From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #66 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 Thursday, June 7 2001 Volume 04 : Number 066 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) Re: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever [RQ-RULES] RE: RQ Forever RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever Re: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever RE: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? 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: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:57 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) Andrew Barton wrote: > > and I like a solid rules system that handles combat fairly > > So do your player characters lose their fights about half the time? That would imply that the opponents average out to being evenly matched with the PCs, perhaps they're clever enough only to take on solitary anemic Trollkin. ;-) > > and doesn't leave it in the hands of storytellers. > > That of course is the underlying difference in design aims between RQ and > HW. > > Hero Wars is -explicitly- aimed at representing and re-creating myths and > stories, not reality. > > In some areas, I think HW/Glorantha contains mechanisms and approaches > which are also useful for a more 'simulationist' approach - which was why I > invoked Greg on the subject of Illusion. Speaking of Gloranthan Illusion: one of the items I received in a recent shipment of gaming materials from storage is the old "RuneQuest Companion" which I'd forgotten has an article on precisely that topic, and which I don't think has beem mentioned before on this thread. 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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:22:53 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) > That would imply that the opponents average out to being evenly matched > with the PCs, perhaps they're clever enough only to take on solitary > anemic Trollkin. ;-) > For those who might find it whimsically amusing, that's exactly the sort of foe who ended up killing Rurik the Rune Lord, the example character from the first two editions of RQ. The little bugger had help (but so did Rurik), but all it took was one critical hit and the fact that Rurik had used up a goodly chunk of his POW on a previous DI and hadn't earned it all back, yet. This is one of the draws, and drawbacks, of RQ. 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: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:06:51 -0500 From: "J and/or Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever > Questions for the list > > Would you pay a reasonable price for a download of more expanded rules, even > though you have the core rules in hand already (or can get them easily from > the listmeister)? I'd buy it for under US$20. > Do you have any suggestions for a name for the rules, since I can't call > them RuneQuest? RQ4.5--Steve Perrin's Home-Brooed Update to the Classic Roleplaying Game *************************************************************************** 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, 7 Jun 2001 08:25:18 +0100 From: "Andy M Evans" Subject: [RQ-RULES] RE: RQ Forever Mr. Perrin wrote: "Would you pay a reasonable price for a download of more expanded rules, even though you have the core rules in hand already (or can get them easily from the listmeister)? "Do you have any suggestions for a name for the rules, since I can't call them RuneQuest?" YES! and ANYTHING YOU BLOODY WELL LIKE, COS ITS STILL RUNEQUEST TO ME! Regards Andy. *************************************************************************** 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, 7 Jun 2001 11:04:07 +0300 From: "Mikko Korhonen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever Hi all, Steve's mail forced me to go delurking... > > Would you pay a reasonable price for a download of more expanded > rules, even > though you have the core rules in hand already (or can get them > easily from > the listmeister)? > Are the core rules on-line somewhere? I have an old version of them, but would like to read the latest version. For reasonable price i'd love to buy them. Hey, i also offer my help in publishing ;) ! > Do you have any suggestions for a name for the rules, since I can't call > them RuneQuest? Fantasy Questing? Cheers, Mikko Korhonen *************************************************************************** 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, 7 Jun 2001 12:27:41 +0200 From: Peter Keel Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) * on the Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:22:53PM -0700, Steve Perrin was blubbering: > The little bugger had help (but so did Rurik), but all it took was one > critical hit and the fact that Rurik had used up a goodly chunk of his POW > on a previous DI and hadn't earned it all back, yet. > > This is one of the draws, and drawbacks, of RQ. That's what I like. It's realistic, it's mean, and even the strongest character can get killed by bad luck. Peter - -- "Any good Unix security engineer can clean up any Unix box. But I'm not sure there are people even within Microsoft who know how to clean up an NT box." -- Michael Zbouray *************************************************************************** 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, 07 Jun 2001 10:30:50 -0000 From: "Meirion Hopkins" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever From: Dario Coral Should the rules book be in a acrobat format, ready to print? Yes, I buy it. I _sincerely_ think RQ was been the best role playing system ever made, and I never shifted to others," new", storytelling systems. I also like Glorantha, and the "divorce" was a really sad think for me. Another thinking; maybe I am mad but... there is a remote possibility to buy the brand "RuneQuest" from Hasbro? Freeng RQ from limbo - ------------------ I don't think this a likely possiblity. IIRC, at the last Convulsion Greg said he'd made enquiries about getting the rites to RQ back from Hasbro, but had had no joy (however given thatit was a year ago, I might be remebering it a bit differently to what he actually said!) He was however hopeful to be able to one day reclaim it. Meirion _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:14:01 -0000 From: "Meirion Hopkins" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever >Robert Stanclif > You are certainly not alone in most of this. Basically everyone on >this >list prefers having a more wargame style of play, or we would have shifted >to the Hero Wars list long ago... I don't even know where to find it. I >have read the first two HW books closely and I find that the game probably >has more flaws and loopholes in it than RQ ever had. Flaw or feature? :o) I have to put my hand up at this point as a non-wargamer and fan of high fantasy. I switched from RQ to BODGERS, then Pendragon Pass and was in the process of modifying a FUDGE-Pendragon fusion I'd found online for Glorantha when HW hit the shelves. The main difficulty I was having was in the area of magic. HW did exactly what I wanted and so I switched to that! Although I still enjoy RQ when I get the chance, I far prefer the way HW runs. I'd gotten a bit fed up with our weekly session (which only last about three hours max) being take up entirely by a single combat, so used the Pendragon rules - where combat is far, far quicker. Since starting to run HW, I have found that although combat can take as long as, it can be far more involved - rather than the mechanical it's strike rank 6/7/8: everyone roll attack/parry; which long RQ combats could become. There is a greater opportunity to do great, courageous and stupid deeds: with less chance of dying in the process! (Again, flaw or feature? I think feature.) RQ and HW are completely different systems and target different styles of play. However, ultimately, I'd say that its more down to the group you play with in the end. My RQ diehard chums, who had misgivings about HW for the reasons generally expressed, thought the game was excellent: mainly because of the freedom it engendered in character generation and use of skills in unusual ways. They are also better at using the system: being used to casting spells, they make much more use of the augmenting and other facets of the system. My club group, where we had slipped into a more freeform style of gaming previously (through games like FUDGE & Space 1889 and general GMing style) have much less grasp of the system and don't really make use of the facets available to them. So, in the end, I guess its a case of horses for courses. Cheers Meirion PS For those interested, details of the HW and HW-Rules lists can be found on the Issaries Inc. website www.issaries.com or www.glorantha.com the [Subscribe to news notification] at the bottom of page For those Glorantha-philes not into HW, the HW list is 'generally' rules free, being intended for setting games in Glorantha, rather than running HW (and it's nowhere near as esoteric as the Glorantha-Digest) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:47:46 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Back to Illusions (was: Combat models) > Steve Wrote: > For those who might find it whimsically amusing, that's > exactly the sort of foe who ended up killing Rurik the > Rune Lord > The little bugger had help (but so did Rurik), but all it > took was one critical hit and the fact that Rurik had used > up a goodly chunk of his POW on a previous DI and hadn't > earned it all back, yet. Of course, this was the cited cause of death for Balastor when he stood at the door of the Barracks near Griffin Gate. It also nearly killed my character, Haldane, who later found Balastor's axe and allied the spirit. If enough scrub fighter swing at you long enough, you can be killed. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter if you are the great hero, Argrath, or even Harreck. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Hero Wars makes it impossible for 1000 normal fighters to kill Harreck since his skill is so much higher, they will never succeed at an attack. Action points don't matter if your opponent has more than two mastery on you. Even one full mastery is almost insurmountable and requires the most extreme luck. 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, 06 Jun 2001 13:46:43 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? I've never played in a campaign using RQ earlier than RQ2. Is it true that those earlier rules do not require characters to roll POWx5 (plus magic-bonus minus encumbrance) in order to cast Battle Magic? Is it important (for RuneQuest? for Glorantha? for "game balance"?) to require characters in RQ3 or RQ4 to roll POWx5 (plus magic-bonus minus encumbrance) in order to cast Spirit Magic? It seems like this (dropping the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play. 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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:55:08 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? - --part1_4d.ca3c4d6.2851361c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/7/01 2:30:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad writes: > It seems like this (dropping > the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play. Oh sure, play would be quickened by a roll or two, but then everyone would _always_ be getting their spells offf successfully. Which, of course either would or wouldn't be such a bad thing, depending on what kind of game you're wanting. I'm guessing with this supposition, that you're still gonna be using resistance rolls, right? -Ken- - --part1_4d.ca3c4d6.2851361c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/7/01 2:30:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad writes:


It seems like this (dropping
the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play.


  Oh sure, play would be quickened by a roll or two, but then everyone would
_always_ be getting their spells offf successfully. Which, of course either
would or wouldn't be such a bad thing, depending on what kind of game you're
wanting. I'm guessing with this supposition, that you're still gonna be using
resistance rolls, right?
 -Ken-
   

- --part1_4d.ca3c4d6.2851361c_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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:55:41 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? - ---- Brad Furst wrote: > I've never played in a campaign using RQ earlier than RQ2. Is it true > that > those earlier rules do not require characters to roll POWx5 (plus > magic-bonus minus encumbrance) in order to cast Battle Magic? > > Is it important (for RuneQuest? for Glorantha? for "game balance"?) > to > require characters in RQ3 or RQ4 to roll POWx5 (plus magic-bonus minus > > encumbrance) in order to cast Spirit Magic? It seems like this (dropping > > the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play. I have played both ways. Droping the POWx5 rule does speed the play somewhat and is usually not a big deal, unless a party member or the enemy are using sorcery. Sorcery users are at a disadvantage because of this since they must still roll to cast, while spirit magicians do not. Leon Kirshtein (No good deed shall go unpunished.) ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:45:50 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? At 03:55 PM 6/7/01 -0400, Ken wrote: >In a message dated 6/7/01 2:30:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad writes: >>It seems like this (dropping >>the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play. > >I'm guessing with this supposition, that you're still gonna be using >resistance rolls, right? > -Ken- Yes, I would expect to continue resistance rolls. I was just wondering whether rolling for spirit magic casting was one of those details, like counting Fatigue, that might get dropped without serious consequences. ____ Brad *************************************************************************** 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, 07 Jun 2001 14:50:10 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? At 03:55 PM 6/7/01 -0400, Leon wrote: >I have played both ways. Droping the POWx5 rule does speed the play >somewhat and is usually not a big deal, unless a party member or the >enemy are using sorcery. > >Sorcery users are at a disadvantage because of this since they must still >roll to cast, while spirit magicians do not. Maybe sorcerers are rare enough or skilled enough that this wouldn't show disparity often. Many sorcery spells are cast well in advance, so dicing for the casting might be moot. NPC sorcerers can be designed with ~95% chance to cast combat spells like Palsy. A player's sorcerer, however, might feel disadvantaged compared to theist companions. ____ Brad *************************************************************************** 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 #66 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.