From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #186 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, October 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 186 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization Re: [RQ-RULES] related skills RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP skills rules [RQ-RULES] Re: Converging two excellent projects [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization [RQ-RULES] Effect of special [RQ-RULES] category modifiers [RQ-RULES] category modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] category modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Character Generation RE: [RQ-RULES] stats [RQ-RULES] BFRP Pre-Mission Statement 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:48:47 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity > Are all good Fast Talkers going to be good at Oratory? (Socrates Vs Face > Man from the 'A' team). Are all good listeners going to be good at > observation? Category bonuses define knacks, not trained skills. They give a character a boost into a group of skills that use the same parts of the brain or body. Certainly they are a generalization, but it would be necessary to give each skill a separate bonus computation to do it any other way or drop any form of head start. When combined with a means of choosing your starting skills, they define the areas that your character can most effectively grow into. > >> Imposing any kind of grouping of this kind reduces the variability > >> between characters, stifling individualism. Individualism is how you use what the gods give you, not what you start with. > In RQ3 this effect is barely noticeable, but I take your point. It also > means doing calculations on your skill points (deducting the category > modifier) every time you make an improvement roll, which I find tedious. Category bonuses are very noticeable over time since you will make many more experience checks and difficulty levels will make easier skill very desirable for quick progression. An easy skill might be mastered in 1-2 years, medium in 2-3, hard in 3-5, and very hard in 6-10. We shifted the calculation issue by not adding in the bonuses until the skill is used... only the unmodified base is recorded. When a stat changes, it only changes the modifier, not all of the listed skills. When an experience roll is checked, you simply roll over the listed value and change it. It forces the player to add in the modifier at use, but since we have several stat modifying spells going up during any combat, these values are constantly changing and have to be recomputed anyway. The deferred modifiers simplify character sheet maintenance and updates. 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:53:28 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization >Any argument that justifies new spells can be fitted to >justify new skills. You can't have it both ways: I dasagree, spells and skills are totally different in this respect. >Great, now you can delete characteristics because they no longer >have any use without category bonuses. True, except for hit points, damage bonus, magic points, DEX rolls, weight and height of character, poison & disease resistance, STR vs STR rolls, wrestling, knockback, spell effects, and minimum stat requirements for weapons. Oh, and ... etc. 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:01:36 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] related skills > > This isn't complex, you imagine it is. > > By your argument we should say that there is only one Speak > Language > >skill... the referee will adjudicate all disagreements regarding which > >language is being spoken. > > I'm sorry Bob, but that's just facetious. The term is 'sarcastic'. Several people are taking the simplification argument to the extreme that stats will have no meaning and could be dropped with no impact on the game, no skill refinements such as mine are tolerated, and there are no category bonuses to justify skill groupings... at that point do you need skills, and how many? Simplifying RQ allows room for better rules, it doesn't mean gutting it and hanging up the skin. Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:02:34 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity >We shifted the calculation issue by not adding in the bonuses until >the skill is used... It forces the player to add in the modifier at use, I do this as well, but it's merely avoding complication in one area at the expense of another. In my experience, approx. half of RQers use this system, the other half prefer not to. I'd rather avoid the issue entirely by having invariant cat mods in the base edition, and introduce changing to cat mods in "Advanced Character Development", with systems to deal with the added complexity. 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:24:58 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP skills rules Bob Stancliff : > Instead of Power and MP's, make it Mana and MP's... Essence and Psyche are >vaguer. I loathe the term Mana even more than Hit Points, but I know these are matters of personal prefference. I think Psyche's fairly clear, she was a nymph in Greek mythology that personified the essence of being. Mana was fluffy white edible cotton that grows in deserts. > Normal human stats should probably be 3d6+1 but PC's should be '4d6 best >3' because most adventurers are the risk takers who are dissatisfied with >the mundane life; I've rolled realy, realy crap characters on 4D6 discard lowest. This happens far less often on 2D6+6. I'm not thinking of my own characters here so much - I dislike being put in a possition where people in my game have to play dud characters. If that happens I rig it, of course, but why not just use rules that don't let that happen in the first place? Simon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:18:13 GMT From: mab@sdc1.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Mystic Musk Ox) Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Converging two excellent projects Sergio's suggestion on combining the BRP and Jorune group made me think of another background which is extremely detailed, yet has very little support in terms of a decent game system: Tekumel. The recent publication of Gardasiyal didn't do much to help this... Carl Brodt is intending to soon start publishing a new Tekumel magazine 'Seal of the Imperium' to take over from the now deceased 'Eye of All-Seeing Wonder', which will hopefully revivify interest. Sandy did some RQ based rules for Tekumel some years ago, which included spell lists etc,etc, which I have stored round here somewhere. Perhaps they could be used as a basis for a set of rules? Alternatively, I'd very much like to see almost anything written by Jack Vance (esp The Dying Earth or Tschai) used as a background, although I guess rights might be difficult (how come SJG haven't done it?). cheers, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:31:02 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization I wasn't going to get drawn into this, but what the heck : Bob Stancliff : >Your game rules will be very simple... "The referee will tell his story >any way he sees fit, oh yeah, you can roll some dice if you want." That's a wholly unjustified statement - a complete straw man. If anything simple rules empower players because they make it easier for them to use them, especialy players that do not like complex mechanics. Often, such players feel intimidated into secondary roles. > Any argument that justifies new spells can be fitted to justify new >skills. I seee what you're getting at, but it's not the same thing. In RQ it's much easier to learn a new spell than to learn a whole new skill. Everyone has to worry about a complex skill system right from the begining of character generation, but varied magic is (1) Only important to players that have chosen to play characters with lots of magic (2) Can be introduced one step at a time through play as it becomes important, or the spells become available to players. >You can't have it both ways: either you simplify by dropping >everything redundant and you make a baby game, or you keep most of the game >intact but clean up the complex rules to apply them smoother. Would you describe Call of Cthulhu as a baby game? Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:13:58 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: [RQ-RULES] Effect of special If we go with the double dice being a special, we must define the effects. The simpler is probably a fixed effect. But what about a variable effect depending on the doubled figure ? A 15 % character would "special" on a 11 only, and the effect would be limited (the doubled figure is 1). A 60 % character would "special" five times more, and with possibly more effect, such as on a 55 (doubled figure is 5). Same for special failures, 99 being worst than 88. Alain. http://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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:23:53 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] category modifiers Phil says : >>How about keeping the categories, but not claculating anything. You >>get +15% in one category, +10% in another, +5% in another, +0% in >>two and -5% in the last. You choose. > >I presume that you are counting attack/parry as being *the same* as >manipulation and/or agility, not just *the same calculation*, in RQ they are >technically not the same category, they are just calculated the same way. Yes, I don't realy see the distinction as being important. >Ringworld used 2d6+6 for all attributes, and Stat x 3 was the normal roll, >giving average 39%. Stat x 4 would give 52%, from 32% to 72%. That way, only >elves with Int 24 get up to 96% on an INT roll. I like Stat x5%, it's much easier to calculate, but I'll live with 2D6+6. >>Magic is a bit more complicated, but that's why it takes 30 minutes >>as against 15. > >I'm impressed, I presume the players are all experienced roleplayers. It helps *smile*. Actualy, it's the ones that aren't experienced roleplayers that are the easiest to talk through generating the character. By and large they aren't realy interested in the game system, just the character. The three people I'm thinking of are both women, who seem generaly to be much less hung up on game mechanics. John Snead tells us about task levels : It gave me a headache just thinking about it. I can just imagine the look on Diane or Paula's face if I tried explaining _that_ to them. Also, you get massive shifts in someone's chance at a given difficulty level if they skill crosses a threshold As a rule of thumb if something's easy or there is some mitigating factor in their favour I give a +20% to their chance, if it's slightly difficult I give -20%, if it's quite hard I give half chance and if it's bloody difficult they have to special. I know the odds reverse for '-20%' and 'half chance' if the character has a skill of 40% or less, but that's invisible to the player. They don't know I use this rule of thumb, and anyway the difference in odds is rarely great enough to sweat over. If challenged on it "Please mister GM, can I roll on half chance instead of -20%" I'd probbaly be magnanimous. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:39:01 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] category modifiers Bob Stancliff : >> > How about keeping the categories, but not claculating anything. You get >> > +15% in one category, +10% in another, +5% in another, +0% in two and >> > -5% in the last. You choose. >> >> This I really, really like. Even if it doesn't make BFRP, I'm snagging >> it for my own house system! :) > Great, now you can delete characteristics because they no longer have any >use without category bonuses. In RQ3 they only gave you a few measly percent anyway. STR and SIZ are still used for damage bonuses; CON and SIZ are used for hit points or whatever we use.;INT is used for learning spells, making concentration rolls and idea rolls; POW is used for magic and luck rolls; DEX is used for initiative and to avoid falling off rope bridges being shaken by King Kong, etc; APP wasn't used for much anyway, but I use it for Charisma rolls against APP x5%. I use Stat x5% rolls quite a bit. If someone is trying something difficult I might ask them to make a skill roll _and_ a Stat x5% roll, with a success at one but not the other being a partial success. e.g. The party's ship is beached and has been holed. One of the party has Crafy Cartwright at 60% and an INT of 15 and he wants to repair the hole. I ask him to make and INT x%5 roll (75%) and a Craft Cartwright roll to repair the damage. In fact I did exactly this sort of thing in my Star Trek game a few weeks ago. The engineer was trying to see if a Klingon ship's engines were damaged by analysing their exhaust emissions. I asked him to make and Engineering skill roll and an INT x5% roll to apply his knowledge of Federation vessels to an unfamiliar ship. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:41:08 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] category modifiers >I like Stat x5%, it's much easier to calculate, >but I'll live with 2D6+6. I'm torn on this one. I agree with the "x5 is easier to calculate" arguement, but stat x 4 with 2d6+6 does give a much better range, IMO. Especially if, like Elric!, you put a box on the character sheet next to the stat for the percentage roll. 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:32:05 -0700 From: Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Character Generation Well as much as I dislike Elric!, I too agree that this is an easy method, that works well.Ken > I'll chime in with support for the Elric! flavor; i.e. pick any 13 > skills, and give yourself 20% + modifiers in each. You could work this > in a "per 10 years experience", as well. > > -- > talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:14:24 +0100 From: "TOLLISEN TERJE/3AA" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] stats > I'm torn on this one. I agree with the "x5 is easier to calculate" > arguement, but stat x 4 with 2d6+6 does give a much better range, IMO. > Especially if, like Elric!, you put a box on the character sheet next to the > stat for the percentage roll. A will not cover it. As a rule of thumb one uses stas*5 as the % chance of successe, but quite often I or any GM I know will choose to say the task is difficult and only has a stat*4 or 3 chance of success. - -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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:26:32 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Pre-Mission Statement Over the week-end I shall write a Mission Statement, and submit it for discussion. It will list the documents that will comprise the finished work, and a brief level-of-detail for each. This is probably a bit ambitious, but I will try to surprise myself and get it done. A word of warning: if anyone is touting a particular system, they will be expected to write it up! Bob, you haven't volunteered to be a BFRP designer, so your skill relationships system will only have a chance of making it into "Advanced Skills" is if anyone else wants to write it up. So, either put your name forward, or see your life's work fall by the wayside! If anyone wants to chip in to the project, email the list with the subject "BFRP Designer" (exactly that, case, spaces and all, no "RE:", and no quotes - - the list will add "[RQ-RULES]", but that's ok) and list the areas of the game system that you are interested in working on. So far we have: Philip Hibbs Paul Bestwick Leon Kirshtien Al Harrison Dana Myers Terje Tollisen 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #186 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.