From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #74 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, June 18 2001 Volume 04 : Number 074 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 [RQ-RULES] Re: OT BRP Spacegaming (was Stunning in Runequest 3) Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: OT BRP Spacegaming (was Stunning in Runequest 3) re: [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 Re: [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas (spirit combat) 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:13:08 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities Adam : > > What is this theory ? > > That D&D succeds because everyone knows how to play it > rather than for any innate qualities. > > Thus every thing should use the same system, so they will > know how to play it. Ah ! Leading inevitably to the "D&D Sucks" Theory (AKA kneejerk reaction by bored gamers looking for something different) ? Right ... We've all been through this once before, in Gary Gygax' day ... Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ... In other words, now is the ideal time to publish the new "not-RQ" ? ;-) Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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, 18 Jun 2001 08:47:50 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 As I may have mentioned, I am quite partial to Cyberpunk, and I especially like the 'stun' rolls that players constantly fall victim to. This allows PCs to be taken prisoner, rather than fighting to the bitter end, but I'm not quite sure how it would work in Runequest with it's lack of high velocity weapons. Still, I have clear memories of being battered into semi-consciousness during a fist fight when I was younger, and I can see a place for this sort of mechanic. To directly transpose the CP mechanic, every time you took damage you would roll 1d100 and compare it on the resistance table with your Hit Points x 5. Fumble : Lose consciousness for 1d6 x 1d6 Strike Ranks. Fail : Lose 3d6 Strike ranks of actions, the character is still conscious, just battered and unable to act. Succeed : No effect. Special : Adrenalin rush, no need to roll for 3d6 Strike Ranks. Critical : Adrenalin rush, no need to roll for 1d6 x 1d6 Strike Ranks. Now, this would be good if you had only one or two players, but any more than that and it's another layer of complication on an already complicated system. Luckily for me, my players are very quick, have their attacks, parries and damage worked out by the time I get to them and scrupulously watch their own Fatigue, Magic and Hit Points, so I can contemplate this sort of thing! 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:39:59 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 Jim Laurie wrote: > > As I may have mentioned, I am quite partial to Cyberpunk, and I Weirdly enough, my next campaign is planed as a 'break' from RQ; using Cyberpunk for the core rules, I'm mixing equal parts Star Frontiers, Ringworld, and Niven's "the Damned" series of books... - -- 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:40:47 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: Thomas Zunder Subject: [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:54:56 -0700 > From: "Steve Perrin" > Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Not-RuneQuest > > 4. I think my current Spirit Combat rules are similar to what you are > saying, but I haven't developed any specialized skills. I fully agree that spirit combat should drop resistance tables, in fact drop resistance table and go for opposed rolls with numbers of successes stacked against each other. One could always give an opposing force a skill of difficulty * 5. So if you used to say overcome 15 POW, then it's your skill versus a 75% skill. The resistance table was and are cool but they don't scale well and are a mechanic looking for a game. Maybe we could invent a whole rpg based on it, but not today. A groups of 4-5 specialist skills for spirit combat would be good. Or a general 'Attck Characteristic' skill with a modifier saying which Characteristics can be chosen. A shaman might pick up a few, spirits would be defined by the ones they attack. 'Attack [Magic Points]' would be most common, but you could also have odd stuff like 'Attack [Sword Skill]'. (losing 5% * damage rather than 1 char point) Also shouldn't spiritual damage be figured on the POW of the spirit? Use the Damage Bonus table but with POW*2 instead of STR+SIZ. Say a base of 1d3+db, maybe a fetish allows 1d6+db. Spiritual armour, etc etc. > 8. Perhaps the Intensity table in the Sorcery chapter could be used for [damage from weapons] Possibly but if we go down this route then it has to be a one-off calculation before gameplay. Why not use a fixed damage from STR+SIZ and then modify it by weapon type? (2H is double, 2H weapons always seemed understated in RQ, short swords and knives half and so on?) _______________________________________________________________________ FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:59:10 +0200 From: Peter Keel Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 * on the Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 07:39:59PM -0400, Tal Meta was blubbering: > Jim Laurie wrote: > > > > As I may have mentioned, I am quite partial to Cyberpunk, and I > > Weirdly enough, my next campaign is planed as a 'break' from RQ; using > Cyberpunk for the core rules, I'm mixing equal parts Star Frontiers, > Ringworld, and Niven's "the Damned" series of books... Same with me. We're playing Traveller with a mix of RQ3, Ringworld and Cthulhu; most parts taken from RQ3. And we also played Shadowrun with those rules. Weapon-conversions still at http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/2050.html (german, sorry, but I'll translate it if someone really wants to use it). Peter *************************************************************************** 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, 18 Jun 2001 11:15:22 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: OT BRP Spacegaming (was Stunning in Runequest 3) - --part1_11b.7257a9.285f750a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/01 5:06:00 AM Central Daylight Time, Peter comments: > Same with me. We're playing Traveller with a mix of RQ3, Ringworld > and Cthulhu; most parts taken from RQ3. And we also played > Shadowrun with those rules. Weapon-conversions still at > http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/2050.html > (german, sorry, but I'll translate it if someone really wants to > use it). What? Space Weapons for BRP? Why of _course_ someone would really want to use it (namely _me_). I'm heading toward the BRP Frontier spacewise myself; having _finally_ gotten sick of both the Traveller(clunk) and MegaTrav (do I have enough volume to install a jukebox?) ship building rules, among other things. After playing in a friend's Star Trek game using Cyberpunk, I thought I'd use CP, with Maximum Metal filling in on the Vehicle Construction Rules. Everything seemed to be going fine until I discovered that CP doesn't _have_ any rules for designing spaceships. So, I gravitated toward Mekton Z; a game with a similar system to CP, but designed to ape Japimation, so spaceship rules weren't a problem. It uses 2 different scales; character-level, which uses CPish blasters and combat armor and the like; and ship-scale, using "Kills" as a gauge of how much protection or offensive power various ship armor or weaponry provides, with a "Kill" being equal to X amount of character-scale damage (25pts in Mekton, 40pts in CP, btw). Being most familiar with the assorted BRP games, I decided to drop using the CP/Mekton character rules and stick with what I know; BRP. Looking forward to running a BRP space game for the gang soon :) Master of the Flying Gillotine - --part1_11b.7257a9.285f750a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/01 5:06:00 AM Central Daylight Time, Peter comments:


Same with me. We're playing Traveller with a mix of RQ3, Ringworld
and Cthulhu; most parts taken from RQ3. And we also played
Shadowrun with those rules. Weapon-conversions still at
http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/2050.html
(german, sorry, but I'll translate it if someone really wants to
use it).


   What? Space Weapons for BRP? Why of _course_ someone would really want to
use it (namely _me_). I'm heading toward the BRP Frontier spacewise myself;
having _finally_ gotten sick of both the Traveller(clunk) and MegaTrav (do I
have enough volume to install a jukebox?) ship building rules, among other
things.
  After playing in a friend's Star Trek game using Cyberpunk, I thought I'd
use CP, with Maximum Metal filling in on the Vehicle Construction Rules.
Everything seemed to be going fine until I discovered that CP doesn't _have_
any rules for designing spaceships.
 So, I gravitated toward Mekton Z; a game with a similar system to CP, but
designed to ape Japimation, so spaceship rules weren't a problem. It uses 2
different scales; character-level, which uses CPish blasters and combat armor
and the like; and ship-scale, using "Kills" as a gauge of how much protection
or offensive power various ship armor or weaponry provides, with a "Kill"
being equal to X amount of character-scale damage (25pts in Mekton, 40pts in
CP, btw).
  Being most familiar with the assorted BRP games, I decided to drop using
the CP/Mekton character rules and stick with what I know; BRP.
  
  Looking forward to running a BRP space game for the gang soon :)
  Master of the Flying Gillotine

  
- --part1_11b.7257a9.285f750a_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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:24:37 +0200 From: Peter Keel Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: OT BRP Spacegaming (was Stunning in Runequest 3) * on the Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:15:22AM -0400, MurfNMurf@aol.com was blubbering: > In a message dated 6/18/01 5:06:00 AM Central Daylight Time, Peter comments: > > > > Same with me. We're playing Traveller with a mix of RQ3, Ringworld > > and Cthulhu; most parts taken from RQ3. And we also played > > Shadowrun with those rules. Weapon-conversions still at > > http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/2050.html > > (german, sorry, but I'll translate it if someone really wants to > > use it). > > What? Space Weapons for BRP? Why of _course_ someone would really want to > use it (namely _me_). I'm heading toward the BRP Frontier spacewise myself; > having _finally_ gotten sick of both the Traveller(clunk) and MegaTrav (do I > have enough volume to install a jukebox?) ship building rules, among other > things. There's the rest: http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/ sepcifically the wapons converted from Traveller: http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/RuneQuest/Space/3000.html and here http://killer.discordia.ch/Roleplay/Traveller/ more, including but not limited to weapons, equipment and rules. Rules should be mostly in BRP'ish manner, Equipment probably uses some mixed style. Armor-class almost certainly means BRP'ish AC. But the equipment- and weaponlists shouldn't be a problem to be translated, I do own a lot of traveller-material in both german and english. I expect to come around doing it real soon now, I'm currently revising the material anyway. Ship-building rules are currently lacking (I use those provided by fire fusion & steel), and my ship to ship combat rules are considered to be a a tabletop... 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: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:07:53 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marko_Per=E4l=E4?= Subject: re: [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas Interesting idea for spirit combat. Here is my proposal: Both fighters in spirit combat divide their POW with 20. For each 20 the opponent loses automatically d3 mp:s. What is left is used in d20 throw. If throw is under the leftover, opponent loses one more d3 mp:s. This way higher POW means stronger effects and faster results. I always hated when a POW 33 hero has pounder a week POW 13 ghost for six mr:s when more mundane opponents could be cut in half in one mr. To prevent shamans from becoming underpowered it might be proper to allow them to use their fetch's POW added to their own when fighting spirits mundanelly. (not in spirit plane where fetch does not follow, of course) Example: A POW 20 shaman (a beginner) meets a POW 42 ghost in spirit plane. (bad luck) 1. round: shaman makes automatically d3 mp:s and ghost does 2d3 and rolls 2, which adds third d3. Mp:s are 13 and 40. 2. round: shaman rolls 14 (failing) and ghost makes automatic 2d3. Mp:s are 10 and 40. 3. round: shaman gets 7(d3 mp:s) and ghost gets 2d3 automatic. Mp:s are 4 and 37. 4. round: shaman rolls 5 (fails) and ghost rolls 11. (2d4) Mp:s are 0 and 37. Shaman is in big trouble. As you can see, this procedure has one more advantage: even small POWed creatures can beat big spirits without that stupid POW-differences-greater-than-10-means-smaller-spirit-can-do-nothing-rule. In basic RQ a POW 30 spirit could beat a million POW 10 spirits in a row without small spirits ever getting a chance. In this version a pack of small spirits have a fighting chance to wear the big spirit out. (trollkin tactic) Comments, ideas? Marko Perälä perala@cc.joensuu.fi *************************************************************************** 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, 18 Jun 2001 19:10:37 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Stunning in Runequest 3 From: Jim Lawrie > As I may have mentioned, I am quite partial to Cyberpunk, and I >especially like the 'stun' rolls that players constantly fall victim to. >This allows PCs to be taken prisoner, rather than fighting to the bitter >end, but I'm not quite sure how it would work in Runequest with it's lack of >high velocity weapons. PCs (and NPCs as a matter of fact) can take prisoners in RQ3 rules. I believe it works like this. Called stun shot to the head. Compare the damage after armor to the Head Hit Points and roll on the resistance table. If the damage overcomes the head HP then the target is unconscious. If not, the clock was wrung but not other effect. > To directly transpose the CP mechanic, every time you took damage you >would roll 1d100 and compare it on the resistance table with your Hit Points >x 5. >[snip chart] Too many rolls for me. I have a tendency to have the PC's outnumbered. That would be more than I care to track. > Now, this would be good if you had only one or two players, but any more >than that and it's another layer of complication on an already complicated >system. Luckily for me, my players are very quick, have their attacks, >parries and damage worked out by the time I get to them and scrupulously >watch their own Fatigue, Magic and Hit Points, so I can contemplate this >sort of thing! I do envy you. I have a couple of players that are very good at it keeping track on their own. One that does okay, and two that are dead beats. Some people like the book keeping and some like to just close their eyes and visualize it. Jim B. *************************************************************************** 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, 18 Jun 2001 19:46:06 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Game Ideas (spirit combat) Thomas Zunder and Marko Perälä talk about spirit combat. Here is what I am currently doing for rules. I have transplanted Steve Perrins spirit combat rules. It uses his success levels method of conflict resolution. The characters spirit skill is their POW*5%. A roll is made for both attack and defense. A tie of defense and attack results in both losing 1d3-1 (0-2) mp. If attackers wins, then the number of overcoming success determine the damage. One success is 1D4. Two is 1D6. Three is 1D8. Also Steve's rules allow for more than one spirit attacker and all defense is a free action. I have had a pack of weak spirits howling and chomping (spiritually that is) around a PC in an attempt to distract him. In the RQ 3 rules only one would have been able to attack. But with Steve's they all attacked and all were defended against. By the way, the PC used his free defends and ran after the villain. He sat down after the the physical battle to deal with the spirits. Though the spirits did cost him some personal MP before hand. The aspect I like best of this, is it is completely deferent from the std RQ3 & 4 rules that I use. It has a deferent feel. Also I decided that a spirit attack action counts as one of the two combat actions, not the only possible action that round. The play testing we have done has been to our satisfaction. It seems that spirit combat goes quicker, and the varying damage for greater success adds more flavor. As the GM I am also happy with it. I am now working on adding the RQ4 shaman rule to Steve's spirit rules. By the way. Steve, If you publish it we will buy it. Jim B. *************************************************************************** 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 #74 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.