From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #113 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 Friday, September 28 2001 Volume 04 : Number 113 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Re:High % in combat [RQ-RULES] RE: Quickie character design system Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Quickie character design system Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] Quickie character design system [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic Re: [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:05:45 -0700 From: Stephen Perrin Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re:High % in combat And I'll just take this opportunity to say that my Quest Rules use a similar system and work out very well. Steve Perrin www.perrinworlds.com, look for SPQR - -----Original Message----- From: AAlanrichards@aol.com To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sent: 9/27/2001 9:58 AM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re:High % in combat Hi. I think this is the first time that I've posted to this list. Although I've been lurking for a while (terrible habit must get counselling) I use quite a different set of rules for combat which deal with high skills quite well without some of the complex add ons some people have used to reduce an opponent's skill. Briefly Characters have a single skill for each weapon not Attack and Parry Characters make an opposed weapon or Brawl roll Roll Result 99+ Fumble* > skill Failure = skill Near Miss < skill Partial Success <1/2 skill Full success <1/5 skill Critical success <1/100 Perfect Success * skills greater than 100% fumble on a 00 only. The combatant who gets the best result wins the contest (on a tie the highest skill wins) The loser's roll effects the winners roll Loser Effect Fumble +1 Fail 0 NM 0 Partial -1 Full -2 Critical -3 Perfect -4 This gives a net result Result Damage Near miss db only Partial roll weapon damage add db Full maximum weapon damage add db Critical ignore armour. maximum weapon damage add db Perfect target is dead There are a few more complicatiosn regarding types of weapon Regards Alan ************************************************************************ *** 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, 27 Sep 2001 15:19:21 -0400 From: "peterm/maranci.net@mail.maranci.net" Subject: [RQ-RULES] RE: Quickie character design system Glad to see another issue so quickly! * Leon Kirshtein wrote: >This does not seem to be balanced, Why can't I buy two >points of POW (for 8pts) and then sacrifice for Divine >magic and still have 2pts more than if I bought Divine >magic. This is the exact reason I posted the system here--to catch stupid mistakes like that one. I was just about to lower the cost for Divine spells to 8 per point, but that still doesn't work; POW is still half the cost of the spell it would cost to buy. Hmm. Are there any advantages to purchasing divine spells that justify a higher cost? Or should I raise the cost of POW to 8 points per, doubling all other charactistic costs as well? That would make it necessary to increase the recommended starting CD (Character Design) point totals. But then how would that affect the relationship of characteristics to skills, and vice-versa? Hmm. I can see this issue will require some thought. * "Paul Vissing Jr." wrote: >Any rules ideas for the non-standard races. Centaurs ? >Minotaurs ? Other ? I considered that sort of thing, but I want to be very careful to avoid treading on copyrights if I possibly can. I'll probably include some general information about designing non-human races, but if I start lifting too much from the books the chance increases that I'll be forced to stop this project and take this document down. The point is to make a pamphlet that will let RQers recruit new players, and allow bright players/GMs to start playing RQ on their own, but still encourage them to buy whatever products are available. And not get sued, of course. I'm trying to include just the minimum information needed to play, and eliminate anything that an intelligent player should be able to figure out or create for themselves. I should also admit that I am eliminating any rules that I personally have no use for or think are too confusing. Fatigue is right out, for example. I'm just going to say something like "The GM may allocate a penalty to skill use if he feels that the character is overloaded and/or overfatigued." >So far it looks cool. You did this in one day ?!!! Wow ! Thanks. I only did the character design section in one day, actually. I've been stealing moments here and there to work on it. * Brian Newman wrote: >Shouldn't characteristics start at a base that matches the racial >averages, rather than at a fixed 11? Yes, probably. I did consider it. But then I thought that it might be too confusing. Now I'm leaning back towards using racial maximums. Confusion is definitely going to be a big issue. I'll need to test this document on newbies, if I can find any who want to try it. I know the RQ system too well to realize if I left a huge whole in the document; the same is true of every other gamer I know personally. Of course getting feedback here helps a lot, because even though you guys are all well-experienced with RQ, you might spot my mistakes anyway. * "Mikko Korhonen" wrote: >Nick Effingham's web site has his character creation rules on-line. >They are point based and work very well. See >http://members.xoom.com/wakboth/ . I've >been using them for two campaigns, and both players and i are happy ;) Sounds good; are they for RQ, though? I haven't been able to get to his site. "The page cannot be displayed" keeps popping up after it tries for a few minutes. Also, I don't know if Nick would be interested in having his system included in the document. Incidentally, I have no objection at all to material by other people -- it would speed things up tremendously. Did I mention before that I know that the document needs to be totally re-edited, re-formatted, etc.? It's sort of a hodge-podge right now. Basically I'm just trying to get stuff WRITTEN before I start re-writing it and making it look semi-professional. :) * "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: >What do people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%? >Like when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry? I like the idea of allowing him to subtract the over-100 portion from the opponent's chance to parry. ->Peter - -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.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, 27 Sep 2001 12:33:28 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Quickie character design system On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, peterm/maranci.net@mail.maranci.net wrote: > I considered that sort of thing, but I want to be very careful to avoid > treading on copyrights if I possibly can. I'll probably include some > general information about designing non-human races, but if I start > lifting too much from the books the chance increases that I'll be forced > to stop this project and take this document down. Two points: 1) You can include things like "Races that roll a stat on 3d6+6 will start at a base of X; stats rolled on 2d4+2 will start at a base of Y; etc.". 2) I believe that you can say something like "(For stat averages with other humanoid races, see Deluxe RuneQuest Creatures Book)" without violating any copyrights. Shade and sweet water, Blackberry - - - - - - "Short answer: yes, with an if... long answer: no, with a but." -- Rev. Lovejoy *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Sep 2001 17:18:00 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Andrew O. Melange wrote: > Y'all, > > What do people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%? Like > when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry? I used an idea I lifted from Hero Wars; have each roll, and each success counters the other (i.e. to successes cancel one another, a special cancels a success, making for a normal hit, a crate becomes a special against a normal hit, etc.. - -- talmeta@optonline.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - One day my Boss asked me to submit a status report to him concerning a project I was working on. I asked him if tomorrow would be soon enough. He said, "If I wanted it tomorrow, I would have waited until tomorrow to ask for it!" (New business manager, Hallmark Greeting Cards.) *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Sep 2001 19:36:44 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. - --part1_16b.190f39c.28e5120c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/01 10:56:08 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew wonders > people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%? > Like when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry? > Well, I used to like the RQ2 thing where if you were over 100, you could use the excess as a negative mod to the defender's skill; so Mr. 130 would, in effect, be fighting Mr. 70 parry. For some unknown reason, I've never felt comfortable with this bit, and haven't grafted it onto my RQ3 campaign (though I still use the different flavors of RQ2 special hits with no problem). Generally I think the increased chance for crit & specials at higher skill levels are their _own_ reward/curse (depending on what end you're on at the time). I guess if you used both the RQ2 rule, and the increased chance of crits & specials _together_, you'd have the potential for some absolute Bad Asses :) -Ken- Thinking hard about grafting the RQ2 over 100 thing afterall :) - --part1_16b.190f39c.28e5120c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/01 10:56:08 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew wonders
what
people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%?
Like when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry?

  Well, I used to like the RQ2 thing where if you were over 100, you could use the excess as a negative mod to the defender's skill; so Mr. 130 would, in effect, be fighting Mr. 70 parry.
  For some unknown reason, I've never felt comfortable with this bit, and haven't grafted it onto my RQ3 campaign (though I still use the different flavors of RQ2 special hits with no problem).
  Generally I think the increased chance for crit & specials at higher skill levels are their _own_ reward/curse (depending on what end you're on at the time).
  I guess if you used both the RQ2 rule, and the increased chance of crits & specials _together_, you'd have the potential for some absolute Bad Asses :)
 -Ken-
  Thinking hard about grafting the RQ2 over 100 thing afterall :)
- --part1_16b.190f39c.28e5120c_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, 28 Sep 2001 14:48:37 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Quickie character design system I'd also like to add that a 1-point increase in pretty much any of the Stats gives quite a few skill points, far more than it cost you. For example, a +1 to CON costs 2 CDPs, and gives +1 to at least four skills, +1 Fatigue (if used) and 1/2 a hit point. +1 to INT gives +1 to tons of skills, Magic and mundane and increased Spell learning ability - probably closer to 20 points if spent the other way. Also remember that higher stats will speed their passage to the 100% range... I guess what I'm saying is that I would up the Characteristic costs by about 5 times their current amounts and increase the points available or severely drop the cost per point of skill %. Looks good, though. Thanks! Jeremy Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > POW..................4 > > > > Divine — 10 points per point of spell > > This does not seem to be balanced, Why can't I buy two > points of POW (for 8pts) and then sacrifice for Divine > magic and still have 2pts more than if I bought Divine > magic. > > Leon > > ===== > "No good deed shall go unpunished." > > _______________________ *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Sep 2001 11:44:50 EDT From: AAlanrichards@aol.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic This thought was inspired after seeing Steve Perrin's freebie on his site, and crawling through character generation in systems such as GURPS I was struck by the lengths to which some game designers have gone to make one-off rules. Whilst RQ has always had a very strong skills mechanic. So for example 'Keen Hearing' would just be simulated by adding more points to a character's Listen skill. With this in mind I suggest that most 'advantages' can be simulated by allowing players to raise skills which most would not bother to. For example Balance (AGL or DEX x5%) Luck (POW x5%) Magic (POW x5%) Stamina (CON x5%) and so on Improving each of these would follow the same rules as improving characteristics not as skills. Let me know your thoughts *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Sep 2001 09:00:29 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic >This thought was inspired after seeing Steve Perrin's freebie on his site, >and crawling through character generation in systems such as GURPS I was >struck by the lengths to which some game designers have gone to make one-off >rules. Whilst RQ has always had a very strong skills mechanic. > >So for example 'Keen Hearing' would just be simulated by adding more points >to a character's Listen skill. I agree. However, I would make a slight clarification. The modifier is to the roll, not the actual skill. Huh you ask? It means that if I have Listen skill of 30% and the advantage of keen hearing (+20% listen) that a effectively have a 50% chance to listen. But come experience time, I only need to roll over the 30% for the real skill. This makes the advantages more than simply skill bonuses in the beginning. Otherwise the skill would "converge" over time with people who didn't have the starting bonus. >With this in mind I suggest that most 'advantages' can be simulated by >allowing players to raise skills which most would not bother to. > >For example >Balance (AGL or DEX x5%) >Luck (POW x5%) >Magic (POW x5%) >Stamina (CON x5%) > >and so on > >Improving each of these would follow the same rules as improving >characteristics not as skills. Kinda confused here. Can you give some examples? - -Andrew - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.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, 28 Sep 2001 09:10:27 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. >In a message dated 9/27/01 10:56:08 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew wonders >what > >>people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%? >>Like when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry? >> > > Well, I used to like the RQ2 thing where if you were over 100, you >could use the excess as a negative mod to the defender's skill; so >Mr. 130 would, in effect, be fighting Mr. 70 parry. > For some unknown reason, I've never felt comfortable with this >bit, and haven't grafted it onto my RQ3 campaign (though I still use >the different flavors of RQ2 special hits with no problem). > Generally I think the increased chance for crit & specials at >higher skill levels are their _own_ reward/curse (depending on what >end you're on at the time). > I guess if you used both the RQ2 rule, and the increased chance of >crits & specials _together_, you'd have the potential for some >absolute Bad Asses :) > -Ken- > Thinking hard about grafting the RQ2 over 100 thing afterall :) I think I'm leaning towards the RQ2 "excess subtracts" rather than special hits. 2 cases: Attack has a dagger of 130%. Defender has a kite shield of 100%. The basics. (No extra rules. - My predicament.) What is that 100% relative too? 100% of all blows? (Granted it is only a 95% rolled, but that is a minor point.) So, even though the attacker has an amazing 130% to hit, he there is no way he can get *around* the shield and hit the guy? In the case of specials: The attacker now gets to double his damage. Against a kite shield that isn't going to do anything. Unless you're doing success comparison (Like in SPQR). In the case of "excess subtracts" The defender can now stop the blows of the attacker only 70% of the time. This makes more sene to me, and gives a bigger advantage to the guy with 130. (Which should be pretty hard to achieve anyway (except for bladesharp) and he should be allowed such advantage IMO.) I hate to do math (well, at play-time anyway), (and I say it is math because it is more likely subtracting 27% from 93%) and I'd like to be able to make it work in the die roll. I might choose the success comparison because it relies on more table lookup (or simple tricks) but less overall math. SPQR (it is unfortunate that he couldn't have come up with an acronym of PQRS ( boy I like parenthesis today (one would think I'm writing this email in LISP))) has a good variable level of success based off simple metrics. I'll need to change the results of the variable successes of course. - -Andrew - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.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 #113 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.