From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #37 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 Thursday, April 19 2001 Volume 04 : Number 037 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Knockback Re: [RQ-RULES] why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or salamanders? Re: [RQ-RULES] Knockback Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: The Gifted [RQ-RULES] Re: The Gifted RE: [RQ-RULES] some people have a 'category bonus' that would hel p them in a field of endeavor RE: [RQ-RULES] Knockback Re: [RQ-RULES] Pete's RuneQuest NOT DEAD! [RQ-RULES] Giants 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, 16 Apr 2001 14:26:09 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Knockback In recent sessions, some playtime has been occupied by rules discussion, seemingly invoked to take advantage of what is published about Knockback. I want to inquire about Knockback and willing suspension of disbelief. RQ2's reference to Knockback refers only to the Intentional Knockback. RQ3 introduced incidental Knockback (i.e., when rolled damage exceeds the SIZe of the defender, then the defender is moved back 1 meter per 5 hit point of that excess), and continued Intentional Knockback. RQ4: AiG continued as RQ3 but adjusted parameters. In each publication, a DEXterity roll is required to remain/regain upright footing for continued combat. I think that we have no quibble about the DEXterity checks. I *am* concerned, however about assessing damage (usually ruled as 1d6 per 3 meters distance of Knockback). In private communication (edited and used with permission) I posted to Andrew Mellinger >>In RQ, occasionally an attacker causes a Knockback to the defender. >>Sometimes such a Knockback will cause additional damage to the >>defender, for example when the defender is Knocked back into an >>immovable solid object (e.g., wall/floor). Rules as printed also >>provide for this when Knocked back into a person. I think that I >>disagree with the rules which treat the other person as if a solid >>wall (for example +2d6 damage on the 2-meter Knockback whether >>colliding with a wall or a person). The rules, IIRC, also put the >>same damage upon the secondary [collidee] character. I would be >>more inclined, assuming that one can generate that much damage >>colliding with a teammate, to split the damage by ruling that the >>collidee yielded (rather than received as immovable as a a wall). Who responded > I think the damages from knockback into solid object are for >the most part ridiculous, unless you are knocked back onto a sword >or something else inherently dangerous. > Gettting knocked back into a wall isn't a big deal. Most of >getting knocked back is getting knocked off balance and moves in >that direction to keep from falling over. The knockback isn't the >sort of thing where a person is picked off their feet and thrown 10 >feet into a wall. > Really knockback is simply taking a big blow then staggering back. > Think about a combat where a person is knocked back 3 meters. >That means they come to a stop at 3 meters. If there is some object >at 3 meters then they wouldn't hit it anyway. > I've pretty much ignored the damage from knockback in every >game I've every played. I simply use knockback to give characters >(or bad guys) a chance to escape, a breather in combat, or to color >combat. Andrew and I are agreed, despite the published rules, that Knockback should not ordinarily deal damage of a magnitude like weapon damage. 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:23:11 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or salamanders? >In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to > >remember to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise > >more appealing than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother > >summoning gnomes or salamanders? > > Because that's all they had access to? Most summoners have access to > elementals via their cult which ordinarily specializes in just one > particular element. A cult like Pavis is rare and special in its > access to several elements, perhaps balancing its otherwise puny > (non-adventurous) magic. > Brad Furst I'm presently playing in the the Risklands campaign via PbIRC/PbEM, I'd love to have access to a Gnome! All the earthworks, faming work and other things that the good ol' gnome can do would be great! Also, a salamander would be fantastic for tunneling through rock, get lil' Sal to heat the rock up, toss a few buckets of water on it and watch it crack, then cart away the rubble. Much easier to drive a well that way. For combat, gnomes are not as good, but a small 1m³ gnome could get under an enemies feet and shake him up while you're swinging blows if you have it in mind speech. It would be hard to concentrate on shooting arrows at someone if a salamander with Protect 6 cast on it keeps jumping at your arrows in your quiver while you're trying to aim. If you have these little spirits, they definitely can be good allies in combat IMHO. 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:36:49 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Knockback Brad Furst wrote: > quite a bit about Knockback I used the RQ3 knockback rules as written for exactly one session before discarding them as too complex and unwiedly (FP lasted about the same length). After that for a long time I ignored knockback altogether, until I adopted Steve Perrin's special-effects system, in which intentional knockback became a special effect -- used to great effect by a couple of PCs in defending the Cradle. I still don't bother with incidental knockback and only apply damage in exceptional circumstances (such as being knocked-back into a raging bonfire, or off the side of a giant floating cradle...). 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:12:41 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: The Gifted I'd have to disagree. We're talking about professional adventurers, so maybe a comparison with professional athletes would be appropriate... If you look at pro athletes, you can definitely see a faster growth and a higher development curve amongst the truly gifted. For example, I think everyone would agree that Kobe Bryant is improving more each year than Shaq (though I'll stay out of the which-is-better argument...) Same with Tim Duncan and David Robinson - in a few short years, Tim caught up and surpassed David in most categories. If you're not into the NBA, look at whatever sports you watch - I think in most, you'll see the more talented developing faster and going further. Now, obviously the RQ rules have been designed to give the benefit to those with higher stats, but I think there is some merit to it. Actually, I just spent half the day thinking about affinities - maybe a character gets +5% for all Agility increase rolls, and a -5% in Perception increase rolls. I want a little more specialization in my campaigns and it seems like we've been going for 90% in weapons, then starting to think about what else to do... I would probably tie it into something I got from Brad - a questionnaire for starting characters with questions like, "Write down three things you believe are true." Thoughts? Jeremy Brad Furst wrote: > I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not convinced > that someone (from the real world) whose skill is at 75% by hard > work and experience despite average characteristics is any less > likely to improve by experience/training than the fellow whose skill > is at 75% by occasional work and experience while adding a bonus > arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. > > >Robert Stancliff wrote: > > > Of course a rune lord is better than a 15 year old kid to start > > >with, but play them both for five years and see if the kid isn't catching up > > >due to better category bonuses. The rune lord will have 2 or 3 skills just > > >over 100 and the kid will have 10 or more in the 80's. Plus, the kid will > > >have enough magic to give the rune lord a decent fight. He will probably > > >still lose, but not by much, and it really depends on who has been playing > > >him. > > > >I can verify this from experience. In my last campaign one of the > >PCs started out very young (not 15, but several years younger than > >the rest of the PCs; ~18) but with enormous stats. Although he > >started out clearly inferior, by the time the campaign ended after > >about 2 game years he had easily caught up with the rest of the > >party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust since they > >had real trouble improving skills much above 80-85%. > > 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. *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:26:12 +0200 From: Alexandre Lanciani Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: The Gifted Il giorno 17-04-2001 10:12, Jeremy Martin, vesper@libra.seed.net.tw ha scritto: > Actually, I just spent half the day thinking about affinities - maybe a > character > gets +5% for all Agility increase rolls, and a -5% in Perception increase > rolls. I > want a little more specialization in my campaigns and it seems like we've been > going In my (soon to be playtested) HR I let each player define a primary skill category and a secondary skill category for his character. He gets a +10 bonus to the primary skill bonus and +5 to the secondary. Since I use skill difficulties, this is a way of allowing characters to specialize in a cluster of skill, thus making improvement in that skills easier without changing the difficulty level of the skill, as it happens in C&S, for example, where the character Vocation (think Character Class without the artificial limitations) decreases the difficulty of skills related to the Vocation. Hope what I wrote makes sense... - -- Regards, Alexandre. "What came first, the idea or the perception of the idea?" *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:16:35 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] some people have a 'category bonus' that would hel p them in a field of endeavor > > Anyone who has gone on to college should be able to > > relate a case where two people in the same class (that > > is, at the same level of skill), had entirely different > > approaches to study. One struggled and worked to learn > > each new concept while the other seemed to read the book > > once and grasp the concept intuitively. The difference > > in energy expended can be significant in some cases... > > so I must say that I disagree with your expressed opinion. > But they can both earn the same score on an exam and they > both end up with the same degree, yes? After the initial > handicap is equalized, they get to the same next increment. > I will grant that in a self-paced school one will get there > faster than the other, but in Runequest the tests and skill > checks are not self-paced. Rather, the characters roll for > increase after the same arbitrary time period (usually a week > of rest and contemplation, right?). > Brad I feel that there is a key conceptual difference... the student with the 'bonus' spent less time studying the one subject and was able to go on to another subject. In essence, he learned more in the same amount of time. This would be equivalent to RQ3 letting you subtract your 'bonus' to determine how long you will need to train to get a check. The current experience check system says that the probability of learning the next lesson is easier for the person with the 'bonus', so he will not have to re-study a topic as often as the more normal student. Again he is able to learn more in a general amount of time because he learns more lessons on the first try. 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:51:46 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Knockback > > I think the damages from knockback into solid object are for > > the most part ridiculous, unless you are knocked back onto a sword > > or something else inherently dangerous. > > Getting knocked back into a wall isn't a big deal. Most of > > getting knocked back is getting knocked off balance and moves in > > that direction to keep from falling over. I certainly agree in general with your sentiment. Most of the RQ3 damage from knockback is canceled by various protections and has no meaning. In real life getting pushed back into a wall can hurt but requires a severe blow to the head to be dangerous. The damage should be much worse if you miss your DEX roll and fall back than if you make the roll and stagger back. Also, if you stagger back, the damage should be reduced for each meter you are able to move back since you are getting your balance back. My biggest complaint is that knockback, as written, can be so great that the person who attacks first is usually immune to a retaliation blow. We currently resolve movement before combat so the person knocked back is out of range of his foe. If he cannot reach another enemy, he may well lose an action. In my house rules based on RQ4 I made knockback harder and smaller, and generally, we have practically quite checking for it. I like seeing a little knockback occasionally so I suggest that it be based on overcoming SIZ and STR normally and overcoming SIZ alone on any special. The DEX roll should be checked immediately to determine if you are still on your feet. If so, then the damage in incidental. If you fall, then apply the damage to half of defenses. Frankly, at this point, the damage has become so great that you may not be functional anyway. You have just taken 25 to 40 damage in one location and incapacitation is a real problem. 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:19:28 -0500 From: "J & Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Pete's RuneQuest NOT DEAD! Way cool. Haven't had time to delve deeply, but I'm damned impressed with the Dodge HR. J. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:15 PM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Pete's RuneQuest NOT DEAD! My posts have been bouncing for about two months. Man, am I frustrated. Here's hoping Tal's right about the new address... Lots of big news, here are the highlights. 1. Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! is NOT DEAD. The domain was cancelled for ten days due to a screw-up by the registrar. During that time all email sent to me bounced. It's all back up now. 2. There have been A TON of updates to the site over the last few months. The Chaos Project has been moved to a new server, and the old material has been numbered for easy dice-rolling and archived online. There are about 300 Chaotic Features and Found Items apiece, and over 50 magic items. Plus the new Chaos Project sections are ready for use. 3. I've added a RuneQuest quiz to the site. So far no one has received a perfect score! Also added are four polls. There's too much other stuff that's been added and redesigned, so I'm going to let it go at that...man, I hope this gets through... ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI The New Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: 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. *************************************************************************** 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, 19 Apr 2001 11:23:24 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Giants The characters in my campaign are thinking that they need to fight and defeat a giant. They don't, really, but I am allowing them to plan for a variety of contingencies. Meanwhile, however, I am hoping to be able to describe to them the size, maybe even put a plastic action figure on the table to compare vis a vis their 25mm metal miniatures. I think the SIZe parameters changed from RQ2 to RQ3 and were never very good at translating SIZe to height for giants, anyway. How big is a giant (for example the giant in Snake Pipe Hollow or the kneeling giant in Balastor's Barracks? Are the SIZe and STRength and CONstitution and AP and damage values, which are published, believable? Are gaming parameters going to interfere with "willing suspension of disbelief?" If we know the RQ SIZe of a creature like a giant, do we have a good idea of its height and mass? 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #37 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.