From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #98 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 Monday, October 9 2000 Volume 03 : Number 098 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts RE: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. Re: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. Re: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts [RQ-RULES] Armies was Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] D6 System [RQ-RULES] majik bag Re: [RQ-RULES] majik bag 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, 6 Oct 2000 17:06:26 +0100 From: Michael Cule Subject: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. For some time now my players who have been using swords have forgotten to nominate before attacking whether they are using the edge or the point. This matters under RQ3 rules, you'll remember, because this determines the sort of special you will get. So naturally, being the kindly GM I am, I let them decide after the event: "You want that to be a slash or an impale?" So it struck me that what happens with a special is that the fighter has a chance to pull off some sort of advantageous manoeuvre that gives an advantage over the opponent. And I started thinking about the list of combat techniques listed in the draft for RQ4 and in the interests of simplification I thought about using this house rule: When you get a special success on a combat attack roll you may choose which sort of special effect you get from it. All weapons start with the following special effect: AIMED BLOW: The blow lands where you say it does. Or you can choose the appropriate special effect for the type of weapon: Impaling blows do rolled damage twice and may stick in the wound. Slashing weapons do an automatic knock back. Bashing weapons double the damage bonus. There are also additional Techniques which can be learned for each weapon if it is appropriate. Examples include Disarming, Sword-Breaking, Entangling and so on. Each of these takes a week to learn from a Weaponsmaster who knows the technique for that weapon. You must learn the technique anew for each weapon. Just because you know how to disarm someone using a spear doesn't mean you have a clue how to do it with a sword. In addition, if you wish to attempt a special technique without having to roll a special, you may hold your attack till after everyone has completed their actions in that melee round. If you roll under half your normal attack chance you succeed with a specific 'special' which you must nominate beforehand. Criticals do maximum damage ignoring armour as before. I think this would make combat more cinematic and freeflowing. Comments? - -- Michael Cule *************************************************************************** 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 13:30:45 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts sperrin@aol.com wrote: > 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. I used a system very similar to Steve's current system (developed by me from his brainstorming/notes to this list c. 1995) for about 2 years (and would've continued to if the campaign hadn't died), and everybody in my group was very sastisfied with the results. In short, it randomizes a lot of the tactics -- fatigue becomes a side effect of bad rolls, most of the special maneuvers (that no one was using because the rules for them were too complex) become alternate "special successes" (whereas in RQ2/3 Special = Impale, under this system it can be an impale, a disarm, a knockback, etc., chosen from a list). If my players were grand tacticians they may have felt constrained by this, but they weren't -- being able to occasionally choose an unintended special maneuver was much more attractive than having to learn a bunch of special-case rules to try and do the same thing deliberately. Rather than a tedious exercise in repetition and attrition, combat became a faster, looser, more unpredicatble affair. Trent *************************************************************************** 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 13:44:47 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. >Impaling blows do rolled damage twice and may stick in the wound. >Slashing weapons do an automatic knock back. >Bashing weapons double the damage bonus. I greatly prefer these specials... Impale: Roll weapon damage twice, Note: stuck in wound if damage penetrates. Slash: Max weapon damage, Note: severs limb if penetrating damage is twice full location HP's. Crush: Max strength bonus, Note: blunt attacks halve AP of flexible armor (not spells). If anything deserves automatic knockback it would be Crushing weapons, not swords... more energy is passed to the struck foe. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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 13:53:55 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. Michael Cule wrote: > When you get a special success on a combat attack roll you may choose >which sort of special effect you get from it. All weapons start with the >following special effect: This sounds remarkably similar to the system I use (inspired by Steve Perrin's system) and which I just finished describing (literally, writing it as this message was delivered). >In addition, if you wish to attempt a special technique without having >to roll a special, you may hold your attack till after everyone has >completed their actions in that melee round. If you roll under half your >normal attack chance you succeed with a specific 'special' which you >must nominate beforehand. That would definitely help alleviate some of the over-random nature of the system I use. >I think this would make combat more cinematic and freeflowing. >Comments? Definitely more freeflowing. More "cinematic"? Yeah, I suppose so, but I consider that a somewhat derogatory term (shorthand for "overly-flashy and unrealistic") so I wouldn't use that as a selling point. Trent *************************************************************************** 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 15:02:32 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Specials and Learned Techniques. In a message dated 10/6/00 10:26:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mikec@room3b.demon.co.uk writes: > > I think this would make combat more cinematic and freeflowing. Comments? > > Essentially what I did with a lot less complexity in my special successes system. Nothing to say that you couldn't complexify things by making each special success something you need to get trained in, so, for instance, you could not necessarily disarm a person with a good shot unless you had learned the technique. 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 15:02:30 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts In a message dated 10/6/00 10:53:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, trentfs@ix.netcom.com writes: > most of the special maneuvers (that no one was using because the rules for > them were too complex) become alternate "special successes" (whereas in RQ2/3 > Special = Impale, under this system it can be an impale, a disarm, a > knockback, etc., chosen from a list). > If my players were grand tacticians they may have felt constrained by > this, but they weren't -- being able to occasionally choose an unintended > special maneuver was much more attractive than having to learn a bunch of > special-case rules to try and do the same thing deliberately. The list of special results for special successes was not meant to be restrictive. Lots of other situations can come up in play and be used instead of one of the results on the list. Steve Perrin, always ready for improvisation... *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:30:16 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts >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 I ran a tournament for some Knight-type PCs with blunted weapons, that did FP damage rather than HP damage (Criticals did real damage though) in a grand melee. It was quite funny, they were all staggering around and falling over repeatedly. I told them that once they'd gone beyond their FP in a negative value they only had one action per round. It ended with two players dazedly belting each other as if they were swing sledgehammers. When they reached 0% attack chance they were ruled to exhausted to continue, but a lucky special knocked one over before then. The players had a ball but I wouldn't run it twice or adopt it as a rule. I suppose FPs have their place, I only ever ran a maximum of four PCs which allows me to keep watch on this stuff, I dread to think of having to run eight and do all the calculations each round. 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, 06 Oct 2000 18:52:25 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Some rules thoughts Steve Perrin wrote: > The list of special results for special successes was not meant to be >restrictive. Lots of other situations can come up in play and be used instead >of one of the results on the list. I didn't mean restrictive in a manner of only having a limited number of special effect choices (I deliberately left that list open-ended, too) but rather restrictive in the sense that (by the letter of the rules*) the only way to deliberately try a disarm, or knockback, or whatever, was to roll a standard attack and hope for a Special. If you're not willing to take a standard hit as a "consolation prize" then you've drastically reduced your combat effectiveness. The solution I had in mind in case this ever became a problem (which, admittedly, it didn't) was to allow the complicated by-the-book rules to be used if the player really wanted (i.e. he specifically wants to disarm his opponent without hurting him, but doesn't want to lower his attack chance to 20% of normal to do so). However, Michael Cule's suggestion (wait till the end of the round, reduce chance by 50%, then choose effect -- across the board) seems much simpler and equally effective, and if I ever get around to making a new version of my rules, that'll be in it. Still hoping to someday achieve the Perfect RQ, Trent *My version of the rules, adapted from notes and brainstorming (mostly by Steve Perrin) on this list in the mid-90s; Steve's own write-up of these rules might not have this "problem" -- I haven't read them carefully or recently enough to be sure. *************************************************************************** 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 22:41:31 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: [RQ-RULES] Armies was Armour > If an army does show up during the game, >it's usually seen off in the distance, or something to be avoided by the >PCs. > >Rich Allen I'm getting ready to try and start a new RQ campaign. One of the things I'd like to do is eventually have the party become the leaders of a community. I may have some small battles and want to use a modified version of the Pendragon battle rules. The rules are pretty interesting. If you haven't seen them and get a chance take a look at them. Other than the initial charge I may not tinker with the rules very much at all, but magic might be a problem. Has anyone already tried to use the Pendragon battle rules in RQ? In the spirit of borrowing from other games, Steven Jackson Games is going to soon come out with a GURPS Low Tech book. I've looked at some of the rules being play tested and there may be some good stuff to borrow or get ideas from. Kurt Wenz *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:27:41 +0800 From: "Russell Hoyle" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] D6 System MoonWars: Nick Eden was responsible.... http://www.pheasnt.demon.co.uk/Moon2.html Hope thats a start.... Rusty - ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain RAMEAU To: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:22 PM 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. > *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:22:46 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] majik bag Hey gang, I've recently been doing something of an overhaul of the Sorcery Rules (I'm currently using one of the numerous variations on Sandy's, but have severed the connection between Presence gain, and those pesky Vows), and while trying to hunt up Sorcery spells on the WWWeb I ran across a spell called _Masswarp_. Couched within the spell description was a comment that the spell is "often Multispelled with the Expand spell to create small containers capable of holding large amounts of material that weigh very little. Containers affected by Masswarp that are neutralized by Dispel magic regain all of their normal mass instantly. This spell cannot be cast on living material." Hmm.To me that _sure_ sounds like one of my old faves from D&D; the _Bag of Holding_ (they have some sort of cabinet now too, don't they? Its been a while since my D&D days). Well, if _Expand_ can be used to help knock out RQ's answer to the infamous _Bag_ , I'd sure like to know the specifics of the spell (and, by extension, Its probable opposite, _Contract_ ?). Illumination, please. -Ken- *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:17:32 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] majik bag MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote: > > while trying to hunt up Sorcery spells on the WWWeb I ran across a spell > called _Masswarp_. That'd be one o'mine, methinks. > Hmm.To me that _sure_ sounds like one of my old faves from D&D; the _Bag > of Holding_ (they have some sort of cabinet now too, don't they? Its been a > while since my D&D days). Was my intention, though not limited to bags, by any means. > Well, if _Expand_ can be used to help knock out RQ's answer to the > infamous _Bag_ , I'd sure like to know the specifics of the spell (and, by > extension, Its probable opposite, _Contract_ ?). The Expand spell originally appeared in Dragon magazine (#129), in an article by Michael DeWolfe. The spell description was as follows: EXPAND This spell allows containers to hold more than their normal capacity without increasing the exterior size of the container. The Expanded container masks its volume; its weight is reflected by the actual ENC contained. The space available in the object is increased by an additional 100% of the original capacity per level of Intensity. [Example: a bag capable of holding 10 ENC with Expand 3 cast upon it would able to hold 40 ENC.] The maximum base ENC limit is 10 ENC. For each 10 ENC to be initially affected, an additional level of Intensity must be used. [Example: to double the capacity of a 10 ENC box requires 1 ENC, a 20 ENC box would require 4 Intensity (2 to affect that large a size, and then 2 more to double it's capacity) and a 40 ENC box would require 8 Intensity.] If a container affected by Expand is neutralized by a Dispel magic, it breaks or tears (as appropriate), dumping the contents of the container on the ground nearby. - -- 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #98 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.