From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #97 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, October 6 2000 Volume 03 : Number 097 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] New Place (site update) Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour [RQ-RULES] Jim again [RQ-RULES] D6 System Re: [RQ-RULES] Jim again [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts 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, 05 Oct 2000 19:03:47 -0400 From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] New Place (site update) I've added a large new place to my website: it's called the Dread Tower. To tell the truth, it's SO awful that I don't see how any PC could survive it; but I could be wrong. The prose may also be a little, uh, purple. My brain got possessed by HPL, I think -- probably because I'm now living in his home state. :-/ If you'd like to bypass the main page and get straight to the Tower, it's at http://www.maranci.net/place02.htm . I'm adding new chaos features and found items to the Chaos Project every weekday, and I'm trying to add a new magic item each day as well (which harder, because they require neater ideas). If anyone gets an odd idea they'd like to contribute, the Project is open and accepting input. Oh, about the Imbue rules: Someone recently pointed out to me that different *parts* of an item could be enchanted seperately, with different spells, and then combined. That seems positively brilliant to me, and opens up the possibility of a magic item creation system that has great scope and depth. ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RQ Page! scenarios, sheets, more: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:27:38 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour >You obviously haven't seen an SCA war, in which the pikes are an integral >part. Again, this is the difference between war and "adventurous combat." >Also, the spear is a very simple weapon, you just poke. Therefore, the >conscripts who haven't had the luxury of training with weapons every day are >issued a spear and you hope they poke first. That said, there is a minority >of SCA fighters who prefer the spear (usually used two-handed, but not pike >length) and use it almost exclusively. I have to agree with this completely. When in a melee situation in the SCA I prefer to use spear. There is one knight here that prefers spear and shield to sword and shield, he's pretty effective in a one on one situation too. We have been trying out hopilite unites, the biggest problem with them seems to be getting enough people to try it. Other than that it is a VERY dangerous unit when properly supported. One more thing, I have been in larger battles where I am the only person armed as a hopilite. It is very difficult to try and incorporate in a different type of unit. However it is great for finding a skirmish where I can stand in the open and shoot for targets- heads, arms, legs- and duck behind the shield. When I start to become too much of a target I run and stand beside or behind someone with a larger shield. Kurt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 15:33:13 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour >One more thing, I have been in larger battles where I am the only person >armed as a hopilite. It is very difficult to try and incorporate in a >different type of unit. However it is great for finding a skirmish where >I can stand in the open and shoot for targets- heads, arms, legs- and >duck behind the shield. When I start to become too much of a target I >run and stand beside or behind someone with a larger shield. > >Kurt There is one thing that SCA, 1066, Fencing etc falls down on. In RQ your PC is fighting for his life. Eggerton Castle put it well in his book "The Art of the Fence" (I think thats right), in an actual duel the opponents circled each other warily, each unwilling to try something fancy. If one spotted what appeared to be an opening at a vital spot he'd lunge in and then leap back, no counter disengagements or risky tactics. They rarely attacked unless they could be sure of a killing wound in case of a telling stop-hit, (an attack that comes as yours does, ie: the same SR) Interestingly enough, he covers backsword and buckler fighting in this description as well. He's refering to actual 17th century duels, in which it is perfectly legal to go to the aid of a friend if you put your man down, much of what we consider to be honourable dueling is in fact 19th century fabrication and are very similiar to the sort of fighting I'd expect a PC to be involved in. Because my training in sword fighting is of a different kind to what appears to be the majority of the answers I've heard so far, I have to point out I haven't had any actual experience in fighting against a shield. The fundamental basis of swordplay in the fencing arena is to get your sword where your opponents isn't, if he had a whopping great door stuck in front of him I think I wouldn't attack his legs because I have to go in front of the shield and this may be where my thoughts are coming from. I had a look at joining the SCA, but the nearest club to me at the time was 50km away (it's now 3500km away) and in Australia the clubs tend to be small, the exhibition I saw had a total of eight combatants. Still, it looked like fun, if one was to open in Tasmania I'd probably join straight up. Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 02:33:23 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour In a message dated 10/5/00 10:00:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jimpeta@primus.com.au writes: > Because my training in sword fighting is of a different kind to what > appears to be the majority of the answers I've heard so far, I have to point > out I haven't had any actual experience in fighting against a shield. Exactly. Steve Perrin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:37:57 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour >It seems to me that the trick in killing a man >with a spear in this is to feint his shield out >of line and drive the spear into the collarbone area. Maybe shield wall fighters should use 1d10+10 hit locations, then. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ 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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:50:43 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Jim again Is it okay if I post a copy of my house rules for critique? [It has nothing to do with armour : ) ] Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: 06 Oct 2000 12:22:46 +0200 From: Alain RAMEAU Subject: [RQ-RULES] D6 System I was wondering if it would be possible to use the WEG D6 System to play in Glorantha, as an alternative to RQ and to HW ? Because RQ characterictics already use mainly D6s, and that the scale is similar (damages, HP,...), I hope it shouldn't be too difficult ? Did anyone of you started some adapation or has some material on this, or has any opinion on this ? Alain. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:58:53 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Jim again Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > Is it okay if I post a copy of my house rules for critique? [It has > nothing to do with armour : ) ] Just do it in small chunks; too large a file will bounce and only I will get to see it. :) - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:15:43 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts These came about from running a PbEM/IRC game, I was kinda swamped running the game part so I didn't have the time to monitor Fatigue. I ended up keeping a tally of the rounds with an indicator of when players dropped below zero, and then just applied the damage modifier thing. This is off my site, I've put the stats for mules and domestic spirits there as well as a little article on horse collars and stirrups as well. it's all a tad chaotic, and I haven't been able to integrate Crushes and Slashes when the rules were playtested, other wise they seem to work okay. The rationale behind the excessive AP for the Pilum is that it's flopping around and harder to damage, I'd like to come up with a better rule though. <<<<<<<<< House Rules A New Look at Weapon Statistics If you’ve come to my site, chances are you’re an experienced RuneQuest player so I’m going to throw you into the deep end! First off, I’m going to rethink about how some of the weapons do damage. Before you disappear whilst thinking “What’s wrong with the old way!?” I just want you to give these concepts a go (ie: they havent been play-tested!). (1) Shortswords, Broadswords, Scimitars, Bastard Swords and Greatswords all do 1d8+1 damage on a thrusting attack, they retain their existing damage for cutting attacks. (Rationale: They all have roughly the same amount of blade cross section, I don’t really believe that the weight of the blade makes all that much difference between a Shortsword and a Broadsword. Please note that there is plenty of historical evidence showing thrusting attacks with Bastard Swords and Greatswords, in fact, execution swords were bastard swords made with a rounded, blunt tip because they never had to be used for thrusting.) (2) All spears do 1d8+1 damage. (Rationale: It’s not the size that counts or so they say! The difference between spears is the length and the lower strike rank that it conveys. The Pike or the even longer Sarrissa were all designed to kill your opponent at a distance, denying him the ability to get in a hit.) Okay, now we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but the above changes are designed to go hand in hand with the following rules changes. (1) Any Two Handed Weapon uses the next higher Damage Bonus. (Rationale: If you’ re holding a shield out in front of you, you won’t be able to get the same leverage as if you were using both your shoulders.) (2) At Negative Fatigue Points the next lower Damage Bonus is used. (Rationale: After wearing your Chubb Safety Gear for six rounds and swinging a bar of bronze about, you’re not going to be able to pack in the same Ooomph that you can in a T-Shirt fresh after a nice rest.) Okay, you’re looking at me in a angry manner and yelling “This doesn’t change anything!” Well, not in a big way, but it does make weapon selection a little more balanced. If your PC’s are after big damage to kill that Scorpionman with Carapace up, they can dump the shield and swing their broadsword around their heads two handed for a big blow. Also, they all start buying Endurance like it’s going out of style! (Priests should ensure that is compatible with their cults!) Now, another change to clear up an irregularity. Pilums are Javelins that have 15AP, but cannot be used as melee weapons. Pilums have a long bronze shank with a wooden haft that only makes up half of the weapon. The Pilum had a twofold use, firstly it was a Javelin and designed to kill, secondly it had either a soft shank or a lead/wooden plug holding the haft to the shank. When it hit a shield it bent or the plug broke, making it useless (so it couldn’t be thrown back) but the long metal shank stuck in the shield, rendering it useless. Now the Pilum thrower comes up against a man with only a sword and he's still got his shield . . . Special Attacks: Impales are a great thing, they really give you something to look forward to! (Unless you’re on the receiving end) RQ2 had Impales (for Stabbing weapons), Slashes (for Chopping weapons) and Crushes (for err . . Crushing weapons). An Impale did maximum damage plus rolled damage, a Slash did rolled damage rolled twice and a Crush did your damage bonus rolled twice (in addition to the normal rolled damage of course). Now, if that’s a Great Troll using a Maul (2H) we’re looking at formidable dice! I can really see a case for bringing these back. Now, let's add a new one. Binds: A Special with a parrying item is a Bind (to loan a fencing term), this restricts the parried weapon/member until the begining of the next round, stopping the opponent using the item or moving. Now slower fighters have a chance of winning for a change and it goes someway to negating the advantage that Two Handed weapons are given by my earlier rule.>>>>>>>> Jim Lawrie http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/7031/RQ3.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:45:36 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour > Eggerton Castle put it well in his book "The Art of the Fence" (I think >thats right), in an actual duel the opponents circled each other warily, >each unwilling to try something fancy. If one spotted what appeared to be an >opening at a vital spot he'd lunge in and then leap back, no counter >disengagements or risky tactics. They rarely attacked unless they could be >sure of a killing wound in case of a telling stop-hit, (an attack that comes >as yours does, ie: the same SR) Interestingly enough, he covers backsword >and buckler fighting in this description as well. He's refering to actual >17th century duels, in which it is perfectly legal to go to the aid of a >friend if you put your man down, much of what we consider to be honourable >dueling is in fact 19th century fabrication and are very similiar to the >sort of fighting I'd expect a PC to be involved in. There is a tendency in SCA fighting to "go head hunting" that is to focus on just the head because it is a killing blow and not passively defended by the shield. We are taught that this is a mistake, hit the fist target available. I've been in situations, while not life or death, where I am fighting against a far superior opponent and desperation is setting in. I was really looking for a killing blow to end the training session, but fired at any target to keep him off me. Also, a leg or arm is difficult to get a shot in hard enough to be called when hit by a SCA spear, most SCA spear men also focus on the head. By trying for legs, you can sometimes get the shield to drop opening up the head. I find this to be true for all but the most rigid closed formations where you can't aim for anything else but heads. Not that I am a great SCA fighter, but some of my observations. > Because my training in sword fighting is of a different kind to what >appears to be the majority of the answers I've heard so far, I have to point >out I haven't had any actual experience in fighting against a shield. The >fundamental basis of swordplay in the fencing arena is to get your sword >where your opponents isn't, if he had a whopping great door stuck in front >of him I think I wouldn't attack his legs because I have to go in front of >the shield and this may be where my thoughts are coming from. SCA combat is a very good model for real combat, as long as you take into account its short comings, such as not really life and death, shields are basically indestructible in combat, some body areas are ignored when hit, weapons don't act exactly like real ones, etc. Kurt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:32:48 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts Some good ideas here. My only quibble is that a pilum can be used hand to hand, just like a javelin can. And, of course, I have pretty much given up on Fatigue points. My current take on the subject is in the rules Tal has on his ftp site, but my last RQ group was so in tune with my basic dislike for keeping track of Fatigue that they really weren't used. keep swinging, Steve Perrin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #97 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.