From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #97 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Wednesday, June 2 1999 Volume 02 : Number 097 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword [RQ-RULES] 2H RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" 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: Mon, 31 May 1999 01:56:11 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" Erik : > >> ... the 'mystical knowledge' of these cults isn't really > >> supposed to give you supernatural powers, although that > >> can of course be changed for a campaign. > > > >Hm. Only because such powers don't exist in RW, except as metaphors. > (dhooot!) Wrong answer. I'm standing by it ! > A, Although that ain't true of earlier mystery cults, > many other mystic initiations around the world > (including later Hellenic ones) carry with them the > idea that using your newfound, generally undefined > Mystical Insights to affect material stuff is largely > a Bad Thing, since it will make it harder for you > to do More Important Stuff later on. Which is also Greg's current take on Gloranthan Mysticism. As for RW Mysticism, I'm not so sure ... AFAIK, Mysticism is generally a metaphor for the relationship between consciousness, and memory and the other more mechanical portions of the self. (The metaphor is polyvalent, though, and valid for other parts of human experience.) In Zen mysticism, learning how to detach archery from conscious thought (although you are meant to transcend this detachment) isn't seen as A Bad Thing at all, although it is a manipulation of your bodily and mnemonic powers. Generally speaking, the mystic seeks to become unaffected by material things, rather than affecting them, and seeks to abstract certain material mechanisms of being and action so as to free the soul into a sphere of increased awareness of the self and the world. This implies, though, that the Mystic *must* use his mystic stuff to affect the material world; at least that portion of the material world which houses his spirit; failing which, he'll never be a Mystic, because he'll be incapable of transcendent action. Furthermore, intense material activity constitutes a kind of left-handed path to transcendance. In FRPG, however, the existence of magic drastically changes the nature of Mysticism, precisely because a magic consciousness (and some mystics will necessarily be magicians) can far more literally affect the material world than a non-magic one. A mystic magician, instead of transcending his archery, might find himself needing to transcend his Form/Set Thunderstorm spell, along with a spiritual, magical, and physical separation/consubstanciation with the storm that the magic creates. Much more difficult, much more powerful, and much less metaphorical. I'd say, in a nutshell, that although mystic abilities are not supposed to give you supernatural abilities, nevertheless, in a magic world it is *inevitable* that they will. Anyway, the subject was Divine magic, and Mysticism is actually a different kettle of fish. > The tendency for FRPG's to stubbornly take metaphors > for literal truths is bothersome. You miss wonderful > opportunities that way. > Interpreting metaphors and un-literal truths is better, IMO. But you miss just as many opportunities by doing the opposite. If a metaphor is interpreted literally, that doesn't stop it from being a metaphor; and it doesn't prevent players, or characters, from working it out. > And keep them mysterious, please. > The Cult of Jesus Christ shouldn't give you the > Divine Magics Turn Water to Wine and Walk on Water. I disagree ! Christianity is all about the Imitation of Christ, isn't it ? Some Priests of Christ, in the RQ version of Roman Catholicism, would almost inevitably use magic to perform such miracles. Although I doubt that this would fit in with the tenets of RW Christianity ... if they could, they would. In a FRPG world, some *could*. > >> nothing says the mechanisms of sorcery > >> or spirit magic aren't better suited to represent it in game terms. > > > >In some cases, yes; not always, obviously. > Important clarification: I said mechanics, not necessarily 'philosophy'. I realised that !! > With gods and godesses moving in mysterious ways, > I see no reason for so damned sure-fire 'Divine Magics' > as a 95% chance, with the only modyfying factor being _encumbrance_! I agree !! > >> ... priests ... are not supposed to be able to use magic. > > > >But in game terms (remember the Good Guess version of the > >GLS : "It's only a game." !) [rituals would] basically work as spells > Yup, but again: The skill of the 'priest', as well as his piety, > has little to do with it. But remember the necessary effects of transcendance in a magic world. Also remember that in RW, divine Kings, and powerful priests were supposed to be able to produce rain *on demand* ! If they couldn't, when it was *needed*, they'd tend to be ritually slaughtered as sacrifices to appease the wrath of the gods; which was also supposed to produce rainfall. > >> Why shouldn't a player be allowed to make a vow, > >> or sacrifice umpteen oxen, and get a magic benefit, > >> since that is what the heroes (and villains) > >> of the literary and historical background do? > > > >Because RQ has no effective rules for economics. > > Uhm? You know what stuff is worth to mortals. > It has a price in the rules, I believe. There's more to economics than price lists. > And how does this affect vows? It doesn't. > >Here's a basis : > > Sounds fair, but awkward. Correct ! > And why use the correspondence between SIZ and enc? SIZ and kg. > I assume you mean its a nice mathematical relation > and we already have a table for it, yes? Because prices are linear, but POW is logarithmic (and the price for Rune Magic is X points of POW). POW advances in mass as SIZ does. Logically, the best table for conversion from linear to log. for all RQ purposes is the SIZ table. (at least in theory. In practice it's, yes, Awkward) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:08:55 +0100 From: Ashley Munday Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword As far as I can tell, swinging a sword 1H or 2H is going to produce about the same damage because: 1. The second hand is used for control of a swing - not for power. The extra torque gained from using a second arm is minimal - all the arms are used for is transfering angular momentum from the body to the weapon; 2. The efficency of a weapon is going to be related to the mass of the weapon and the distance of the weapons center of mass from the pivot of it's swing: Neither of these change with grip. Where 2H weapons score over 1H is that the user has more control of the swing: It's easier to change the weapon's direction and you won't have it swing away from you. Ash *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 05:47:44 -0700 From: " " Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Rich Allen : >> Hm. Well, RQ3 2H weapons do more damage than 1H ones, >> with the exception of ... 2H Bastard Sword vs. 1H !! >> >> Probably, 2H Bastard Sword should do 2D6 + 1 base damage. > Actually, I think the high-end damage for the two styles of Bastard >sword should be the same. Weapon damage is a reflection of how hard it is to >dodge than how much physical harm the weapon does; a weapon should do full >damage when swung full force into someone just lying there in his shirt. In a situation like that, you're realy talking about a special success, where you have a choice of where to land the blow with full force. So the actual maximum damage a weapon can do is based on double the base damage roll. Even then, damage modifier can boost this to a theoreticaly unlimited extent. The relationship between STR and DEX minimums to wield a weapon, the weapon base damage and the user's damage modifier is not a simple or immediately obvious one. Larger weapons should clearly do more damage, and their minimum required STR/DEX shoudl increase. Also, as the wielder has a higher STR the likely damage modifier will be higher so there is a 'feedback' effect. In the case of the bastard sword, if you think of it as a 2 handed weapon which can, if the wielder has a high enough STR and DEX be wielded one handed, then the way the rules as writ at the moment work just fine. >I do think the two-handed style would score more damaging hits more often so I >would propose something like 1d10+1 for one-handed (as written) and 1d8+3 >(or _maybe_ even 1d6+5) for two-handed. Max damage remains the same, but >average damage is higher for the two-handed style this way. This increases the weapon's average damage by 2 points, which is a lot. As it is, a bastard sword does only 1 point more on average than a broadsword which is quite a hefty weapon itself. Trippling that advantage seems excessive. I also don't think it's very realistic to dramaticaly increase the minimum damage the weapon will do. I think it's actualy more realistic to increase the weapon's base chance to hit when used 2 handed as it is easier to controll. Simon Hibbs - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:12:01 -0500 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword >> As far as I can tell, swinging a sword 1H or 2H is going to produce about the same damage because: Actually you get more power with less movement in an arch swinging two handed >>1. The second hand is used for control of a swing - not for power. The extra torque gained from using a second arm is minimal - all the arms are used for is transferring angular momentum from the body to the weapon; Both hands should contribute to the power by them both moving in a clockwise or counter clockwise motion around the pivot point. It is an inefficient swing to only use one hand to produce the motion of the swing. >>2. The efficiency of a weapon is going to be related to the mass of the weapon and the distance of the weapons center of mass from the pivot of it's swing: Neither of these change with grip. Where the pivot occurs changes when a bastard sword is gripped two handed, the pivot point is between the two hands. The pivot of a one handed sword is at the wrist. I am in a medieval recreation group that actually armors up and does full contact combat. (I have the bruises to prove it) I have played with both single handed and double handed weapons and there is quite a difference in how a bastard sword moves depending on how many hands. The main advantage is that you can effectively fight with it either way. Kurt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:23:25 +0200 From: "Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar" Subject: [RQ-RULES] 2H This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEAC4B.13163620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ash Munday says
Ash Munday says
 
<As far as I can tell, swinging a sword 1H or 2H is going to = produce=20 about
<the same damage because:
<
<1. The second hand = is used=20 for control of a swing - not for power. The extra
<torque gained = from=20 using a second arm is minimal - all the arms are used for
<is = transfering=20 angular momentum from the body to the weapon;
<
<2. The = efficency of=20 a weapon is going to be related to the mass of the
<weapon and the = distance of the weapons center of mass from the pivot of = it's
<swing:=20 Neither of these change with grip.
<
<Where 2H weapons score = over 1H=20 is that the user has more control of the
<swing: It's easier to = change the=20 weapon's direction and you won't have it
<swing away from = you.

I=20 don't think so. When somebody try to increase a hit strength (in real = life)=20 always use the two hands, but of course, to has more control of the = swing.
 
The efficency of a weapon is going to be related to the mass of the = weapon=20 and the distance of the weapons center of mass from the pivot of it's = swing plus=20 the Strength of the wielder. Isn't it?
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEAC4B.13163620-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:23:23 -0500 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword > In a situation like that, you're realy talking about a special > success, where Actually, I was thinking it was more along the lines of a critical hit, not a special. I really don't like the way damage works on a special hit anyway; if my opponent is un-armored, a special hit has the potential of doing twice the damage a critical hit does! Yes, the law of averages does come into play here, but I feel the range of damage is far too great. > I also don't think it's very realistic to dramaticaly increase the minimum > damage the weapon will do. I think it's actualy more realistic to > increase the > weapon's base chance to hit when used 2 handed as it is easier to > controll. Yes, that would probably work better, although I don't think an extra two points of damage is as drastic as you think it is. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:35:46 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Rich Allen: >Actually, I was thinking it was more along the lines of a critical hit, not >a special. I really don't like the way damage works on a special hit >anyway; if my opponent is un-armored, a special hit has the potential of >doing twice the damage a critical hit does! Yes, the law of averages does >come into play here, but I feel the range of damage is far too great. A critical success is also a special success. If you look at the table, a critical for 100% is 01-05, a special is 01-20, and I think this has been clarified in magazines by Chaosium staff. In any case, bastard swords don't do extra damage on a special, they do automatic knockback. Broadswords can impale if the user specifies that they are thrusting rather than swinging, so a critical will do double maximum weapon damage plus the user's damage modifier, ignoring all armour. Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Failure is not an option, it's integral to the o/s. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:54:08 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" > Because prices are linear, but POW is logarithmic > (and the price for Rune Magic is X points of POW). > POW advances in mass as SIZ does. POW is linear, but some effects of using POW are geometric or amplified. A linear change in the radius of a hose causes a geometric change in the water that can flow through it. POW sacrificed for Divine Magic is the conduit for bringing divine energy into the world for performing magic (similarly to the hose). Also note that the direct effect of magic such as damage or defense is usually linear, but the secondary effects such as area of effect and duration are usually geometric. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #97 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.