From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #180 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 180 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery [RQ-RULES] Spell Request RE: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organisation Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers [RQ-RULES] Give me spells Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer [RQ-RULES] BFRP Character Generation [RQ-RULES] FW: BFRP Lite Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Lite RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:52:14 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > My preference would be to include Sandy's sorcery verbatim as the 'default' > sorcery rules, but provide "Traditional Sorcery" as a drop-in alternative I would be in favor of this, as well. > that is more compatible with RQ3 sorceror characters, and also "Meldek > Sorcery" that is basically my system that replaces Vows with Journeys for > those that think that Sandy's is too monotheist and stuffy. I'd provide two > writeups, one complete, and one as a delta for Sandy's, which is what I have > at present. Sandy's doesn't have to present the monotheist front; I'd like to think that I've been providing a variety of outlooks with my Greyhawk Sorcery-type gods. (Although some of them were only re-rewritten after I posted them). Anyone got Sandy's ear? What would his take on that be? - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:08:48 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Spell Request Someone just requested the spell list, but it bounced because they sent it to philp_hibbs instead of philp.hibbs, and I have no idea who sent it. Whoever it was, please try again. Try this: philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:18:20 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery >Anyone got Sandy's ear? Um, I think his wage-payers (Ensemble Studios) have his ear most of the time at the moment, he's busy working on Age of Empires II. I'll drop him a line, we've had conversations in the past, often fruitfully (ie. he's nicked loads of my stuff and incorporated it in his sorcery rules) so he kind of owes me one. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:18:30 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organisation Simon says: >We have a number of potions here : Rules for potions? Excellent, I liked those in RQ2. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:27:58 +0100 From: "Terje Tollisen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical > Any double under the skill is a special success (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, > 66 and 77 for a 80% skilled character), while above the skill is a > critical failure (88, 99 and 00 for the same character) ? This sounds good, and it works. I play some HarnMaster,and there all rolls ending on 0 or 5 is a crit. success if the roll is under the skill and a crit. failure if the roll is over the skill. It works fine, and is easy to play with. BUT, it takes away the magic. As a RQ player one always want to roll low. The lower the better. Who havn`t exercised some dice magic before an important roll? By taking away that lower the better part one takes away some of the feeling of the game. - -Terry Tollisen ********************* Terry Tollisen Kjelsaasveien 99 0491 OSLO Norway ********************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:31:42 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers >I'd like to simplify the category modifiers, as I nearly always end >up >taking peoples character sheets and doing the sums for them, and >telling >them which category modifiers will change when their stats change. > > Stat Bonus > 1-4 -10 > 5-9 -5 > 10-14 0 > 15-19 +5 > 20-24 +10 >each +5 +5 I like that ! (It's like RQ2 in fact). However, if you go with 5% increase, do we need to keep the percentile skills and roll 1d100 ? We could go for 1-20 skills and roll 1D20 (as per Hero Wars). In additon, I would propose, as per my house rules on skill modifiers, that POW, which has many other uses and which changes quite often, would not be a skill modifier anymore. Alain. http://www.btinternet.com/~karamo/rqgb.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:44:42 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers >However, if you go with 5% increase, do we need to keep the >percentile skills and roll 1d100 ? We could go for 1-20 skills >and roll 1D20 (as per Hero Wars). No, skills won't just be in 5% increments, just maybe category modifiers. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:42:25 +0100 From: "Dom Twist" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Give me spells Give me spells - -----Original Message----- From: Hibbs, Philip To: 'RQ Rules Digest' Date: 14 October 1998 08:14 Subject: [RQ-RULES] New Spells >If anyone wants the new spells, send me an email with "GIVE ME SPELLS" in >the title > >philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk >http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ >Any view of things that is not strange is false > - Neil Gaiman, Sandman > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:20:53 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer > >> There's no such skill as Ride in RQ, and I don't see the > >> need to simulate these differences. > >Then you consider riding a horse to be the same as riding a Bison, Llama, > >Bolo Lizard, Ostrich, Griffin, or Sky Bull? > > What do you mean by "the same as"? If you mean the same skill, then no, but > if you mean the same difficulty, then I don't see the need to differentiate. An example: Peter Praxian has 90% Ride Bison and he goes out to raid those Moon-lovin' Sable riders. He leaves his mount in an arroyo and sneaks into a herd of trained riding Sables. He jumps on the back of a nice animal and promptly falls off with a roll of 30 because in BRP (RQ3?) his Ride Sable is 10 or 15%! In RQ4 the related skill Ride Sable would be about 40-50% depending on category bonus and he would ride away with a skill check. After making the skill check, his Ride Sable is better than his related skill base% and has to be kept separately, as does Ride Rhino, etc! On the other hand, if you create an overarching parent skill that is one to two levels harder than the basic skill, the character starts with the basic skill, adds the parent skill as a related skill, and then gains progress in the parent skill separately, as he broadens his experience base. The skills get experience checks separately, but the parent skill never goes below the related skill value for the basic skill. Filup Farmer grows up in a valley in Sartar with Sartar Lore (med.) as his regional knowledge skill. He runs away and joins a mercenary group that tours through Hendrikiland and Esrolia, so he adds the related parent skill of Maniria Lore (hard) based on the original skill level. By age 35 he is an aspiring hero who takes a ship to see the world. He then adds World Lore (v.hard) to represent the broad-based knowledge he is gaining in his travels. This sure beats having a skill for every country he visits. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:38:34 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics > >You should have carried your idea to the full conclusion. > >If the % roll hits, then a d20 of 16-19 is a special and a 20 > >is a critical. If the % roll fails, then the same values on > >the d20 are special failure and fumble. > > Now that I do like. I'd prefer 1 for critical and 1-4 for special, though, > that gives a 20% chance of a special and 5% chance of critical, the same as > RQ. The special failures need to be quite minor. > philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk Ooops, my mistake. As to special failures, just take the normal fumble tables and cut them in half. The low numbers are special failures and the high numbers are fumbles. After all, special successes can be pretty devastating on a good roll. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:42:52 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer >grows up in a valley in Sartar with Sartar Lore ... >runs away ... tours through Hendrikiland ... adds >the related parent skill of Maniria Lore (hard) >based on the original skill level. >takes a ship to see the world... adds World Lore >(v.hard)... >This sure beats having a skill for every country he visits. I really don't see the need for lore skills for different countries, there isn't a Regional Lore skill in RQ, why add one with all this complexity? If the Sable-stealing crops up in a game, I'd leave it as a referee's call as to whether the character can work out how to ride a different animal. I don't see the need to write rules for it, unless it can be something really simple, like "A special success allows the character to use his skill in another environment, such as riding a different kind of animal, or using a different kind of weapon". Likewise the language rules for base chances in related languages, too much complexity for too little fun. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:07:32 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Character Generation OK, what character generation system(s) could we use? I rather like Nikk Effingham's points system, but it's long and complicated, and needs a spreadsheet (which I can provide in Excel or Psion 5 format). Of course, if it is going to be a plug-and-play modular system, Nikk's could be the "advanced" version for die-hard number-crunchers. If we are going to have a version based on the RQ3 system, I'd prefer to ditch the random number of years system, and give the referee the choice of allocating 5, 10 or 20 "years" experience, depending on the required skill level, allow the player to split it in chunks of 5 or 10 (eg. 5 years farmer, 5 years warrior), and then give an extra 30, 50 or 100 points on top for customisation, like Quick Experience. I think what we really need is a third alternative, ie. a Really Good, Easy Character Generation System. Any ideas? philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:54:25 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] FW: BFRP Lite > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Petersen [SMTP:SPetersen@EnsembleStudios.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 6:48 PM > To: 'Hibbs, Philip' > Subject: RE: BFRP Lite > > No I don't mind > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hibbs, Philip [SMTP:philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 11:32 AM > > To: 'Sandy Petersen' > > Subject: BFRP Lite > > > > The game is afoot on the RQ-Rules list, we are organising a project > > currently titled "Basic Fantasy Role Playing", or BFRP for short, which > we > > intend to be a modular game system compatible with RuneQuest 3. It will > be > > an entirely original text, with new characteristic, skill, and spell > > descriptions, a number of optional magic systems, and probably two > combat > > systems as well. > > > > The reason I am contacting you is that a number of us would like to use > > your > > sorcery rules. The only modifications necessary would be to remove the > > Gloranthan references, as we don't want to tread on Issaries' toes. > > > > Do you mind us including your rules as part of this project? > > > > philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk > > http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ > > Any view of things that is not strange is false > > - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:19:30 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Lite > Nobody can actualy prove, or even demonstrate to me that skill > difficulties or cascades are actuly more realistic than a simple uniform > skills list. They attempt to simulate more factors that affect skill > learning, but there is absolutely no method for checking whether those > factors actualy produce realistic results. Anyone with a grounding in > mathematical modeling will tell you that modeling processes is no > guarantee of accurate results. All simulations pick the level of granularity they are willing to settle on. It is a fundamental assumption at the start of the design. Many games pick 3d6, RQ picked d100. If you wanted a fine grain simulation you would roll d1000 with each skill having it's own bonus derived from the 20 stats. There could be 8 levels of success and failure with results graded in each grouping... or you could play Role Master. > At the end of the day it's all down to arbitrary assumptions, and in > fact the more arbitrary assumptions you make, the less likely you are to > get sensible results. If the assumptions were really arbitrary you would be right. Instead, what we have is a series of simulations called rules that are as precise as we can make them within the granularity assumption of the system. We design them based on logic and deduction and prove them based on playtesting and reviews. Some very good rules get thrown out because they violate the granularity or complexity restriction. Others are left in because playtesting proves that they add more to the game than they detract through their complexity. > Skill categories mean that Fast Talk and Speak [Old Seshnellan] are > always subject to the same skill modifier. Everyone who has an intrinsic > boost to their Fast Talk will also be good at foreign languages. Yet > this is clearly not the case. In the real world some people can have a > fantastic facility for learning languages, yet be crap at other > inperpersonal skills. This is a good argument for a separate language category, not a good argument against any categories. Not all Fast Talkers have the 'gift of gab', but everyone with the 'gift of gab' can become a good Fast Talker, and most will be drawn to it eventually because they have a knack. > I could say the same for a lot of other skill > categories. Are all talented musicians good pickpockets? Not all good musicians have an innate gift for dexterity... some had to train themselves up from nothing. Others had all of the necessary factors to be a prodigy and got to start at a higher level than the rest (what were Mozart's Dex & Int?). Category bonuses are REAL, we just have to agree on which ones we will allow. > Imposing any kind of grouping of this kind reduces the variability > between characters, stifling individualism. If you are not going to play games because they are not real, no one will force you. RQ and Champions are the most flexible systems ever written. All of the others have some kind of character classes or innate restrictions. > The same goes for skill difficulty levels. Some people are naturally > incredibly talented at skills that most other people find very hard to > master. To simulate this in a complexified game system with skill > difficulties, you have to add on extra rules to deal with exceptions. No, the game handles it quite well, thank you. I really would like to make category bonuses bigger so that they have a stronger effect in defining starting talent. The RQ rules badly stifled starting characters. Difficulty levels have nothing to do with natural talent (i.e.: category bonuses), they deal with the quantity and complexity of the material to learn. A negative talent can still learn an easy skill slower, and a large positive talent can learn a hard skill quite briskly. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #180 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.