Runequest though. Cheers, Ash From devinc at aol.com Thu May 18 14:22:27 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc@aol.com) Date: Thu May 18 14:22:45 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518110827.21671.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C848D84C1D9C8D-1228-2FEA@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have all the same runes. As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060518/86565c83/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Thu May 18 14:26:47 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc@aol.com) Date: Thu May 18 14:27:02 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C848D8E775524D-1228-3033@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Devin -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:56:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Playing Using MRQ Rules I can neither give you any numbers as I don't run the MRQ-system. I can only blurb in general terms: Aiming is a pain in the certain spot in most RPG-systems, as the ones that masters it become invincible. I happen to fence from a historical Martial Manual, and have some reflections as a result of that. The easies thing to do is to drop any aiming-special-rules. This can be done easily, as when people fence, they allways seek out theese weak-spots in the first place! -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked club can do piercing/bashing, etc. If people insist on having aimingrules, I suggest they do somthing about the use of armor. Nobody wear only full plate armor, for instance. If you find a weak-spot in a fully plated 15th century knight, he'll often have other protection beneath; for instance textile-armor or chainmail. So by letting NPC's and PC's using armor the way it was actually used in real life, you can limit the extraordinarily bonus of hitting an "unprotected" area. An other thing is the fact that in order to hit an armpit, or a groin, you cannot commit "full force" to a blow, it have to be a fast, timed hit. (If you have pinned the opponent, so that he cannot defend himself, it's another matter, but in those cases, I don't roll any dice for hitting/damage.) _______________________________________________ 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/20060518/dae36c06/attachment-0001.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu May 18 15:14:35 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu May 18 15:14:47 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <8C848D84C1D9C8D-1228-2FEA@FWM-R06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060518221435.28042.qmail@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- devinc@aol.com wrote: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same > magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have > the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are > synergies developed between the runes. By that I > mean powers for Orlanthi magic derive not so much > from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of > his Storm Rune with the other runes he has. This > makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm > deity unless they happen to have all the same runes. > That was my first thought on the matter as well. Both Orlanth and Ygg would have *some* magical *effects* that were similar, but the implementation and variety of spells would be different. So, mark me up as another Godlearner heretic who thinks the Runes have precedence and power over the Gods. Regards, Lev > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would > probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" > rune as a base for powers and then modifies them > based on the god's other runic ties. > > Devin > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri May 19 02:26:06 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri May 19 02:26:36 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules In-Reply-To: <20060518212704.1873B74AB07@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Bjorn Stolen: > -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. > the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do > damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary > circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical > hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a > weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a > sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked > club can do piercing/bashing, etc. In past games, people have overcome high armour by using a lot of magic or getting lucky and getting a good hit in. In RQ terms, that means using Bladesharp, Truesword, Slash, other weapon-enhancing spells or increasing damage bonus via Strength or similar spells and/or rolling a special or critical hit. Specials can do more damage if you use the RQ2 specials, critical hits ignore armour entirely. So, GMs could put a massively armoured but not particularly dangeous foe against PCs and hope it hurts them before being worn down. Now, that option isn't there as the PCs do an aimed blow to ignore armour, at half chance, and hit 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 times. As PCs normally gang up on such opponents, on average a hit ignoring armour happens every round, at least. Devin: > Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was > immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. Well, RQ3 ramped up the cost of armour quite considerably, but it also made spells ridiculously cheap. I use RQ2 prices for spells, when I use RQ2/3 style Spirit Magic, and RQ3 prices for armour. They work best when you are not in a big city, in Pavis for instance, then armour is rtuly expensive. > In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. Yes, but a little bit later you had the armies of Harold and William I routinely wearing chainmail and earlier the Roman Legionaries had a healthy scale mail suit. I think it's more to do with the surrounding technological level rather than status. In the Dark Ages, they had good metal working skills and made swords, axes and spears, but didn't have the capability to mass-produce metal armour. Later on, they had more armour around, I think. > I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Ashley Munday: > I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a > twist, however crap) at a convention. You just > happened to play in it... I know, I'm sorry, I was having a very bad day .... It's just that I had played a couple of games, HQ and RQ, at a couple of conventions and they were ALL Initiations. I also played in a few outside conventions as people think they are really good intorductions, so I have reached Initiation Quest Overload. > I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and > another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I > doubt it'll be Runequest though. That's a shame. I've heard that Dogs in the Vineyard is very good, so depending when you run it, I might be interested. The idea of Mormon gunslingers appeals to me. Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. By the way, any ideas about the Runemetals Question (ENC/Cost)? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060519/4e57e933/attachment.html From ted.strand at spegel.nu Fri May 19 02:45:55 2006 From: ted.strand at spegel.nu (Ted @ Spegel) Date: Fri May 19 02:47:48 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001601c67b29$08465360$1600a8c0@hader> Hello. My first posting ever, after a long period of just reading. Concerning aiming: I use a simplified version of aiming (modified RQ2/3), for the price of an additional 4 SR on the attack, the character (or critter) gets to roll either a d10 or a d10+10 for the hit-location, i.e. aiming either high or low. It works well for my players and for myself. For instance, if you want to slow someone down with missile fire, you aim low, having a decent chance of achieving that by either hitting legs or abdomen. I dislike the ability to continously perform "heads-off" attacks. As far as I'm concerned, its "unrealistic" to aim at a specific vulnerable point all the time in combat, your opponent will notice this and start to protect that specific area. In my view, combat is a series of flowing movements, where the respective opponents move to gain a tactical advantage, to find the opening in which to press home either a decisive attack or a crippling one, followed by another crippling one and another... etc. Aiming high or low has the advantage for my game that it is a) quick and easy, not much explaining needed b) reasonably "realistic" c) doesn't wreck my game balance, it works both ways, critters use it too. And, criticals/specials still apply, of course :-). So, anyway, my first posting. Hope its not too shabby. Cheers, Ted. ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Phipp To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules Bjorn Stolen: > -but how can a sword do damage to full plate armor then? -you might ask. > the simple (and to roleplaygamers' horrible) answer is that swords don't do > damage to full plate armor. They only do damage under extraordinary > circomstances, that I feel is perfectly covered by the speical and critical > hit- rules. I've made houserules that differs between the kind of damage a > weapon can do. A spear can do piercing and bashing damage (each point), a > sword can do cutting/piercing damage, a club can do bashing only, a spiked > club can do piercing/bashing, etc. In past games, people have overcome high armour by using a lot of magic or getting lucky and getting a good hit in. In RQ terms, that means using Bladesharp, Truesword, Slash, other weapon-enhancing spells or increasing damage bonus via Strength or similar spells and/or rolling a special or critical hit. Specials can do more damage if you use the RQ2 specials, critical hits ignore armour entirely. So, GMs could put a massively armoured but not particularly dangeous foe against PCs and hope it hurts them before being worn down. Now, that option isn't there as the PCs do an aimed blow to ignore armour, at half chance, and hit 1 in 4 to 1 in 2 times. As PCs normally gang up on such opponents, on average a hit ignoring armour happens every round, at least. Devin: > Let's also not forget that, especially in the sort of pre-Medieval times that RQ often mimics, metal armour was > immensely expensive and generally beyond the ken of armourers from many lands to fashion. Well, RQ3 ramped up the cost of armour quite considerably, but it also made spells ridiculously cheap. I use RQ2 prices for spells, when I use RQ2/3 style Spirit Magic, and RQ3 prices for armour. They work best when you are not in a big city, in Pavis for instance, then armour is rtuly expensive. > In Dark Ages Britain, a chainmail or ringmail surcoat would be the property of a lord or king. Yes, but a little bit later you had the armies of Harold and William I routinely wearing chainmail and earlier the Roman Legionaries had a healthy scale mail suit. I think it's more to do with the surrounding technological level rather than status. In the Dark Ages, they had good metal working skills and made swords, axes and spears, but didn't have the capability to mass-produce metal armour. Later on, they had more armour around, I think. > I have always felt that in most RPGs, armour is way too inexpensive. Perhaps, but PCs have a tendency to take armour from fallen foes and so can collect more expensive armour than they could otherwise reasonably afford. Look at Robin Hood and the number of soldiers/knights he stripped and sent on their way, he even armoured a poor knight and gave him a good horse from his armoury. Ashley Munday: > I've only run one initiation quest (and one with a > twist, however crap) at a convention. You just > happened to play in it... I know, I'm sorry, I was having a very bad day .... It's just that I had played a couple of games, HQ and RQ, at a couple of conventions and they were ALL Initiations. I also played in a few outside conventions as people think they are really good intorductions, so I have reached Initiation Quest Overload. > I'm running a HQ game, one Dogs in the Vineyard and > another Gloranthan game on non-determined rules, I > doubt it'll be Runequest though. That's a shame. I've heard that Dogs in the Vineyard is very good, so depending when you run it, I might be interested. The idea of Mormon gunslingers appeals to me. Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. By the way, any ideas about the Runemetals Question (ENC/Cost)? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060519/4282210d/attachment-0001.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Fri May 19 03:09:13 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Fri May 19 03:09:52 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules References: <20060519092606.53860.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002e01c67b2c$47df45b0$3a789109@2373993GCH7> Simon - my comments in the body of your mail after DG> ----- Original Message ----- From: Simon Phipp To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules Devin: > "Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist simply because they both have the > Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion." > > I think a runic approach can work if there are synergies developed between the runes. By that I mean powers > for Orlanthi magic derive not so much from his Storm Rune alone, but the interaction of his Storm Rune with the > other runes he has. This makes Orlanthi magic different from another Storm deity unless they happen to have > all the same runes. > > As far as a system utilizing this concept? Would probably have to be one that uses a god's "major" rune as a > base for powers and then modifies them based on the god's other runic ties. But you still have the problem that cults with similar runes have similar spells/abilities. I'm struggling to think of examples, though. Wachaza and Blue Gloom both have Water and Death, I think, but one has Whirlpool, Water Walking and Fang of Wachaza and the other has Drown and Undead capability. Maybe that wasn't a good example. Now look what you've made me do, I've got to go away and list all the RQ cults and all their Runes now. Thanks a lot :-( Waha (Death, Beast) and Foundchild (Death, Beast(?)) have different spells - one is a Nomad Khan the other a Hunter. A Runic system would not relfect this. I've got to look these up, I'm afraid. DG> Yes - but that doesn't mean that we can't retro-engineer the cults so that a runic system should work? As I was hinting in my mail - the runic system wasn't expanded to maturity during RQ2 and 3 as it should have been. The runic associations seemed to have been assigned to gods without a consistant framework. If somebody wanted a runic system where Air is NOT Storm but just Air, then you could start to look at how spells work and you could begin to provide a Godlearner construction kit to making magic or using the powers of gods. How else could the Godlearners have managed to do what they did? See Ya Simon (Not having quite as bad a day as yesterday) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060519/8bd53740/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat May 20 12:30:42 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat May 20 12:31:05 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Rune metal prices for Simon + questions Message-ID: <000601c67c43$e4651280$fbeb8c56@sickboy> >From RQ3 secrets book: prices per ENC aluminium 40 bronze 7 copper 5 gold 600 iron 700 lead 1 quicksilver 40 silver 50 tin 15 I don'tknow which RQ2 supplement the prices were in.... Sort of related to this the RQ3 rules give us Enchant ( metal ) can anybody think of a reason why other substances can't be treated the same way. That is using Bronze as the standard 'toughness' you could enchant other substances to make them stronger eg: Enchant ( wood ) - handy for elves, forest deities, druids etc Enchant ( stone/bone/tusk/ivory ) - handy for low tech/primitive peoples ( shamanic ritual enchant maybe ) Enchant ( glass ) - I'm thinking sorcerous alchemists with hardened glass daggers and swords here :-) Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune spell: PIN VAMPIRE 2pts, ranged, nonstackable, reusable The caster must overcome the vampire in a MPvsMP roll, if successful then for the duration of the spell the vampire is unable to transform into any of the alternative shapes available to it eg: bat, rat, wolf, cloud of mist etc If already in one of these forms it is unable to return to humanoid form. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060520/99377e8e/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat May 20 13:30:18 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sat May 20 13:30:34 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question Message-ID: <000601c67c4c$37a22610$fbeb8c56@sickboy> On the subject of Divine Magic, it seems that 3pts is about top whack for non ritual magic. Is this just an arbitary figure , ie 4 or 5 pt spells ( or more ) are possible or would such spells be sufficiently powerful that they would need special ie ritual forms to cast ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060520/22c7241f/attachment.html From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat May 20 15:58:12 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat May 20 15:58:46 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question References: <000601c67c4c$37a22610$fbeb8c56@sickboy> Message-ID: <005401c67c60$df26e290$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Originally, three (3) points were the max for Divine spells because a priest had to maintain a POW of 18 and the most (due to racial limitations) a priest could have was 21. So the Rune Priest desperately tried to get to 21 in order to sacrifice 3 of those points to get a 3 point Rune Magic. These days, the various limits are a lot less strict, so depending on the campaign higher point value Divine magic would be possible, I suppose. I think it makes a good limit, myself. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: Clive Wickens To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:30 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Another question On the subject of Divine Magic, it seems that 3pts is about top whack for non ritual magic. Is this just an arbitary figure , ie 4 or 5 pt spells ( or more ) are possible or would such spells be sufficiently powerful that they would need special ie ritual forms to cast ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20060520/c005c990/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sun May 21 00:17:26 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun May 21 00:17:46 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Weights of rune metals for Simon Message-ID: <000601c67ca6$9e732740$14638a56@sickboy> Simon, Posted the prices...completely forgot the weights Copper = same as bronze Gold = twice the ENC of Bronze Iron = same as Bronze Lead = 50% heavier than Bronze Quicksilver/Aluminium = same as Bronze Silver and Tin = doesn't say All from RQ3 secrets book -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/a46e5796/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Sun May 21 05:35:01 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Sun May 21 05:35:33 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Clive's Questions Message-ID: <1148214901.702620bf1b32e@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> > Next question: 2pts or 3pts for the following rune spell: > > PIN VAMPIRE > > 2pts, ranged, nonstackable, reusable > > The caster must overcome the vampire in a MPvsMP roll, if > successful then for the duration of the spell the vampire > is unable to transform into any of the alternative shapes available to it eg: > bat, rat, wolf, cloud of mist etc > > If already in one of these forms it is unable to return to humanoid form. Nice spell. I'd say one point, not two or three. My thinking is this; a sever spirit is a three point spell that kills anything (except, notably, vampires and undead, but that's by the by). So a spell that kills a single specie (such as Kill Horse) should weigh in at two points. This spell doesn't achieve that, it affects only one type of creature, and doesn't kill them, it only stops them from using one of their many innate magical powers. Sure, Pinning the vampire would prevent him from turning to mist, meaning that he could be killed in corporeal form with less hassle than normal BUT you'd still have to (a) _do_ that, killing vampires is a hard, hard business and (b) presumably the vampire would know it had been Pinned, and so will try and do a runner. So Pinning it will be a minor inconvenience unless you're pretty hard and have cornered the bastard so it can't do a runner. I'm taking it that the spell comes from a new subcult or hero cult or something, so won't be vastly easily to get hold of; so I'd say one point sounds about right. Most rune spells should be one point IMHO. I reckon you could have spells worth more than three; but by Orlanth they'd better be powerful and difficult to get hold of. Nikk From Ludowick at aol.com Sun May 21 05:58:01 2006 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick@aol.com) Date: Sun May 21 05:58:17 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Gods 'n' Runes Message-ID: <302.59a8e95.31a1bdd9@aol.com> Simon Phipp wrote: > Any system that gives an Orlanth cultist the same magic as a Ygg cultist > simply because they both have the Storm Rune doesn't work, in my opinion. Maybe a link to a rune provides many magics, and that each god/hero only gets a subset of them. So, Harry Hailstone and Larry Lightning will get different spells when each forges a link to the Storm Rune. From a rules standpoint, what are the skills, passions and personality traits of the mythological being or hero- quester: these will determine what magics they get. Also, what acts do they do to forge a link to a rune? These will also influence what spells are available to a cult, or what boons are granted to a heroquester. Disclaimer: Just my 2 clacks -- I've never gamed in the Gloranthan setting. P.S. Very cool website, Mr. Phipp. Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060521/582c95d2/attachment.html From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sun May 21 09:34:17 2006 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sun May 21 09:34:28 2006 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Thus our Chalana healer also is training up their Racial Lore for races we run into... Hope that helped. Jeremy J and/or Ellen wrote: > I just discovered what appears to be a considerable flaw in the RQ3 rules (I don't have previous editions) for First Aid. Shouldn't one's base knowledge of First Aid be limited to one's species? > > I'm thinking of a series of penalties for attempting First Aid on categories of species that are more and more foreign to one's own. Frex, a -5% modifier for a human to perform First Aid on an Elf or Dwarf, a -10% to attempt it on a Duck, a -15% on a horse, etc. Does anyone already have house rules for this concept, and if so, would you share? > > Big thankies, > > J. McCrackan > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rul