From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #16 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, April 6 2001 Volume 04 : Number 016 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back Re: [RQ-RULES] Lowtech Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaaay back Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back [RQ-RULES] Re: seeking Bryan Maloney Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back [RQ-RULES] gloating Re: [RQ-RULES] gloating Re: [RQ-RULES] gloating [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? [RQ-RULES] having time for six game sessions a month Re: [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? Re: [RQ-RULES] having time for six game sessions a month Re: [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? 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, 06 Apr 2001 02:17:34 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back > so Who besides myself prefers the 2 edition rules to third? I do, but I have started collecting RQ3 supplements and plan or raiding them for some things. ( Like the way temples are organized and spirits were changed, especially the nature spirits in vikings. The game will end up RQ2.5) I really don't like soccery, even though it is clear that RQ2 was going to have soccery at some point. W. 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:34:23 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lowtech >My understanding is that a big chunk of the book was supposed to be low-tech >inventions and engineering solutions that modern folks might not be aware of, or >wouldn't believe were possible at pre-industrial tech levels. > >Is that the case? If so, how do you rate that aspect? Any of the entries >particularly interesting from your perspective? I am not sure, I am an amateur history buff, so a lot of the things mentioned I was already aware of, but it did give me a nice reference to say when things were generally available, and states that there are no hard and fast rules. A culture can be advanced in some ways and retarded in others, and gives specific and useful examples. It also gives rules for prototype inventions. These would be things that are common or known in the next higher tech level, but examples might be found in the current one. It also gives nice examples of specific types of crafts, such as irrigation, glass working, and medicine, and how they changed and what types of advances were made. I think you will like it. W. 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:30:22 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaaay back - --------------FBEC98DD3BECD41ADFBC6829 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit He had an equipment list on Delecti's Uplands Marsh site that I downloaded a while ago, but I just tried the link (to a Compuserve site) and it's gone... Don't have his email on it or anything useful. Sorry. Jeremy MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote: > Hi gang, > Well, having received 2 pieces of RQ Rules mail this morning, I > guess my > wondering as to whether the RQ Rules list is still in operation have > been > answered. > Anyhow, having just recently acquired a file unzipper, I've been > reading > through the often mind-numbing stuff at the RQ mailing list archives; > occasionally uncovering some interesting stuff. > One of the things I ran across was a spin on Shamans by one Bryan J. > > Maloney, where he'd split the basic occupation into several different > ones, > including Kitchen Witch, an Ecstatic Monk. At the time (waaaaaay back > in 94), > he'd said he was going to post the rules for them in the next couple > of days, > but I sure couldn't find them :( > Does anyone have these rules, or know Bryan's email address? > Thanks. > -Ken Murphy- - --------------FBEC98DD3BECD41ADFBC6829 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit He had an equipment list on Delecti's Uplands Marsh site that I downloaded a while ago, but I just tried the link (to a Compuserve site) and it's gone...

Don't have his email on it or anything useful.  Sorry.

Jeremy
 

MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote:

  Hi gang,
  Well, having received 2 pieces of RQ Rules mail this morning, I guess my
wondering as to whether the RQ Rules list is still in operation have been
answered.
  Anyhow, having just recently acquired a file unzipper, I've been reading
through the often mind-numbing stuff at the RQ mailing list archives;
occasionally uncovering some interesting stuff.
  One of the things I ran across was a spin on Shamans by one Bryan J.
Maloney, where he'd split the basic occupation into several different ones,
including Kitchen Witch, an Ecstatic Monk. At the time (waaaaaay back in 94),
he'd said he was going to post the rules for them in the next couple of days,
but I sure couldn't find them :(
  Does anyone have these rules, or know Bryan's email address?
  Thanks.
 -Ken Murphy-
- --------------FBEC98DD3BECD41ADFBC6829-- *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 04:16:30 -0400 From: "Joseph Elric Smith: Servant of Arioch: Lord of the Seven Darks" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back Well I can agree with you on that,and I too Have stolen a bit from 3 and 4 but really prefer 2 Guess it is just the fact that I played it back in the beginning, and so I you always love what you first play Ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics. Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil then you. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Wenz" To: Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back > > so Who besides myself prefers the 2 edition rules to third? > > I do, but I have started collecting RQ3 supplements and plan or raiding > them for some things. ( Like the way temples are organized and spirits > were changed, especially the nature spirits in vikings. The game will > end up RQ2.5) I really don't like soccery, even though it is clear that > RQ2 was going to have soccery at some point. > > W. 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. *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 08:54:40 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: seeking Bryan Maloney Ken posted: > One of the things I ran across was a spin on Shamans by one Bryan J. >Maloney, where he'd split the basic occupation into several different ones, > Now I know its a longshot, but does anyone have these rules, or know >Bryan's email address? > Thanks. > -Ken Murphy- Ken, is he at bjm10@cornell.edu still? How about kiri_cumor@yahoo.com? Is that the same Bryan Maloney? Try http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/ Brad Furst Esoteric [A Working Title] esoteric@criticalpath.com (503)-265-1253 *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 13:26:30 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Lets go waaaay back Bruce Probst wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:04:18 -0400, "Joseph Elric Smith: Servant of Arioch: Lord of the Seven Darks" wrote: >> so Who besides myself prefers the 2 edition rules to third? >Not me. Me neither. I started out with RQ3 (actually backwards via Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer) and by the time I got ahold of RQ2 a few years later I was so used to the 'modern' way that much of RQ2 seemed absurdly quaint (skill training through Guilds, Defense subtracted from opponent's attack chance, no differentiation between POW and MP, etc.). I can understand how folks who played under RQ2 would prefer to stay there, and some of the 'improvements' were highly dubious (FP spring immediately to mind), but from my perspective the RQ3 rules are superior in almost every way; from skills to combat to magic to creatures (the Fixed-INT rule alone is a stroke of brilliance). With a smattering of House Rules (mostly gleaned from ~8 years on this list, especially Steve Perrin's staged-successes and Sandy Petersen's sorcery & shaman rules) they're what I still use -- no RQ4 or AiG here! Trent P.S. Also, although it was never effectively followed-up on, I also appreciate the non-Gloranthization of RQ3, especially in the magic systems: broad, culturally-defined, separate-but-(largely)-equal magic traditions are much more satisfying to me than the setting-specific Battle Magic, Rune Magic, and Blank Cult format of RQ2. *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 11:04:46 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] gloating I feel like gloating. I am in *two* active RuneQuest campaigns. I get about six game sessions per month. Both are mostly RQ3, each having devolved from playtesting RQ4:AiG. I referee one and play two characters in the other. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 12:43:47 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] gloating Brad Furst wrote: > > I feel like gloating. I am in *two* active RuneQuest campaigns. I > get about six game sessions per month. Both are mostly RQ3, each > having devolved from playtesting RQ4:AiG. I referee one and play two > characters in the other. :-( I don't have a group to play ANYTHING with at the moment, much less my favorite rules-sets. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 15:16:21 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] gloating Brad Furst wrote: > I feel like gloating. I am in *two* active RuneQuest campaigns. I >get about six game sessions per month. Both are mostly RQ3, each >having devolved from playtesting RQ4:AiG. I referee one and play two >characters in the other. My envy is tempered by the fact that I can't even imagine having time for six game sessions a month. I'd be happy with one or two, though... Trent who hasn't played RQ since mid-1997 (Yikes, that's coming up on 4 years!) *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 12:23:25 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? True or false? To wield a quarterstaff, a character would use the same skill as if wielding a heavy mace Two-Handed or a troll maul Two-Handed, etc. That is, it is in the same weapon skill category in the weapons chart in the books. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 12:36:29 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] having time for six game sessions a month Trent wrote: >My envy is tempered by the fact that I can't even imagine having >time for six game sessions a month. I'd be happy with one or two, >though... > >Trent >who hasn't played RQ since mid-1997 (Yikes, that's coming up on 4 years!) Often the bad news is the same as the good news, isn't it? I may be the eldest of the subscribers here (47 years old) and have no children living at home. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 16:06:52 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? Brad Furst wrote: > True or false? >To wield a quarterstaff, a character would use the same skill as if wielding a heavy mace >Two-Handed or a troll maul Two-Handed, etc. That is, it is in the >same weapon skill category in the weapons chart in the books. That's the way I've always played it (skill = '1H Sword' rather than 'Broadsword'). Not having the book here to refer to, though, I can't say whether it's the Official and Correct Answer or just something I (wrongly?) surmised. 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 Apr 2001 16:42:35 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] having time for six game sessions a month - --part1_33.132602d8.27ff843b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/01 12:48:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, brad.furst@criticalpath.com writes: > I'd be happy with one or two, > >though... > > > >Trent > >who hasn't played RQ since mid-1997 (Yikes, that's coming up on 4 years!) > > > Often the bad news is the same as the good news, isn't it? I may be > the eldest of the subscribers here (47 years old) and have no > children living at home. > > > I'm 55, was playing RQ (my version) every two weeks and am still playing in games twice a week (none are RQ, however). Steve Perrin - --part1_33.132602d8.27ff843b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/01 12:48:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brad.furst@criticalpath.com writes:


I'd be happy with one or two,
>though...
>
>Trent
>who hasn't played RQ since mid-1997 (Yikes, that's coming up on 4 years!)


Often the bad news is the same as the good news, isn't it?  I may be
the eldest of the subscribers here (47 years old) and have no
children living at home.




I'm 55, was playing RQ (my version) every two weeks and am still playing in
games twice a week (none are RQ, however).

Steve Perrin - --part1_33.132602d8.27ff843b_boundary-- *************************************************************************** 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 Apr 2001 16:42:37 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] [RQ-PDX] True or false? - --part1_e3.12d3f9da.27ff843d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/01 1:19:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, trentfs@ix.netcom.com writes: > > True or false? > >To wield a quarterstaff, a character would use the same skill as if > wielding a heavy mace > >Two-Handed or a troll maul Two-Handed, etc. That is, it is in the > >same weapon skill category in the weapons chart in the books. > > That's the way I've always played it (skill = '1H Sword' rather than > 'Broadsword'). Not having the book here to refer to, though, I can't say > whether it's the Official and Correct Answer or just something I (wrongly?) > surmised. > > Your Mileage May Vary, as might my own, but my current, off-the-top-of-my-head, statement is that using a head-heavy two-handed pole weapon is very different from using the quarterstaff. Strangely, I think you could use a maul like a quarterstaff (which is to say that quarterstaff skill would bleed over into maul skill) but you would obviously be using a top-heavy stick like a quarterstaff. A practiced but single-minded expert in maul would have no clue what you were doing. Reminds me of the time a friend of mine with SCA experience showed a fellow Army recruit how to use a pugel stick (practice weapon for using-a-rifle-as-a-melee-weapon) like a greatsword and his opponent, who trained others in pugel stick, was caught completely off guard and the recruit won. GMs should allow for a surprise effect adding extra %iles in such cases, though an expert who survives the first three or so contacts would probably adjust and apply his expertise (negating the temporary add). Steve Perrin, still messin' with the rules. - --part1_e3.12d3f9da.27ff843d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/01 1:19:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
trentfs@ix.netcom.com writes:


> True or false?
>To wield a quarterstaff, a character would use the same skill as if
wielding a heavy mace
>Two-Handed or a troll maul Two-Handed, etc.   That is, it is in the
>same weapon skill category in the weapons chart in the books.

That's the way I've always played it (skill = '1H Sword' rather than
'Broadsword').  Not having the book here to refer to, though, I can't say
whether it's the Official and Correct Answer or just something I (wrongly?)
surmised.



Your Mileage May Vary, as might my own, but my current,
off-the-top-of-my-head, statement is that using a head-heavy two-handed pole
weapon is very different from using the quarterstaff. Strangely, I think you
could use a maul like a quarterstaff (which is to say that quarterstaff skill
would bleed over into maul skill) but you would obviously be using a
top-heavy stick like a quarterstaff. A practiced but single-minded expert in
maul would have no clue what you were doing.

Reminds me of the time a friend of mine with SCA experience showed a fellow
Army recruit how to use a pugel stick (practice weapon for
using-a-rifle-as-a-melee-weapon) like a greatsword and his opponent, who
trained others in pugel stick, was caught completely off guard and the
recruit won.

GMs should allow for a surprise effect adding extra %iles in such cases,
though an expert who survives the first three or so contacts would probably
adjust and apply his expertise (negating the temporary add).

Steve Perrin, still messin' with the rules. - --part1_e3.12d3f9da.27ff843d_boundary-- *************************************************************************** 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 V4 #16 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.