From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #71 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 Wednesday, June 13 2001 Volume 04 : Number 071 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts Re: [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts (was Not-RuneQuest) Re: [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons RE: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest [RQ-RULES] BRP and WoTC Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest [RQ-RULES] Non-sequitor regarding spirit combat revision [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest 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, 13 Jun 2001 00:30:36 +0100 From: David Ford Subject: [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts IMHO Martial Arts as a skill is not necessary and "relatively" unrealistic. A martial artist would have high Punch, Kick, Grapple skills. The high level of these skills would be what made his or her hands/feet a deadly weapon. I believe that our traditional western boxing (relying on Punch) isn't that inferior [doing half-damage] to say a Karate or Kung Fu punch. One idea a friend of mine worked on was having specialized Punches, Kicks, Throws with fancy names such as "Leaping Dragon Kick" and "Centipede Strike" which would be harder to learn than your standard Kick or Punch, but would do either a little more damage, or hit faster, or hit more accurately. Maybe those players/Referees who want Martial Arts would be willing to use these or somewhat similar rules despite the slightly extra work involved. In Dragon Pass, Prax, and Peloria (using Glorantha examples) I don't see much need for "un-armed martial arts" as most people use knives, swords, or spears (or magic) to settle civil and military disputes. So IMHO drop MA altogether and save the Kung Fu for an oriental book. David *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Jun 2001 19:49:04 EDT From: DaveGleffe@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts (was Not-RuneQuest) In my own workings of the BRP System, Martial Arts can be a simple or complex undertaking when it comes to realism and fairness. Since most 'true' martial artists spend so much of their youth training and learning their craft they are lacking when it comes to more worldly skills. Why not, then, allow the martial artist to devote skill points to martial art manuevers and attacks. The Palladium game, Ninjas and Superspies, does a good job of breaking down different styles and also looks at different methods of striking. On the issue of doing double rolled damage, it is possible the designer choose this rule to reflect the mystic nature of Chi. Bruce Lee is a prime example of the damage that chi can do, if you happen to watch his movies. Personally, I think it is up to the GM and his/her players as to what would work best in their game. Some like it hot, some don't. *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Jun 2001 19:52:45 EDT From: DaveGleffe@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Martial Arts Dave makes an interesting point, however, martial arts need not be limited to kung-fu or ninja type characters to be an effective part of role play. Besides, martial artists can provide very interesting NPCs for the GM to foil the players with. Imagine, Joe the Bruiser with his long sword of world destruction swings at the annoying person in front of him when all of a sudden, his sword is gone! Using some imagination and common sense, martial arts can be a practical element of any rpg. By the way, I didn't mention this in my first post, if anyone would like to see my martial arts rules for BRPs, drop me a line. *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 10:04:55 +1000 From: Robert McArthur Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest bjm10@cornell.edu wrote: ... > As for actual rule systems, here are some things that I've decided in my > years of running RQ3 (indeed, from the very year it was released): .. > The Sorcery system in the RQ3 rules had good basic ideas, but Free INT > didn't work. Use another way to limit the sorcerer--depending upon his > skills. ... Very good thoughts from Brian. Can I add that we have what I think is a quite workable sorcery system from Sandy. It'd be sad to ignore that in any new 'product'. Cheers Robert *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Jun 2001 21:31:17 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons > Whether this can be leveraged into a win > against great odds is another issue, but Hero Wars just escalates until a > weak player has precisely 0% chance. two points: (1) You're talking as though there was no magic in the game. You can't assess HW properly without taking into account the rules on magic and augmenting skills (2) The HW rule for 1,000 soldiers versus Harrek is basically: is this a part of the story that player actions should be able to make a difference to? If not, beating up 1,000 ordinary soldiers comes under the heading of 'a task no self-respecting Superhero should ever fail at' and you don't even roll. A more detailed response would require an extended discussion of HW mechanics which I've been assuming is off-topic for this list. Andrew *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 15:04:58 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest Nice. With those comments, I'll add my name to the list of 'aye's for buying a downloadable version. (I live in Taiwan, so a hardcopy doesn't really appeal to me.) As to the damage question, I've been following a rule of thumb that each 6 points should raise the minimum by one. Thus, if you want to do up to 24 points, it would be 4D6, 15 would be D10+D5, 28 would be 2D8+2D6, etc. This makes extremes of damage a little more rare and means an 18-point Evoke Lightning can't do 1 or 2 and probably won't do 3 points (which is quite a let-down after two rounds of chanting, let me tell you...). Also, for your example below, I would suggest taking your total, minus one to really represent a midpoint, at least for spells - I realize the damage charts can take this into account. But a 10 point spell would average 11 (or 11.5 with my suggestion), which just doesn't seem right... Finally, I would like to put in a request for this to be D20 based. I use it (really just RQ1 or 2, which went by 5% increments, divided by 5), and it solves several of the problems I've heard of here: 1. With different colored D20's, it's really easy to roll a whole round worth of dice at once, thus speading up combat. 2. In my rules a skill over 15 lets you apply a penalty to your skill and their opposing skill. Thus a master locksmith (skill 25) can apply a -10 penalty and make locks 75% of the time that are really hard to pick (the lockpicker also gets the -10). And a master swordsman is quite hard to parry. If you have two great warriors, instead of them swinging for half an hour, hoping to get through, they just apply pretty hefty penalties (reversing swings at the last second, twisting around his guard, etc.) to make it a lot harder to parry. Thoughts? Debate? Jeremy > 8. Perhaps the Intensity table in the Sorcery chapter could be used for > this? So you would add a STR bonus (say 3) with a weapon value (say 8) and a > Bladesharp (say 2) and get 13, which means you roll 1d20 and 1d6? This uses > my system of taking the value of the intensity as the midpoint of the dice > thrown. > > On this subject, something to throw open to the list. > > I did my table based on the idea that the shallowest curve is best. So I go > for the minium number of the largest possible dice to get the highest value > permitted. Thus, in the above exampe I used 1d20 and 1d6, getting a 2-26 > range, rather than, say, 2d8 (for the weapon value) + 1d6 (for the Strength > bonus) + 1d4 (for the bladesharp), getting 4-26 range and a much deeper curv > e. The odds of an average roll of 13-17 on the four dice is much greater > than the average of 13-15 on the two dice. Which do people think is a better > idea, both from the viewpoint of authenticity and from gameplay? > > And do you think this gives too high a number and the intensity value > should be the maximum effect? Thus, the max total would be 13 and I would > roll a d10 and a d3 or a d8, a d3 and a d2. > > Thoughts? > > 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, 13 Jun 2001 10:32:17 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities Adam : > Ryan Dancy did state on the Open Gaming list that he didn't > want to see any of the non d20 RPG systems Wizards owns or > controls back in print because of the theory of network > externalities. ??? ... Because of the wha' ... ???? What is this theory ? Julian Lord PS I assume that it involves WotC making lotsa lolly ... ? *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 08:37:42 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons > (1) You're talking as though there was no magic in the game. > You can't assess HW properly without taking into account the > rules on magic and augmenting skills. Magic is a non-issue since Harrek has more than the 1000 victims with weapons. They augment by about 3 and he augments by about 16. It is possible that about 10 or 20 archers could be considered capable of augmenting one fighter with enough hit bonuses to approach Harrek's skill, but it won't take long for the guy to drop. An interesting point on the other side is that Greg's stories often have people taking actions who would be completely incapable of doing so in RQ. HW can be used to allow fighting with 'incapacitating' damage... it's just story-telling effects until someone runs out of Action points. 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, 13 Jun 2001 08:56:56 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest > Finally, I would like to put in a request for this to > be D20 based. I use it (really just RQ1 or 2, which > went by 5% increments, divided by 5), and it solves > several of the problems I've heard of here If you are intent on a simplistic game, then this will help, but it forces experience gains to be 5% and kills the subtle adjustments needed for having different difficulties for skills. I can see a general method of writing bad guys with d20 while good guys stay d100. This would speed combat for the referee while players retain the resolution of RQ3. 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, 13 Jun 2001 10:44:00 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] BRP and WoTC The terms of the license that finally got worked out between Chaosium and Avalon Hill were something like this, if I understand the press releases aright: Chaosium gets full rights to BRP. Avalon Hill gets no rights to create nor restrict any new BRP game. Avalon Hill gets rights to the RuneQuest TRADEMARK only. Hasbro only has the trademark, not a restriction upon developing BRP games, as far as I understand the old license. *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 22:55:49 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest Not really simplistic. More, I'm extending (and speeding up) the curve a bit and making dice rolls faster. We now have people up at 25 (125%) and higher, with more options. ("Do I split attacks, give my opponent a penalty or go for the higher chance for a special?") I guess I don't like spending quite so long at the middle numbers, so 5% increments gets them up to where it's not so much luck as planning. And at 75%, there's still a lot of luck - 1 in 4 chance of missing a parry. I guess I prefer getting hit because my opponent can split attacks or gives us both a big penalty (superior skill)... I also use this system because I'm in Taiwan and, with only one player, I have to run characters too. The player would sometimes get bored when I had a character or two and a couple monsters go in a row and D20 speeds that up a lot. I see your point about using it just for the bad guys, but I don't think much is lost and I don't like different systems for the good guys and the bad guys. RQ is cool because everyone has the same potential and (roughly) starting point. Jeremy Robert Stancliff wrote: > > Finally, I would like to put in a request for this to > > be D20 based. I use it (really just RQ1 or 2, which > > went by 5% increments, divided by 5), and it solves > > several of the problems I've heard of here > > If you are intent on a simplistic game, then this will help, but it > forces experience gains to be 5% and kills the subtle adjustments needed for > having different difficulties for skills. > I can see a general method of writing bad guys with d20 while good guys > stay d100. This would speed combat for the referee while players retain the > resolution of RQ3. > 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. *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 10:47:11 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Non-sequitor regarding spirit combat revision > >Spirit combat is broken and always has been. The concept is great, but > >execution simply doesn't work. However, a lot of RQ fans are wedded to > >the contest of POW mechanism. How many of them would want to replace > >ordinary combat with a contest of CON? I would much rather see POW used > >as a "spiritual" STR/CON (use INT for "spiritual" DEX/SIZ) and then have > >spiritual combat skills. These could be improved by experience in areas > >where one is prone to being attacked by spirits. > > Remind me, then, what you use for the spirit combat skill % of an > elemental and of other spirits commonly sought for capture and > binding. Gee, Idunno--what does one use for the "claw" skill % of a wild animal? *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jun 2001 10:59:01 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest > 3. Interesting take on Martial Arts. I was hard put to develop a Martial > Arts skill back when I first did it for RQ3, since just improving skill did > the same thing. These days, however, I've tied it into my "number of > successes" system so that extra successes in it can be used for damage or > additional defense, etc. So I'll keep it if only because some players are > enamored of the idea of being able to "do" martial arts. Fine--but it should also apply equally to armed combat. Look at how "martial arts" were used in the real world--when sharp things were fairly common, "martial artists" concentrated on sharp things. Only when sharp things were not permitted or available did they resort to unarmed combat. The whole "an open hand defeats all steel" is just propaganda used to impress the tourist trade. If unarmed combat is so all-powerful, weapons would never have become so popular. > 7. Spirit magic was often described in psionic terms. It felt that way to me, sometimes. Thus, for a "psionic" world, maybe the character would have to engage in "spirit combat" with himself to learn a new ability... > I did my table based on the idea that the shallowest curve is best. So I go Shallow curve is more to my liking, too. > And do you think this gives too high a number and the intensity value > should be the maximum effect? Thus, the max total would be 13 and I would > roll a d10 and a d3 or a d8, a d3 and a d2. The max number in the first version feels too high to me, too. D10+d3 sounds good. > From: MurfNMurf@aol.com > MArtist double rolled weapon damage with a MA success. Would a MArtist > _really_ be inflicting any more damage with a strike than someone who's > brawling in a plain old bar fight, or not? What is the difference between a martial artist and a swordsman? Is not a swordsman a martial artist? > What is it exactly that set MAs and plain old Natural Weapons apart, if > not for the MArtist's ability to somehow strike more effectively? But this also applies to the use of weapons. I've practiced cutting inanimate objects with swords--there is a lot of skill involved. > I'd heard previously about this or that MArtist having his hands-n-feet > registered as Deadly Weapons. If he's not delivering any more damage with his Doesn't happen, never existed, propaganda for the tourist trade. A karateka punching someone is considered to be using "deadly force". A BOXER punching someone is considered to be using "deadly force". But boxers aren't "martial artists" according to many gamers... > strikes than your average guy, what is so Deadly about these Deadly Weapons? > Does the training behind MAs then reflect an increased ability to aim > blows? The same principles apply to the use of weapons. > Are MArtists somehow able to imcrease their chances of delivering Special > and Critical Hits in a way that isn't tied to their skill % like everyone > else's are? See above. > Is it all just (Egads!) PR and mystique then? Yup. > BTW, I believe that Cyberpunk's different Martial Arts styles each give > bonuses or minuses to a list of different manuevers, to be performed using > fist, kick, headbutt, etc, as opposed to the way RQ allows the doubling of > damage across the board. The problem is this--all this spiffy stuff is given to unarmed combat but nothing to armed combat. My experience with studying both tells me that they are far more similar than they are dissimilar. It was not until the 1700s, and then only in Europe and European colonies that armed and unarmed combat had some sort of grand divide erected between them, and that was because unarmed combat was seen as plebian. Oddly enough, there is one place where D&D is actually MORE realistic than most other games: The idea of a general "combat" ability. Solid training in the principles of combat makes a big difference. D&D overplays this trait, but it bears consideration. *************************************************************************** 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 #71 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.