From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Oct 1 01:00:37 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Mon Oct 1 00:55:17 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > It depends on the weapon. You can do as much damage with a cucumber as you > like, it will still not hurt a breastplate. What you say is true for a > warhammer, an iron mace, perhaps even for a solid axe and a halebard. But > for a sword like a rapier... it's no way that a rapier can pierce plate > armor, and if you land enough damage with the rapier, the blade should > break sonner than the breastplate. > > If you do not believe me, take some spring steel, 4mm thick take it out > and start banging it towards the corner of a wooden house and see how the > corner prevails and the spring steel blade bends and/or breaks > _________________________________________________________________ > No worries, I believe you. Actually not so much plate that I was tinking of mine, more bezanted, ringmail etc, where because teh bits are sewed on, its possible (I would think, but can't exacltly back this up) to pop off a bezant or ring here and there, leaving the proverbial chink in the armour which should be in some way quantified into some sort of penalty, until repaired. It also makes teh Crafter - Armourer occupation quite a valuable one to have in the party:) From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 02:21:27 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon Oct 1 02:21:33 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I don't have any fancy homepage to link to, and my system is written in MS-Publisher, pretty big files, so I won't write it in detail, but I can give you the principles, which are pretty simple. First I take all the armourtypes in the armour-list of RQ3, deletes the AP-column, and add 4 columns, one for it's protection-value against a slicing-attack (like from a katana, a silat-knife, etc), against piercing-attacks (like from a rapier/spear), against blunt attacks (like from a cudgel/singlestick/swordpommel) and against weapons with more or less armour-piercing-capability, like the spiked end of a warhammer or a bodkin(if you buy the theory that they were anti-armor-arrowheads, something I'm not quite sure of). A breasplate gives OK protection against blunt attacks, 100% protection against cutting, Very good protection against piercing attacks and OK protection against armour-piercing attacks. A chainmail gives little protection against blunt, 100% against cutting, some protection against piercing and little protection against armour-pirecing attacks. A textile-armor, like a Linothorax (layers of linen glued together, used by greeks, and depictured on the cover of Sun Dome) would give some protection against blunt attacks, some protectiona against cutting, little protection against Piercing, and little protection against Armor-Piercing attacks. Then I take the weapons-table from RQ3, and delete it. Then I make a completely new table, not based on weapons, but on types of damagedelivery. (so instead of picking a weapon, you compose a weapon from the "shopping-list". Now, say you want a greatsword/zweihender. Then you "shop" a pommel, a crossguard and a long, straight blade. I don't remember the stats entirely, but say the long, straight blade does 2d8 slicing damage, 1d12 piercing-damage, no blunt damage and 1d6 armour-piercing damage. The pommel/crossguard does only 1d6+1 blunt damage. (I keep the rules of weapon SR, it's armour value, encumbrance, etc) So when two opponents fight, the guy with the Zweihender must know how to use his weapon to his best ability against his opponent, depending on what he's wearing. If he faces an unprotected person, he can cut away, doing terrible damage. But if he's facing someone wearing mail, he cannot do cutting-damage, so he must try to thrust a lot, use the crossguard to smash something beneath the mail, or -perhaps the best option- enter into grappeling. If we look at historical fighting-manuals, the first thing you notice is how prominent place grappeling is given, even in he swordsections. > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:34:37 -0600> From: stephenlposey@earthlink.net> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class> > Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > This is a good point. Personally, I've "beefed up" the RQ3-rules, adding > > both blunt damage, cutting damage and piercing damage, feeling that it's > > highly relevant. > > I've been pondering coming up with something similar myself, > based somewhat on the damage types from FGU's Aftermath!.> > I'd like to see what you've come up with if you're in the mood to > share.> > > I've used my houserules for some 3 years, now, not > > feeling that it slows down gameplay. But then again, I'm allso doing > > medieval re-enactment, making a replica of a knights armor from 1380, > > and I'm perfectly aware that allthough I find it highly rewarding to add > > (more) realism to RQ3 in combat, it isn't nessecarily worth the troubble > > for people more occupied with other aspects of playing RQ than I.> > Personally I like having a variety of options for greater and > lesser detail that I can use when I want or need them.> > Stephen Posey> stephenlposey@earthlink.net> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071001/93bacb2c/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 1 02:26:08 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon Oct 1 02:26:13 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <658709.58070.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20070927091244.03445ad8@caprica.com> <18004.196.8.104.27.1190975345.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <21574.196.8.104.27.1191225637.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: Yes, that is a relevant question, I agree. Well, I'd improvise. If it was a piercing attack that removed a metal disk or ring, I wouldn't let it affect the AP value of the opponent. Make a coin-shaped mark on something, then let a partner swing it around in front of you, while he tries to bang you with a stick. Then try to hit the exact coin-shaped mark with a stick of your own, and see how seldom you manage to hit it! But if it was some sort of slicing attack that was done with a superior metal, and it was a devastating attack, giving much damage in excess of the AP-value of the bezeinted/ring'ed cloth, then I could improvise that the attack left a huge opening in the cloth, giving the opponent -say 50% chanse of hitting an unprotected part of the target-area next time he attacks and hits the same location? > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:00:37 +0200> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class> From: postmaster@runequest.za.org> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> > > > It depends on the weapon. You can do as much damage with a cucumber as you> > like, it will still not hurt a breastplate. What you say is true for a> > warhammer, an iron mace, perhaps even for a solid axe and a halebard. But> > for a sword like a rapier... it's no way that a rapier can pierce plate> > armor, and if you land enough damage with the rapier, the blade should> > break sonner than the breastplate.> >> > If you do not believe me, take some spring steel, 4mm thick take it out> > and start banging it towards the corner of a wooden house and see how the> > corner prevails and the spring steel blade bends and/or breaks> > _________________________________________________________________> >> No worries, I believe you. Actually not so much plate that I was tinking> of mine, more bezanted, ringmail etc, where because teh bits are sewed on,> its possible (I would think, but can't exacltly back this up) to pop off a> bezant or ring here and there, leaving the proverbial chink in the armour> which should be in some way quantified into some sort of penalty, until> repaired. It also makes teh Crafter - Armourer occupation quite a valuable> one to have in the party:)> _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071001/53868776/attachment.html From Ludowick at aol.com Mon Oct 1 09:20:07 2007 From: Ludowick at aol.com (Ludowick@aol.com) Date: Mon Oct 1 09:20:52 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Fire & Sword Message-ID: Anders Swenson wrote: > I need to put a feedback link on the site. How do you > like RQ without locations and hit points? Sorry for the late reply -- buried under schoolwork. Combat without hit locations isn't too bad. On the upside, F&S speeds combat by only considering hit locations it they disable a character. Something similar was done with the old Stormbringer rules, where a character gets a major wound after taking 50% HP damage in a single hit. Having different armor for different body areas is lost in this system, though. Cover is also easier to handle with hit location rules. The lack of hit points in F&S works well because critical hits give a 1D10 incapacitation roll even for large creatures. Previous attempts at this in RQ (using the resistance table) usually ran afoul of big creatures being invulnerable. Michael ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 1 16:49:34 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon Oct 1 16:49:41 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <228544.19040.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just want to say I appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. It really has been useful and there's clearly some good knowledge about both the subject matter and the integration into game mechanics in a playable manner. Once again, thanks. Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From anders at california.com Tue Oct 2 09:16:35 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Tue Oct 2 09:16:50 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Damage Reduction *and* Armour Class In-Reply-To: <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070927103054.03444250@caprica.com> <47006ACD.1020302@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:34:37 -0600 Stephen Posey wrote: > Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > This is a good point. Personally, I've "beefed up" the RQ3-rules, adding > > both blunt damage, cutting damage and piercing damage, feeling that it's > > highly relevant. > > I've been pondering coming up with something similar myself, based somewhat > on the damage types from FGU's Aftermath!. > > I'd like to see what you've come up with if you're in the mood to share. > > > I've used my houserules for some 3 years, now, not > > feeling that it slows down gameplay. But then again, I'm allso doing > > medieval re-enactment, making a replica of a knights armor from 1380, > > and I'm perfectly aware that allthough I find it highly rewarding to add > > (more) realism to RQ3 in combat, it isn't nessecarily worth the troubble > > for people more occupied with other aspects of playing RQ than I. > > Personally I like having a variety of options for greater and lesser detail > that I can use when I want or need them. > > Stephen Posey > stephenlposey@earthlink.net > RQIII already has a lot of bookkeeping. --Anders From postmaster at runequest.za.org Mon Oct 8 04:41:09 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Mon Oct 8 04:35:45 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Penelope Love Message-ID: <13562.196.8.104.27.1191843669.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Got a message from the tradetalk people. Seems a new novel is iminent (at printers apparently) by the lady who gace us The Widows Tale. Tony From tiggermb at verizon.net Thu Oct 11 14:45:38 2007 From: tiggermb at verizon.net (tiggermb@verizon.net) Date: Thu Oct 11 14:54:54 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Hello all. Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't think the adventure was all it could have been. The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... Thanks in advance MB From gazza666 at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 19:18:20 2007 From: gazza666 at gmail.com (Gary Sturgess) Date: Thu Oct 11 19:18:28 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> > The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Well, here's my counter argument: most of the time, when I'm running a new campaign, I will make every effort to expunge all non-human intelligent races from the setting. The reason I do this is because - in my opinion - having lots of nonhumans running around actually DECREASES diversity, counterintuitively. It is difficult to have multiple different elven societies, for example, if there are gray elves, high elves, wood elves, dark elves, wild elves, and valley elves as distinct subspecies, let alone the various types of dwarfs, trolls, orcs, and whatnot. So races tend to become very stereotypical by necessity - unless you play your (eg) gray elf as snotty and superior, how do we remember that he's not actually a high elf? I realised that the reason all of these nonhumans existed - at least for me - was to basically represent various aspects of humanity. Orcs, for example, are essentially violent bad smelling humans; elves are effete slender woods loving humans; dwarfs are claustrophiliac short humans, and so on. I don't mean to denigrate anyone who is breaking away from these stereotypes at all - my point is that the more intelligent races you have, the harder it is to not fall into a stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a contradiction in terms. So I tend to just ditch nonhumans for the most part, and just have a human setting (though there's no reason you couldn't make your base race elf, dwarf, Aslan, or pink furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, if you liked). I still use a few nonhuman intelligent species, but these are rarely encountered and generally meet my "alien" requirement (D&D's illithids, for example). To be fair Gloranthan nonhuman species typically ARE alien in most senses of the word - they are distinctly different from humans in mindset, and they don't generally interact with humanity or each other. But D&D was the example used, and D&D elves, dwarfs, and so on are typically just humans with the serial numbers filed off - which I see as a basically inevitable consequence of the profusion of intelligent species. Off the top of my head, there are at least 7 species in D&D that qualify as potential player character material (humans, elves, dwarfs, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins, kobolds), and that's without counting subspecies, Monster Manuals 2 or greater, or anything with a level adjustment. Few medieval nations are going to have meaningful relationships with 7 other nations, so where is the room for orcs that aren't brutish, or elves that don't like forests? > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? I love Nikk Effingham's system, though you'd have to modify it a bit for non-Gloranthan settings: http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/chargen.htm His entire site is excellent. -- GAZZA From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 20:59:23 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu Oct 11 20:59:47 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: Your idea of a non-human-centric world is an interesting one. As it happens, I have a friend who took that idea several steps further. He created a setting we called the "Floating Isles". Not only did it have *no human beings at all*, but none of the other standard fantasy races were present, either. What's more, it didn't even have solid ground, except as smallish islands floating in an endless blue sky! It was an incredibly *refreshing* setting. Whenever we got bored with standard fantasy, we'd do a Floating Isles scenario. Because the geography (aerography?) of the Isles (i.e. their relationship to each other) were constantly changing due to wind forces and other unknown effects, strange creatures and new races were common. The GM worked hard to really smash all the stereotypes, and make interesting creatures that really felt new. Of course, virtually all creatures were able to fly - not as much of a challenge, since gravity as we know it only existed on the top of each Isle, not between them. Incidentally, the original concept was based on the artwork of Roger Dean (primarily his album covers for the band Yes). This was long before Niven wrote "The Smoke Ring" or anything like that, by the way. Many years later, I tried to write up the Isles in an issue of my old zine, Rack & Rune. Here's a link. The article starts on page 4. http://www.runequest.org/rr15.pdf Now, as to character design: I prefer point-based design systems to random ones, usually. And if possible, I like to throw GURPS-like advantages and disadvantages into the mix. In fact, actual GURPS ads/disads can be very easily worked into D100/RQ. However, my very favorite method came from throwing out the rulebook altogether. We only used this for "serious" games, ones with an intense focus on roleplaying. The results were almost always spectacular. The GM created each character by having a series of private discussions with each player over the course of several weeks. The conversations happened in person and on the phone (the net wasn't available in our dorms back then...it was the mid-1980s). We wouldn't discuss numbers. We'd discuss the personality and history of the character, along with the underlying concepts. And we'd do it in the terms that you'd use to describe a real person, i.e. NOT "he's got an 18 strength" but instead something like "he's apprenticed to the town blacksmith, and he doesn't know anyone in the village who is stronger than he is - although there are a couple of burly farmers who are probably about as strong". Inevitably the character concepts evolved over the weeks of creation. The GM took sole responsibility for actually designing the characters, working out statistics by fiat. I don't know how other GMs who used this system did it, but *I* didn't make a fetish out of balancing the stats: instead, my goal was to make sure that each character had one or more interesting and useful abilities which were not duplicated elsewhere in the party. In other words, my goal was to balance playing time, plot involvement, and fun for the *players*, rather than balancing the stats of the *characters*. It helped that I knew all the players well, and could judge their strengths and weaknesses. In the process, extensive histories for the characters naturally evolved. What's more, as things went forward the players would talk with each other and work out any shared history that their characters might have. We even tried playing out pre-campaign scenarios, talking in character to each other as our "young" characters in their earlier years. This built a sense of party unity and history that was unusually deep. Typically, a game that used this method of character creation was run on a "sheetless" basis, i.e. the players never saw a character sheet for their character, never saw their own ability scores or stats. Instead, they knew as much about their characters as the character knew about him- or herself. Players would often keep extensive notes, of course, but they did not include numerical data. The GM did all the system record-keeping, while the players rolled dice and employed strategy and tactics using a real-world approach. RuneQuest was an ideal system for this sort of sheetless campaign. Since it models reality well without being overcomplicated, the GM could easily accommodate the actions of the PCs without being TOO overburdened with bookkeeping. The one flaw was that some people tended to lose track of the dividing line between reality and fantasy in roleplaying games. Sheetless gaming really seems to bring that out in some players. We all got obsessed - it's almost frightening how much more *involving* a sheetless game can be - but some people just lost it altogether. But with good players, it can be a really mind-blowing experience. It's not necessary to have a sheetless game in order to use the discussion method of character design, of course. The only problem is that argumentative players may object to the GM's actualization of their character, quibbling over stats or skills. ->Peter On 10/11/07, tiggermb@verizon.net wrote: > > Hello all. > > Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am > giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't > want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. > > I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend > to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other > people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and > while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't > think the adventure was all it could have been. > > The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of > the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was > that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most > frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the > rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played > in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a > Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in > Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. > Then my imagination started working... > > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. > A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. > A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less > realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to > start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant > Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, > all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive > combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. > > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as > such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random > method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character > Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might > people come up with for BRP character design? > > On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly > Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. > Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I > fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can > convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... > > Thanks in advance > > MB > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071011/b425193a/attachment-0001.html From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 00:52:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 12 00:46:55 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks Message-ID: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> As some of you may know, my RQ collection and experience is firmly set in RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors Barracks. Is this something that would be a real asset to my collection? I suppose I am opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, so to try and be more specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own world, so what published material we do use tends to be of a generic kind, that can easily be slotted into a place. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 01:05:18 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 12 01:01:56 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> >> The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most >> of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My >> thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being >> the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the >> land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG >> settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of >> adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our >> characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, >> most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started >> working... > Don't have any new ideas about un derground places for dwarves. However, for non human species that are a bit different, you could have a looksee at Talislanta and/or Jorune. The gear is pretty redily available on eBay most days. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 01:37:59 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 12 01:32:35 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <57706.196.8.104.27.1192178279.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Don't have any new ideas about un derground places for dwarves. However, > for non human species that are a bit different, you could have a looksee > at Talislanta and/or Jorune. The gear is pretty redily available on eBay > most days. > Tony > Hmm, further to this, I just happen to have come across a Dwarven Halls sorucebook on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/Dwarven-Halls-By-Fantasy-Games-Unlimited_W0QQitemZ120170201282QQihZ002QQcategoryZ2545QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 01:34:06 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri Oct 12 01:34:18 2007 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <91437.38756.qm@web51003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> MB (or Tigger): > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness > where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven > mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf > country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant > Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I > want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Sounds good, especially the different underground settings. RQ is perfect for this kind of thing because it can be tweaked to give as flexible a background as you want. > Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas > and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random > methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might > people come up with for BRP character design? RQ is a really good system for this as it can be very flexible. RQM has a very easy to use character generation system, even if you don't like the other rules. But, assuming RQ3, you can tweak the character generation quite easily. One way to do this is to allocate characteristics, so you start off with a number of points equal to the total average characetristics times a multiplier depending on how superior you want the PCs. I'll do an example for humans as I don;t have stats for non-humans with me. STR/CON/POW/DEX/APP have an average of 10.5, SIX/INT have an average of 13, so the total average is 78.5, or 79. If you want slightly superior PCs, multiply that by 1.10, if you want really superior PCs, multiply it by 1.5 but I wouldn't go any higher than that. Then they can allocate the characteristics however they want, no characteristic can go above species maximum (max rollabe + min rollable, 21 for the first group and 26 for the second) and any points above the normal maximam rollable (18) cost double. Obviously, you are going to get a lot of high INT and DEX characters as everyone will push those stats, but that's a disadvantage of a non-random character generation system. Once you've allocated characteristics, allocate skills. An easy way to do this is to work out a background set of skills, with cultural skills and profession skills as in the standard RQ3 rulebook, but change the skills for your setting. Have the players decide how many years previous experience their PCs have, but be careful - dwarves and elves are long-lived and RQ3 does fall down a bit when dealing with many years of previous experience. Alternatively, decide what level thePC should be at (Beginner, Standard, Experienced, Veteran, Master) and give them 5 skills at Top Level, 5 skills at Second Level, 10 skills at Third Level and the rest at Fourth Level where their levels depend on the experience level. Add the skills to the basic + Characteristic Bonus to take into account that some species/cultures arte better at some things. Skills are taken from cultural, cultic and profession lists, so a Master will not be at 40%+basci+bonus with every skill under the sun, only those to which he has been exposed. Beginner: Top Level: 20 Second Level: 10 Third Level: 5 Fourth Level: 0 Standard: Top Level: 40 Second Level: 20 Third Level: 10 Fourth Level: 5 Experienced: Top Level: 60 Second Level: 30 Third Level: 20 Fourth Level: 10 Veteran: Top Level: 80 Second Level: 50 Third Level: 40 Fourth Level: 25 Master: Top Level: 100 Second Level: 70 Third Level: 60 Fourth Level: 40 and so on. That way, your players can build a character and tailor it to how they want the character. Veterans and Masters might start off at Rune Level under this method, which might suit your campaign or might not. Assign magic similarly, with spells and magic skills known by level, depending on whether they use Sorcery or Divine Magic. I'd stick with divine cults and spirit cults, unless you specifically want sorcery-using dwarves. Divine Magic is easier to use and speeds the game up. If you use Sorcery, then give characters the same number of magic skills as normal skills, based on their experience level, but don't forget that sorcery spells are treated as skills. Beginner: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 2 Divine Magic Points: 0 Sorcery Spells: 1 Standard: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 6 Divine Magic Points: 3 Sorcery Spells: 3 Experienced: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 9 Divine Magic Points: 6 Sorcery Spells: 6 Veteran: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 12 Divine Magic Points: 9 Sorcery Spells: 9 Master: Spirit Magic Spell Points: 15 Divine Magic Points: 12 Sorcery Spells: 12 These are fairly arbitrary, but the principles can be used in any setting, just change the skill levels/spell points according to how you want the game to run. So, you want to play a Veteran Dwarf Crafstman. He has 5 skills at 80% + basic+bonus, 5 skills at 50% + basic+bonus, 10 skills at 40% + basic+bonus,and the rest at 25% + basic+bonus. He could choose Craft (Metalworking), Mineral Lore, Mine Lore, Scout (Underground) and Evaluate as his 80%+basic+bonus skills, Speak (Dwarven), Speak (Gnomic), Bargain, Fast talk and Orate as his 50%+basic+bonus skills and so on. He gets 12 Spirit Magic Points and 9 Divine Magic Points, so chooses Repair 4, Detect Gold, Light and Improve (Metalworking) 6 as his Spirit Magic and Tireless Labour 2, Truecraft 3, Gnomic Friendship 2 and Stone Strength 2 as his Divine Magic. I made up the spell names, so don't ask me for descriptions of them :-) You also want to play a Master Dwarf Sorcerer. He has 5 skills at 100% + basic+bonus, 5 skills at 70% + basic+bonus, 10 skills at 60% + basic+bonus,and the rest at 40% + basic+bonus. He could choose Human Lore, Dwarf Lore, Elf Lore, Scout (Underground) and Magic Lore as his 100%+basic+bonus skills, Speak (Dwarven), Speak (Elven), Intimidate, Fast Talk and Orate as his 70%+basic+bonus skills and so on. He gets the same number of magic skills/spells, so chooses Intensity, Duration, Range, Ceremony and Dominate Human as his 100%+basic/bonus, Enchant, Multispell, Dominate Elf, Dominate Orc and Dominate Seven-Horned Demon From the Pits of Hell as his 70%+basic+bonus and so on, he chooses Dominate Human, Dominate Orc, Dominate Seven-Horned Demon From the Pits of Hell, Mystic Vision, Project Vision, Create (Crystal Ball), Create (Familiar) ... So, it is relatively easy to generate a reasonably well-rounded character using something like this. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/9d369991/attachment-0001.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Oct 12 02:19:28 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri Oct 12 02:19:35 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <212952.23413.qm@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster@runequest.za.org wrote: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and > experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors > Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my > collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, > so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own > world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a > generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. > Tony It pretty much a dungeon crawl with undead, trolls, broos and the like with a bit of background and a magic item of note. It would be very easy to slot into any other fantasy world. HTH. Lev ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 08:08:54 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri Oct 12 08:09:01 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It is a fairly good dungeon crawl, but suffers from a major flaw in that a giant, undead, and broos and dragonsnails are all living in the same structure at the same time with no conflict among themselves (nor interaction either) but rapid conflict with anything else that enters. Extracting each of the three as separate encounters makes a fairly good adventure but requires modifying the building accordingly. Paul Cardwell --- postmaster@runequest.za.org wrote: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and > experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors > Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my > collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, > so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own > world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a > generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. > Tony ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Oct 12 08:49:57 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri Oct 12 08:50:04 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and broo co-existing.. Come on, ideas.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 250 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/8e0c77ae/tom.vcf From shaw at caprica.com Fri Oct 12 09:22:26 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Fri Oct 12 09:22:31 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012091939.034262f0@caprica.com> >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a >contradiction in terms. I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more than they differ. There are higher animals on this planet that vary from us more than elves and dwarves do, but I don't doubt that if they were intelligent and could talk, they'd not come across as truely alien; an intelligent dog, for example, would clearly be driven in different ways than humans are, but I don't believe so much so that they'd come across as truly alien. From mason.bruce at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 11:20:44 2007 From: mason.bruce at gmail.com (Bruce Mason) Date: Fri Oct 12 11:20:52 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <5f3990080710121120t1fc4ca85o9ef4ccf4cd7f8315@mail.gmail.com> On 11/10/2007, tiggermb@verizon.net wrote: > > > > Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. > A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. > A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less > realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always > seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to > start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant > Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, > all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up > with. Well you have to give Dwarves short sticks as they can't handle the long ones... Other than that I don't have anything intelligent to add. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/eb1e5568/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Oct 12 15:32:21 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri Oct 12 15:32:26 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <291784.53607.qm@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and > broo co-existing.. > Come on, ideas.. > It's a bit of a Keep on the Borderlands situation isn't it? The obvious answer in that case was the evil priest had hired them all but it wasn't actually mentioned in the text... A similar situation should be applied here; introduce an "overlord" Necromancer-type, who keeps the others all in line. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 12 17:27:14 2007 From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul) Date: Fri Oct 12 17:27:44 2007 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***RE: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:59 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Your idea of a non-human-centric world is an interesting one. As it happens, I have a friend who took that idea several steps further. He created a setting we called the "Floating Isles". Not only did it have *no human beings at all*, but none of the other standard fantasy races were present, either. What's more, it didn't even have solid ground, except as smallish islands floating in an endless blue sky! It was an incredibly *refreshing* setting. Whenever we got bored with standard fantasy, we'd do a Floating Isles scenario. Because the geography (aerography?) of the Isles (i.e. their relationship to each other) were constantly changing due to wind forces and other unknown effects, strange creatures and new races were common. The GM worked hard to really smash all the stereotypes, and make interesting creatures that really felt new. Of course, virtually all creatures were able to fly - not as much of a challenge, since gravity as we know it only existed on the top of each Isle, not between them. Incidentally, the original concept was based on the artwork of Roger Dean (primarily his album covers for the band Yes). This was long before Niven wrote "The Smoke Ring" or anything like that, by the way. Many years later, I tried to write up the Isles in an issue of my old zine, Rack & Rune. Here's a link. The article starts on page 4. http://www.runequest.org/rr15.pdf Now, as to character design: I prefer point-based design systems to random ones, usually. And if possible, I like to throw GURPS-like advantages and disadvantages into the mix. In fact, actual GURPS ads/disads can be very easily worked into D100/RQ. However, my very favorite method came from throwing out the rulebook altogether. We only used this for "serious" games, ones with an intense focus on roleplaying. The results were almost always spectacular. The GM created each character by having a series of private discussions with each player over the course of several weeks. The conversations happened in person and on the phone (the net wasn't available in our dorms back then...it was the mid-1980s). We wouldn't discuss numbers. We'd discuss the personality and history of the character, along with the underlying concepts. And we'd do it in the terms that you'd use to describe a real person, i.e. NOT "he's got an 18 strength" but instead something like "he's apprenticed to the town blacksmith, and he doesn't know anyone in the village who is stronger than he is - although there are a couple of burly farmers who are probably about as strong". Inevitably the character concepts evolved over the weeks of creation. The GM took sole responsibility for actually designing the characters, working out statistics by fiat. I don't know how other GMs who used this system did it, but *I* didn't make a fetish out of balancing the stats: instead, my goal was to make sure that each character had one or more interesting and useful abilities which were not duplicated elsewhere in the party. In other words, my goal was to balance playing time, plot involvement, and fun for the *players*, rather than balancing the stats of the *characters*. It helped that I knew all the players well, and could judge their strengths and weaknesses. In the process, extensive histories for the characters naturally evolved. What's more, as things went forward the players would talk with each other and work out any shared history that their characters might have. We even tried playing out pre-campaign scenarios, talking in character to each other as our "young" characters in their earlier years. This built a sense of party unity and history that was unusually deep. Typically, a game that used this method of character creation was run on a "sheetless" basis, i.e. the players never saw a character sheet for their character, never saw their own ability scores or stats. Instead, they knew as much about their characters as the character knew about him- or herself. Players would often keep extensive notes, of course, but they did not include numerical data. The GM did all the system record-keeping, while the players rolled dice and employed strategy and tactics using a real-world approach. RuneQuest was an ideal system for this sort of sheetless campaign. Since it models reality well without being overcomplicated, the GM could easily accommodate the actions of the PCs without being TOO overburdened with bookkeeping. The one flaw was that some people tended to lose track of the dividing line between reality and fantasy in roleplaying games. Sheetless gaming really seems to bring that out in some players. We all got obsessed - it's almost frightening how much more *involving* a sheetless game can be - but some people just lost it altogether. But with good players, it can be a really mind-blowing experience. It's not necessary to have a sheetless game in order to use the discussion method of character design, of course. The only problem is that argumentative players may object to the GM's actualization of their character, quibbling over stats or skills. ->Peter On 10/11/07, tiggermb@verizon.net wrote: Hello all. Like I usually do when I post with a question (rather infrequently), I am giving a little background about WHY I am posting the question. If you don't want to read the why skip to the last paragraph or two.. I was in a discussion about RPG's recently with my weekly group. We tend to play D and D because it is what they know - and becasue I let other people GM. I have gotten them to try Runequest for a quick adventure, and while they seemed to enjoy it, my rusty GM skills really showed and I don't think the adventure was all it could have been. The discussion was about character races, and half breeds, and how most of the time, when we talk about half breeds, we mean half human. My thought was that MOST RPG settings are human centric, with humans being the most frequent race; the race that holds dominion over most of the land, makes the rules and enforces the law. Over the years most RPG settings I have played in are that way. There was one small series of adventures where we played a Halfling Family, and another where our characters spent a lot of time in Elven territory, but by and large, most of the time, the local law is human. Then my imagination started working... Now the thought is in my mind to design a setting that is very NON human. A world of lawlesness where there are no or few humans on the great plains. A world of Elven Forests and Dwarven mountains. A world that is less realistic than most others, and more fantastical. Because Dwarves always seems to get the short stick in any campaign I have been in, I intend to start the characters in Dwarf country. I want to give them a world of Giant Underground Mushroom Forests, Rivers of Lava, Giant Worms, Glowing Crystals, all the super fantastical underground gaming enviornment that I can come up with. Because I like the way Runequest allows for wonderfully descrptive combat and encounters, I want to create this setting using the RQ/BRP rules. Which leads me to the CHARACTERS. I don't like to roll characters, as such. I like to think up ideas and use some point system or non random method of charcter generation. So - What Non random methods of Character Generation are people here using for non Humans? What suggestions might people come up with for BRP character design? On a second note, any suggestions for fantasitc (particularly Dwarven/underground) locations and encounters would be welcome as well. Don't know if this will ever some to frutition, but like a lot of things I fiddle with it if it weighs on my mind. If I work on it enough maybe I can convince them. It might be easier to do once the new BRP system is out... Thanks in advance MB _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071012/47ab7c05/attachment-0001.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Fri Oct 12 20:34:51 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Fri Oct 12 20:34:57 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... they are rather tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there story... Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as servents of various types they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from humans although some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular purposes by the designers Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage. Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from existance in spite of near immortality Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from that earlier era with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they didnt need to learn in the past they were just reprogrammed. Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice. (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all the time where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or even a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might know how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and often keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are the most likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in modern times Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types. Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with nearly no air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins including magical ones and can see in near dark. Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 23:24:03 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 12 23:18:34 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <30321.196.8.104.27.1192175534.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > It is a fairly good dungeon crawl, but suffers from a > major flaw in that a giant, undead, and broos and > dragonsnails are all living in the same structure at > the same time with no conflict among themselves (nor > interaction either) but rapid conflict with anything > else that enters. > > Extracting each of the three as separate encounters > makes a fairly good adventure but requires modifying > the building accordingly. > > Paul Cardwell > Interesting, one tends to forget the classic early days of role playing type adventures with dungeons full of ununlikley stuff. like a dungeon deep underground with nowt but a tiny entrance yet had dragons and such inside:) Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 12 23:35:26 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 12 23:29:56 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Or you find a rationale for the giant, undead and broo co-existing.. > Come on, ideas.. > > Hmm, well the undead, if they were perhaps undead because of some sort of chaos taint, maybe that would explain the broos and undead at least. One would then wonder if it were possible for said broos to hubradise with said undead (I am sthinking zombies and/or ghouls here, skeletons being more a type of construct). The giant on the other hand, dunno, ubless it was possibly kidnapped as a child and is some sort of slave/plaything that is con stantly taunted bu the broos. Use it/don't use it. Tony From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Oct 13 01:52:49 2007 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sat Oct 13 01:52:52 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <271831.80410.qm@web33515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <470F97A5.5090202@zunder.org.uk> <24503.41.208.48.64.1192257326.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <47108761.6030805@zunder.org.uk> How about: The Giant is a giant broo, the sick result of the broo cult's depredations. The broo are led by the evil priest (who is also a broo) who is a Vivamort worshipper who raises the dead kin as undead, or possible the clan has a Chaos trait that means they rise as undead or possibly the very place has a chunk of Chaos rock in it that causes all who die to rise as undead, say within 10 minutes.. The whole place seems odd but as the slain start to rise the whole thing will feel like Day of the Dead. Wheel on the Humakti.. What I find interesting is not that we can all come up with cool scenarios.. but that in the early days no-one did.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tom.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 250 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/c13c479b/tom.vcf From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 13 02:21:10 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat Oct 13 02:21:16 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Basic Roleplaying In-Reply-To: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Jason Durall have started a thread on the basic roleplaying forum called "Q&A with the new BRP Author". So if anyone have some questions regarding the new system, drop by BRP Central - http://basicroleplaying.com For those who REALLY dislike forums (how can anyone dislike forums by the way?), you could try posing your questions on the new Basic_Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ Cheers, Sverre. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/297af786/attachment.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 13 04:36:38 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat Oct 13 04:36:46 2007 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Your words on a sheet-less game really got me interested in trying out something like that. So, the players did all their normal rolls, and the GM just told if it was a success or not? I'm really intrigued how that would work with my group. How did the GM manage the book-keeping by the way? Had he simplified the system in any way (broader skills, etc.?) Would it be okay if I posted the part of your post about char-gen on the basic roleplaying forum to get some more views on this? (or if you would like to post it yourself?) Sverre. Peter Maranci skrev: Now, as to character design: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message group! http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/35d2fc83/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 06:19:05 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sat Oct 13 06:19:10 2007 Subject: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <345749.12866.qm@web28013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sure, go ahead; I don't mind. Which forum will you be posting it on? You know, I should write it up in more detail and post it as an article on my site, and on d100.org. ->Peter On 10/13/07, Trifletraxor wrote: > > Your words on a sheet-less game really got me interested in trying out > something like that. So, the players did all their normal rolls, and the GM > just told if it was a success or not? > > I'm really intrigued how that would work with my group. > > How did the GM manage the book-keeping by the way? Had he simplified the > system in any way (broader skills, etc.?) > > Would it be okay if I posted the part of your post about char-gen on the > basic roleplaying forum to get some more views on this? (or if you would > like to post it yourself?) > > Sverre. > > > *Peter Maranci * skrev: > > Now, as to character design: > > > > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message > group! > > http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. > http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci@gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/96f1d50f/attachment-0001.html From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Sat Oct 13 07:24:18 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Sat Oct 13 07:24:25 2007 Subject: Vedr. Re: Vedr. Re: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <230629.13996.qm@web28005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'll be posting it on the Basic Roleplaying forum on BRP Central. I agree, you should write it up in detail. It's somewhat of a gem! When will the chaos project be up on d100.org by the way? Cheers, Sverre. Peter Maranci skrev: Sure, go ahead; I don't mind. Which forum will you be posting it on? You know, I should write it up in more detail and post it as an article on my site, and on d100.org. ->Peter http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ - The BRP message group! http://basicroleplaying.com - fansite for the upcoming BRP system. http://www.runequest.info/ - fan art, lots of links, resources & powsie! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/4cf298e5/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 08:23:09 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat Oct 13 08:23:14 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks In-Reply-To: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <271372.32823.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- postmaster@runequest.za.org wrote: > Interesting, one tends to forget the classic early > days of role playing > type adventures with dungeons full of ununlikley > stuff. like a dungeon > deep underground with nowt but a tiny entrance yet > had dragons and such inside:) > Tony To say nothing of how those monsters were fed. Were there that many adventurers going in (but not coming out) to keep them healthy? Why didn't they eat each other? And similar questions. How were such elaborate mazes carved out of solid rock with nothing but late bronze- and early iron-age tools? Was the unlikely (considering the energy required) rock to mud or similar nonsense magic all that common? Etc. This is why Mythworld has most of its adventures either in the open or in relatively normal structures built by reasonable technology. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC From shaw at caprica.com Sat Oct 13 10:35:49 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Sat Oct 13 10:36:52 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Basic Roleplaying In-Reply-To: <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <40965.41.208.48.64.1192256643.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <838012.74553.qm@web28011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071013103441.03435d88@caprica.com> >For those who REALLY dislike forums (how can anyone dislike forums >by the way?), you could try posing your questions on the new >Basic_Roleplaying Yahoo! Group - >http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Basic_Roleplaying/ While I use several (RPG.net and the Atomic Think Tank come to mind), I find it much preferable to deal with mailing lists. Among other things, I'm still on dial-up, and not having to deal with the erraticities of load times is a blessing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/b58f8bdd/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sat Oct 13 16:42:46 2007 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Sat Oct 13 16:43:42 2007 Subject: *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: [Rq-rules] Balastors Barracks Message-ID: <333868.65787.qm@web51002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tony: > As some of you may know, my RQ collection and experience is firmly set in > RQ III. However, I keep on hearing of Balastors Barracks. Is this > something that would be a real asset to my collection? I suppose I am > opening myself up for huge opinion variations here, so to try and be more > specific: My group tens to run advnetures on our own world, so what > published material we do use tends to be of a generic kind, that can > easily be slotted into a place. Balastor's Barracks was a stand-alone product that was then incorporated into the Big Rubble pack, I believe. It's a dungeon hack with a slight difference in that the "prize" is a magical axe that used to be owned by Balastor, the last Champion of Pavis. So, if you want to run a Pavis campaign then it's useful, but if that's the case then buy Pavis and Big Rubble instead as it contains a hell of a lot of good background and scenarios. If you want to collect all the old RQ stuff, then it's worth buying Balastor's Barracks. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071013/4b3f5df0/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 15 05:57:56 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon Oct 15 05:58:03 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: I just wanted to say that I loved this interpretation of dwarves. The last bit, about becoming mortal and reproducing is somthing I allso have incorporated to my mostali dwarves (but they have to abandon their strongholds and wander about in order to achieve this, and I never let the player who currently is a dwarf really know wether he's still imortal or not and wether he can reproduce or not. > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0500> From: lancelot@inetnebr.com> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned.> > I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... > they are rather> tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there story...> > Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as servents of > various types> they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from > humans although> some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular > purposes by the designers> > Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage.> Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from> existance in spite of near immortality> > Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from > that earlier era> with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they > didnt need to learn> in the past they were just reprogrammed.> > Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice.> (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the> "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all > the time> where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or even> a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might know> how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art> > Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and > often> keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are > the most> likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in > modern times> > Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types.> > Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with nearly no> air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins including> magical ones and can see in near dark.> > Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children.> > > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071015/d2bcd262/attachment.html From lancelot at inetnebr.com Mon Oct 15 07:03:30 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Mon Oct 15 07:04:12 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. In-Reply-To: References: <25272261.23440831192139138886.JavaMail.root@vms075.mailsrvcs.net> <9ebd81400710111918s260b37d9u59514018f8401df7@mail.gmail.com> <56800.196.8.104.27.1192176318.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <47103CDB.2010804@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <47137332.7050202@inetnebr.com> Bjorn Stolen wrote: > I just wanted to say that I loved this interpretation of dwarves. Glad you like it. The storyline makes dwarves for me actively interesting. conceptually unique yet still touching the myths. Very powerful in their own ways yet limited in others and gives them some fodder for motivations > The last bit, about becoming mortal and reproducing is somthing > I allso have incorporated to my mostali dwarves (but they have to > abandon their strongholds and wander about in order to achieve this, Well of course it is a quest .. perhaps for mystical evolvement perhaps to find the right bit of magic / science or the non-existant female dwarve which will enable it. > and I never let the player who currently is a dwarf really know wether > he's still imortal or not and wether he can reproduce or not. hmmm you need something climactic to enable this I think if it is a part of the character concept ... so that it will feel like an appropriate development > > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:51 -0500 > > From: lancelot@inetnebr.com > > To: rq-rules@crashbox.com > > Subject: [Rq-rules] Dwarves re-envisioned. > > > > I have disliked classic dwarves so much that I re-envisioned them... > > they are rather > > tragic figures in my storyline.the dislike may have tainted there > story... > > > > Dwarves are a created race human wizards made them to act as > servents of > > various types > > they were generally constructed "ugly" so that they were distinct from > > humans although > > some were create to look "silly" and each is adapted to particular > > purposes by the designers > > > > Dwarves do not age and are very hard to damage. > > Dwarves do not reproduce and are dwindling from > > existance in spite of near immortality > > > > Most dwarves are solo figures in modern times they are left overs from > > that earlier era > > with many out of date skills... dwarves learn new skills slowly... they > > didnt need to learn > > in the past they were just reprogrammed. > > > > Most dwarves were programmed to be enslaved by a particular voice. > > (at the time they could be reprogrammed fairly easily) the owners of the > > "voices which master" no longer exist but freak occurances happen all > > the time > > where somebodies voice happens to match close enough that a dwarf or > even > > a group of them might respond to the masters voice... somebody might > know > > how to reprogram dwarves but tis generally a lost art > > > > Household dwarves were programmed to entertain and protect children and > > often > > keep house or make food.. they seem to like humans very much. They are > > the most > > likely to be still acting as servents even without the voice control in > > modern times > > > > Mining and Crafting dwarves are two more common types. > > > > Mining dwarves are particularly resistant to injury can live with > nearly no > > air and under low or high temperatures and are resistant to toxins > including > > magical ones and can see in near dark. > > > > Some Dwarves dream of becoming mortal and having children. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Oct 17 07:39:09 2007 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed Oct 17 07:39:18 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules Message-ID: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> Hi > >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem > >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a > >contradiction in terms. > > I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be > enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in > suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to > humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more > than they differ. Hmmm... The mere fact of having lifespans that embrace centuries should produce persons with a far different mindset to humans'. Gianni From shaw at caprica.com Wed Oct 17 08:01:13 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed Oct 17 08:05:11 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> At 07:39 AM 10/17/2007, you wrote: >Hi > > > >stereotypical pattern. Nonhuman races should be ALIEN, and the problem > > >with aliens is that they need to be rare - a "familiar alien" is a > > >contradiction in terms. > > > > I think this is an overstatement, personally. While there should be > > enough differences in psychology to tell nonhumans from humans in > > suits, creatures evolved in similar shapes and environments to > > humans, and with not vastly divergent biology, should share far more > > than they differ. > >Hmmm... The mere fact of having lifespans that embrace centuries should >produce persons with a far different mindset to humans'. Again, not convinced. I suspect younger members of such species would be next to indistinguishable from younger members of others, and the older members would not be materially different, except in degree, from older humans. Humanity now has lifespans in the developed world approaching 4-5 generations, and I expect that by the time you're reached that level you've already hit the worst of it. Now it might have some differences in _society_ (because power tends to accrue toward the old, and the older one is, on the whole, the more conservative one is) but that shouldn't make a dramatic difference inherently in individual psychology. From tiggermb at verizon.net Wed Oct 17 09:49:19 2007 From: tiggermb at verizon.net (tiggermb@verizon.net) Date: Wed Oct 17 10:02:05 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> I just wanted to say thanks for all the character suggestions, links, and ideas everyone gave. I have some sorting out to do, but I think I am starting to get the basis of a good character system going. I must admit that Pete???s suggestion of a sheetless game has a lot going for it. My players might be less intimidated to learn a new system if I was doing most of the record keeping. I also wonder if the players main recordkeeping consisted of equipment and encumbrance, then those often overlooked aspects of the game might be more accurately accounted for (They tend to be the most overlooked in games I have played ??? at least!) I have plenty of time before anyone will adventure in this world (a few months) so I have time to look at how I would keep records. The success will depend mostly on my ability to discipline myself and live with the awkward silences and delays that might occur while keeping records. When you are a GM, sometimes 10 seconds of silence can seem like an eternity. I am having some thoughts about what to let players know/deal with as part of a sheetless campaign. Letting players know some information (like Strike ranks) might help the flow of the game ??? especially if you are using miniatures on a square or hex ruled pad. PS ??? I am I the only person that likes the idea of strike ranks as presented in RQ3? seems most of the stuff I recall reading from earlier on this list was pretty negetive on it. Then again my memory is most likely failing me... MB From shaw at caprica.com Wed Oct 17 10:49:24 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed Oct 17 10:49:09 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvc s.net> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> >PS ?????? I am I the only person that likes the >idea of strike ranks as presented in RQ3? seems >most of the stuff I recall reading from earlier >on this list was pretty negetive on it. Then >again my memory is most likely failing me... The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs problematic because they interwove movement with it; this could be something of a problem with RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Oct 17 12:57:26 2007 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (steve) Date: Wed Oct 17 13:01:45 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071017/dc420045/attachment.html From shaw at caprica.com Wed Oct 17 13:19:59 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Wed Oct 17 13:19:40 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> At 12:57 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote: >As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them >entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, >where they are only used to determine initiative between two >fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try >to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think >about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases >(what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the >weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it >becomes far more trouble than it is worth. > >The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I >didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real >use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. > >Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for >initiative, or use RQ2's system. Even with the special casing, I found that the older version provided enough of a feel of distinction to be worth the trouble; it was at the least no worse than other fixed or random initiative systems. But the movement thing really was a pain in the behind. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 18 02:17:46 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Thu Oct 18 02:12:33 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> Message-ID: <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > Again, not convinced. I suspect younger members of such species > would be next to indistinguishable from younger members of others, > and the older members would not be materially different, except in > degree, from older humans. Humanity now has lifespans in the > developed world approaching 4-5 generations, and I expect that by the > time you're reached that level you've already hit the worst of > it. Now it might have some differences in _society_ (because power > tends to accrue toward the old, and the older one is, on the whole, > the more conservative one is) but that shouldn't make a dramatic > difference inherently in individual psychology. > > Adding to that trian of thought, no reason why not on a fantasy world humasn due to climate, food, air gas mix, minerals in water or whatever could not have a greatly enhanced lifecycle. Hmm, or maybe one could go for like "elves/whatever" are basically humans who arrived millenia before and have adaped to the world and are now so different, but at base chromosonal lever are still human and thus the possibility of iunterbreeding. Not my cup of tea but ja nee, could supply some sort of plausability. Converse could also apply. Or maybe in the case of dwarves, they have been stunted and made very strong by higher gravity compared to earth. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Thu Oct 18 02:45:57 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Thu Oct 18 02:40:27 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> Message-ID: <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is > that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs > problematic because they interwove movement with > it; this could be something of a problem with > RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a > group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who > moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. > Use a chess board. 1 square = 1 square meter, or 3 square meters depending on what scaleability you need. Big scenarios may require a few extra boards to be borrowed. From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 06:19:45 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu Oct 18 06:19:55 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710180619g37a2165bo5f4703586987e22a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/07, steve wrote: > > > As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them entirely. > > LOL. I've had a fairly complex system worked out, but have lately been tending to MGF over verisimilitude. So I'm going with a basic die-roll for init, modified slightly by dex (like D&D). In a tie, longest weapon goes first if they're coming into contact, shorter weapon goes 1st if they are already in melee with each other. I do vary the DIE ROLL, which I haven't heard of others doing. In tight, constricted spaces where raw hand/eye coordination and balance are at a premium, I have them roll d6's, in wide open spaces like an open plain, they roll d12s. I've not analyzed this too carefully, but it really does add a 'feel' to close-quarters combat that feels "tight" - everything is happening at the same time. In the open, players clearly feel like they have a lot more options. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071018/d4828236/attachment-0001.html From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Oct 18 06:59:06 2007 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu Oct 18 06:59:15 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> Message-ID: SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it doesnt make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time window. SRs to me make things simple because you don't so much have the round any more; actions cost time, the inate abilities of the characters modify their effective action SR, weapon impact on combat is modeled by giving it an SR modifier. It only makes sense to me that movement is captured by dividing up a characters movement rate and allowing a mix of movement and combat within the round. In short I really like it an think it actualy de-complicates things. I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept (which to me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our group does combat, we head to the table top, so positions are tracked automatically by the pieces as combat develops. I think another thing that probably helps us is the fact that we are not super anal about things in the Panzer Blitz way. We just want things to roughly approximate things that we want modeled and for instance, could care less that a sword is 2.5' long and a dagger is 8" long. In short, for whatever reason, I have really enjoyed using the SR concept and it works for our group very well; but its value is probably a function of style of game play, how you execute combat where you play, and how deep you like to get into the nitty gritty of minute details (although SRs would seem to appeal the to the overly anal crowd at least at first glance). Fred> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:19:59 -0700> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> From: shaw@caprica.com> Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> > At 12:57 PM 10/17/2007, you wrote:> > > >As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them > >entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, > >where they are only used to determine initiative between two > >fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try > >to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think > >about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases > >(what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the > >weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it > >becomes far more trouble than it is worth.> >> >The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I > >didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real > >use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out.> >> >Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for > >initiative, or use RQ2's system.> > Even with the special casing, I found that the older version provided > enough of a feel of distinction to be worth the trouble; it was at > the least no worse than other fixed or random initiative > systems. But the movement thing really was a pain in the behind.> > _______________________________________________> RQ-Rules mailing list> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071018/d4b73460/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Oct 18 08:33:42 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu Oct 18 08:33:49 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- steve wrote: As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, where they are only used to determine initiative between two fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases (what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it becomes far more trouble than it is worth. The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for initiative, or use RQ2's system. Steve Perrin People in this discussion keep coming up with problems which either should not be problems at all or are easily remedied. Action ranks (Mythworld's term for this) do not involve movement; that is a separate matter. However, the other "problems" Steve mentions can and should be covered in the stats for the weapons. Long weapons (pikes, for instance) have minimum as well as maximum ranges. Get inside that minimum and you are relatively safe - at least from that weapon - shortswords and daggers are another matter. Weapons have their own AR. Heavy weapons are slower, despite a generally heavier damage when they hit. Therefore they have a higher AR than a light (and less damaging) weapon of the same range. If all this is built into the rules and stats, it is quite easy to handle. It is just when these details are left out in the interest of "simplicity" (Greg Stafford's argument for rejecting my rules for RQ3) that things get complicated. Yeah, it is closer to RQ2, but then I have never denied Mythworld's origin in my attempt to suggest rules for the then in progress RQ3. I lost that attempt and thus Mythworld was published. Someone once said that as long as only one person can fit in a door at a time, then there must be some rule of etiquite to determine who goes first. It is the same with SR/AR. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 18 09:45:24 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu Oct 18 09:45:09 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.or g> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> At 02:45 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: > > > > The only problem I had with RQ3 strike ranks is > > that they made keeping track of SR among NPCs > > problematic because they interwove movement with > > it; this could be something of a problem with > > RQ2, but RQ3 made it worse. When I'm attacking a > > group with 10 bandits, trying to remember who > > moved how much for each of them is a pain in the behind. > > >Use a chess board. 1 square = 1 square meter, or 3 square meters depending >on what scaleability you need. Big scenarios may require a few extra >boards to be borrowed. Its not the movement; its remembering what individual movement _each character did_. Remember, moving delayed strike rank, so if you had a bunch of bandits who were hitting normally on strike rank 5, but they moved different distances, it meant I had to remember one hit at SR 7, 3 at SR 8, 5 at SR 9 and 1 at SR 10. This was a nuisance, to say the least (honestly, I suspect I simply lost track more often than not). From shaw at caprica.com Thu Oct 18 09:47:01 2007 From: shaw at caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Date: Thu Oct 18 09:46:42 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> At 06:59 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: >SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it >doesnt make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time >window. SRs to me make things simple because you don't so much have >the round any more; actions cost time, the inate abilities of the >characters modify their effective action SR, weapon impact on combat >is modeled by giving it an SR modifier. It only makes sense to me >that movement is captured by dividing up a characters movement rate >and allowing a mix of movement and combat within the round. In >short I really like it an think it actualy de-complicates things. > >I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept >(which to me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our >group does combat, we head to the Its not a huge problem with and individual opponent, but the more opponents yhou have out there, the easier it is to lose track of the SR delay because of movement among varied opposition. From anders at california.com Thu Oct 18 15:10:22 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu Oct 18 15:10:44 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:46 +0200 (SAST) postmaster@runequest.za.org wrote: [snip] Or maybe in the case of dwarves, > they have been stunted and made very strong by higher gravity compared to > earth. > Tony Nah, they evolved on Mars, and Earth gravity smushed 'em --Anders From anders at california.com Thu Oct 18 15:16:15 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Thu Oct 18 15:16:18 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Srtike Ranks In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017131842.03466ff8@caprica.com> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094559.03425d70@caprica.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:47:01 -0700 Wayne Shaw wrote: > At 06:59 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote: > >SRs were one of the things I have come to like about RQ because it doesnt > make everything have to happen within an arbitrary time window. SRs to me > make things simple because you don't so much have the round any more; > actions cost time, the inate abilities of the characters modify their > effective action SR, weapon impact on combat is modeled by giving it an SR > modifier. It only makes sense to me that movement is captured by dividing > up a characters movement rate and allowing a mix of movement and combat > within the round. In short I really like it an think it actualy > de-complicates things. > > > >I don't understand why incoroporating movement into this concept (which to > me is natural) would add any complexity; but when our group does combat, we > head to the > > Its not a huge problem with and individual opponent, but the more opponents > yhou have out there, the easier it is to lose track of the SR delay because > of movement among varied opposition. > I point out that in RayQuest we dispense with them entirly, see the rules for Fire and Sword at my polyhedral.net site. --Anders From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Oct 19 00:32:14 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton@wrsl.com) Date: Fri Oct 19 00:32:40 2007 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote on 17/10/2007 20:57:26: > As the inventor of Strike Ranks, my suggestion is to ignore them > entirely. Second best would be to revert to RQ2 style strike ranks, > where they are only used to determine initiative between two > fighters once they have engaged. I invented them originally to try > to lend some authenticity to D&D combat. Once you actually think > about them long enough, you realize there are so many special cases > (what happens to long weapons when the fighters close? Does the > weight of the weapon influence how fast it moves? etc.) that it > becomes far more trouble than it is worth. > > The RQ3 attempt to incorporate movement (NOT my idea, though I > didn't particularly fight it) took Strike Ranks away from any real > use except to encumber combat, as Wayne points out. > > Throw them out and either use straight DEX or some DEX+die roll for > initiative, or use RQ2's system. I oscillate between really liking SR as is (accepting that they model "enough" of the complexities of real combat to "taste right"), regarding it as all to much faff and just using DEX rank and some simple closing rules for reach (when I'm in a "life's too short!" mood, and / or channelling my fourteen year old self playing Stormbringer 1), and desperately wanting to find a simple tweak that will address the issue of timing speed and reach in the same system... One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. After statement of intent has determined which combatants are directly interacting, compare Reach SR's to determine who is at a disadvantage (has the highest Reach SR using standard RQIII numbers) and penalised the disadvantaged combatants Speed SR by the amount their Reach SR exceeded their opponents. So if Karl's Reach SR is 4 an d he's fighting Johan who's Reach is 2, Karl's Speed SR is penalised (raised) by 2... Not sure the numbers work though. Interestingly enough, I don't think know I'd be comfortable dropping back to the RQII system that divides more heavily between engaged and unengaged. Ah well, I'm about to start running Call of Cthulhu for the winter, so am swinging back in to "life's too short" mode anyway! :D Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 03:07:48 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 19 03:02:55 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> <59011.83295.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1497.196.8.104.27.1192788468.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > People in this discussion keep coming up with problems > which either should not be problems at all or are > easily remedied. > > Action ranks (Mythworld's term for this) do not > involve movement; that is a separate matter. However, > the other "problems" Steve mentions can and should be > covered in the stats for the weapons. > > Long weapons (pikes, for instance) have minimum as > well as maximum ranges. Get inside that minimum and > you are relatively safe - at least from that weapon - > shortswords and daggers are another matter. > > Weapons have their own AR. Heavy weapons are slower, > despite a generally heavier damage when they hit. > Therefore they have a higher AR than a light (and less > damaging) weapon of the same range. > > If all this is built into the rules and stats, it is > quite easy to handle. It is just when these details > are left out in the interest of "simplicity" (Greg > Stafford's argument for rejecting my rules for RQ3) > that things get complicated. > > Yeah, it is closer to RQ2, but then I have never > denied Mythworld's origin in my attempt to suggest > rules for the then in progress RQ3. I lost that > attempt and thus Mythworld was published. > > Someone once said that as long as only one person can > fit in a door at a time, then there must be some rule > of etiquite to determine who goes first. It is the > same with SR/AR. > > Paul Cardwell I always though RQ3 SR was lower the longer a weapon was (plus the bigger/faster the character), which is quite easy to understand IMO. Then if one gets close, the situation reverses itself, where the roman with the gladius suddenly has the advantage over teh macedonian with the long spear who must either fight at SR/attach disadvantage or drop spear and pull sword, thereby opening himself up to a free attack or two from his roman adversary. Then again this is from memory, so I may be off the mark in terms of the exact rules. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 03:09:15 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 19 03:03:47 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> Message-ID: <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > > Its not the movement; its remembering what individual movement _each > character did_. Remember, moving delayed strike rank, so if you had > a bunch of bandits who were hitting normally on strike rank 5, but > they moved different distances, it meant I had to remember one hit at > SR 7, 3 at SR 8, 5 at SR 9 and 1 at SR 10. This was a nuisance, to > say the least (honestly, I suspect I simply lost track more often than > not). > > Ah, I missed that. Oh well, in my game the players can be trusted to be honest (mostly anyway, ha ha) and sometimes actually correct me when I gm, so its not really a problem I have had to opout serious thought to. Tony From postmaster at runequest.za.org Fri Oct 19 03:23:14 2007 From: postmaster at runequest.za.org (postmaster@runequest.za.org) Date: Fri Oct 19 03:19:32 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Character Creation Rules In-Reply-To: References: <20071017143912.D207A831B5C@mini.thinbits.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017075835.03446438@caprica.com> <34608.196.8.104.27.1192699066.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <34864.196.8.104.27.1192789394.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> > > Nah, they evolved on Mars, and Earth gravity smushed 'em > > --Anders > _______________________________________________ Or living under ground and breathing strong fumes like Ragin from the Edda/Walendrain Saga (SP?) stunted them. OR maybe the original dward was made as so from wearig the mea strong tarn helm (way before fadhmir got it). Damn, now i wanna go read some talkes of Sigifrith etc... From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 08:09:13 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:09:22 2007 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: References: <200710171956.l9HJupmW092864@ns1.ibusy.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710190809v60577b91vfcdd5617073095b4@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/07, Nick.Middleton@wrsl.com wrote: > > One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate > Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. I have this, have used it, and it basically works. I find that in multiple-assailant combats (something that RQ's never handled easily anyway) it really bogs everything down, to the point where the players just trust me to tell them who goes when without really understanding it - ie too complex. I'm going to fall back to something less simulationist, but more fun/quick/simple. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/1b41a5ed/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Oct 19 08:12:46 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton@wrsl.com) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:13:03 2007 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710190809v60577b91vfcdd5617073095b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote on 19/10/2007 16:09:13: > On 10/19/07, Nick.Middleton@wrsl.com wrote: > One idea I've speculated about but never tested before is to have separate > Reach (SIZ and Weapon length SR) and Speed (DEX and Movement) SR. > > I have this, have used it, and it basically works.? I find that in > multiple-assailant combats (something that RQ's never handled easily > anyway) it really bogs everything down, to the point where the > players just trust me to tell them who goes when without really > understanding it - ie too complex. > > I'm going to fall back to something less simulationist, but more > fun/quick/simple. Hmm, rather reinforces the "life's too short!" instinct to just use DEX rank and some simple closing rules, much as Steve suggested. :D bet this comes up again next year though... Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 08:18:50 2007 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:20:05 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> My problem with the SR system from the get-go was that there was entirely too much predictability. Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. If Joe and John are coming up against each other, and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but certainly? Every time? Should they both expect it as inevitable? Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of the system, where every trollkin aims for your head because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. Also never liked: - how it dealt with missile weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D. - the scales were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/8c577282/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Oct 19 08:31:21 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:32:43 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> References: <19940482.2438191192639760017.JavaMail.root@vms063.mailsrvcs.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20071017104755.0340ce60@caprica.com> <40018.196.8.104.27.1192700757.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20071018094331.033e5f50@caprica.com> <4666.196.8.104.27.1192788555.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org> <56e64e7a0710190818u43f2a1dcw23e984a17bf1f24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other, and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but certainly? YES Every time? YES Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-) Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of the system, where every trollkin aims for your head because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules (that I've never liked) than SR-rules Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? Good point, but you could allways modify the table. Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22? _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger? http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/52c66fca/attachment-0001.html From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Fri Oct 19 08:40:33 2007 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter@hsbcgroup.com) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:37:19 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Craig Carter has left HSBC Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 19/10/2007 and will not return until 20/10/2017. ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 08:52:54 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri Oct 19 08:54:39 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry with dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a dagger stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is not permitted in your rules? Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda - the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing? Sure, a phalanx would certainly prevail over a mob with daggers, but if the dagger-wielding poloi also had slings and the mobility that comes with not having to move in formation, the result would be less "run away" and more run to encircle and the daggers would be used mainly as a coup de grace. Paul Cardwell --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other, > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger, > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but > certainly? > > YES > > Every time? > YES > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-) > > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a > penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. > > Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules > (that I've never liked) than SR-rules > Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile > weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC) > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something > with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number > couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? > > Good point, but you could allways modify the table. > Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sverrelarne at yahoo.no Fri Oct 19 11:20:37 2007 From: sverrelarne at yahoo.no (Trifletraxor) Date: Fri Oct 19 11:20:46 2007 Subject: Vedr. [Rq-rules] Srtike Ranks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <434644.15418.qm@web28004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I've added a link to the http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/ in the link section of BRP Central. Are the rules on http://polyhedral.net are more current version, or are the rules the same on those two sites? SGL. Anders Swenson skrev: I point out that in RayQuest we dispense with them entirly, see the rules for Fire and Sword at my polyhedral.net site. --Anders -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/02f2507c/attachment.html From DevinC at aol.com Fri Oct 19 11:25:33 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC@aol.com) Date: Fri Oct 19 11:25:43 2007 Subject: SR was Re: [Rq-rules] Thanks! Message-ID: In a message dated 10/19/2007 12:32:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Nick.Middleton@wrsl.com writes: Ah well, I'm about to start running Call of Cthulhu for the winter, so am swinging back in to "life's too short" mode anyway! :D . . . Fortunately, in CoC, none of the PCs want to close with or engage anything anyways! :-) Devin ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/01c1e18f/attachment.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Oct 19 11:44:41 2007 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri Oct 19 11:44:49 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <363847.68540.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You critisize the illogic of the SR because the longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's how things are in real life. You could of course make a system that is not based on realism. You can of course parry/dodge and then attack with the dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you from doing that. In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped space, where spearmen are unable to use the advantage of better reach. So you may say that the SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking about. > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From: carpgachair@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Thanks!> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> > How interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining. Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the mobility that comes with not having> to move in formation, the result would be less "run> away" and more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used mainly as a coup de grace.> > Paul Cardwell> > > > --- Bjorn Stolen wrote:> > > Firstly, this was patently unrealistic. > > > > NO If Joe and John are coming up against each other,> > and Joe has a longsword whilst John has a dagger,> > yes, PROBABLY Joe will hit John first....but> > certainly?> > > > YES> > > > Every time? > > YES > > > > Should they both expect it as inevitable? Skill> > comes into it. If the longsword-dude have been> > reading too many Conan cartoons, he might cock up> > and end up missing his chanse of ending the fight> > before the dagger comes close to him. THERE IS A> > REASON WHY MOST ANCIENT ARMIES HAD SPEARS AND> > POLEARMS AS MAIN WEAPONS, YOU KNOW ;-)> > > > Secondly, this would lead to followon 'gaming' of> > the system, where every trollkin aims for your head> > because, well, he's going last ANYWAY and (IIRC) the> > half-skill penalty for called shot wasn't that big a> > penalty when his to hit was only 20% to start. > > > > Good point, but have more to do with aiming-rules> > (that I've never liked) than SR-rules> > Also never liked:- how it dealt with missile> > weapons, I thought the effect of a high dex was> > unrealistic machine-gun arrows ala D&D.- the scales> > were inverted (higher Dex = lower SR to a floor of> > 0), so the "DEX SR" of something with (again, IIRC)> > 'bottomed out' with a 0 at like DEX22. So something> > with a Dex of 64 or other ungodly high number> > couldn't react quicker than a Dex 22 creature? > > > > Good point, but you could allways modify the table.> > Allso: How many creatures in RQ3 have a dex over 22?> > > __________________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20071019/f9f52d85/attachment.html From grogthing at yahoo.com Fri Oct 19 12:28:23 2007 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri Oct 19 12:28:30 2007 Subject: [Rq-rules] Thanks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <150956.78399.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It all depends on skill level. My martial arts instructor used to do demonstrations where he gave people long weapons (spears, staffs, swords, and even tested police offers who thought they had quick draws on their handguns) and all he had was a rubber training knife. >From across the room, he could close and stab them multiple times, without them being able to hit him. Larger weapons are slower to adjust, and a skilled, quick, fast moving opponent who has room to maneuver can outmaneuver, close and strike against a larger slower opponent/weapon. So a maybe we need a system of initiative that handles multiple range bands, where initiative is checked at each range and weapons should have a specific modifier for each range: grapple trapping punching&dagger kicking&shortsword long sword polearm that gives them an initiative bonus or penalty at a particular range. And entering or leaving each range zone would require a contested maneuver skill roll to see who wins the initiative at that range. If the smaller more skilled opponent wins the initiative when entering the longer weapons prime range zone, he can close to the next closest range instead of attacking, then another skill roll for initiative happens at the new range zone, using the weapons modifiers for that range. If he wins initiative at each range as he enters than he can keep closing until he can strike with his shorter weapon, if he ever looses initiative while closing the wielder of the long weapon strikes him and prevents closing. Greg --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > You critisize the illogic of the SR because the > longsword gets to act first. Sorry, mac, but that's > how things are in real life. You could of course > make a system that is not based on realism. You can > of course parry/dodge and then attack with the > dagger, and nothing in the RQ3-system prevents you > from doing that. > > In some circomstanses the shorter weapon gets to > strike first WHICH IS ALLSO COVERED IN THE > SR-SYSTEM!!! (like when legionares use huge shields > and short gladiuses to slash/stab in very cramped > space, where spearmen are unable to use the > advantage of better reach. So you may say that the > SR rules in RQ3 do not pleace you, but you cannot > say that they're not realistic.I've been doing WMA > for 5 years, so I think I know what I'm talking > about. > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:52:54 -0700> From: > carpgachair@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] > Thanks!> To: rq-rules@crashbox.com> > How > interesting! Parrying is not an option? Parry> with > dagger, close and kick is not a tactic? Parry> with > dagger and body-block for a knockdown and a> dagger > stab or slash on the upcoming action rank is> not > permitted in your rules?> > Pity, how confining. > Might makes right propaganda -> the lowly have no > option but slavery or death. Is> this a game or > Reich-wing brainwashing?> > Sure, a phalanx would > certainly prevail over a mob> with daggers, but if > the dagger-wielding poloi also> had slings and the > mobility that comes with not having> to move in > formation, the result would be less "run> away" and > more run to encircle and the daggers would> be used > main