From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #183 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, October 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 183 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical Re : Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Character Creation RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics [RQ-RULES] related skills RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics [RQ-RULES] BFRP Skills [RQ-RULES] BFRP 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: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:09:05 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP >This is the first suggestion I've heard that makes commercial sense. I >still say that you're going to need Chaosium's permission to do anything >with a RQ-like system or risk the mother and father of all law suits to >decide the status in law of a role-playing system. You may be right, Chaosium may well say "Stop it", and if they do, I will. I don't think they would, because in my opinion they would have a difficult case to make. All we are really doing is extending work already done such as Sandy's sorcery rules, Nikk's character generation rules, and whoever else's assorted fatigue, critical, and category modifier rules from assorted web pages the world over. >Let me add I think that a simplification and modularisation of BRP/RQ >is definitely the way to go. If we could release BRP-Lite for free as SJG >have with GURPS-Lite it would be the sanest way of making our new/old >system one of the standards for role-gaming. How would that be financed? SJG make it on the campaign world supplements, and sales of the full rules. Is anyone here a commercial games publisher, and would they take on this project as a Chaosium-sanctioned BRP system? The whole point of this exercise is that RQ does not make commercial sense, so lets do it as a fan effort. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:40:48 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity Bob Stancliff : > All simulations pick the level of granularity they are willing to settle >on. It is a fundamental assumption at the start of the design. Many >games pick 3d6, RQ picked d100. I like d00 not because of the granularity, but because everyone knoews what a percentage is. Having a percentage chance of success is about as intuitive as you can get. > This is a good argument for a separate language category, not a >good argument against any categories. Not all Fast Talkers have the >'gift of gab', but everyone with the 'gift of gab' can become a good Fast >Talker, and most will be drawn to it eventually because they have a >knack. Are all good Fast Talkers going to be good at Oratory? (Socrates Vs Face Man from the 'A' team). Are all good listeners going to be good at observation? I'm not necesseraily totaly against category modifiers, but I'm just pointing out that they are arbitrary. Phil's point that they are intuitive and tell people things about their character is the best argument I've seen for them yet, but that's realy the role of characteristics. >> Imposing any kind of grouping of this kind reduces the variability >> between characters, stifling individualism. > > If you are not going to play games because they are not real, no one will >force you. RQ and Champions are the most flexible systems ever written. >All of the others have some kind of character classes or innate >restrictions When did I say I wouldn't play them? There are very few RPGs I wouldn't play if I thought the game would be fun. However I prefer games that aren't needlessly complex. > Difficulty levels have nothing to do with natural talent (i.e.: category >bonuses), they deal with the quantity and complexity of the material to >learn. A negative talent can still learn an easy skill slower, and a large >positive talent can learn a hard skill quite briskly. In RQ3 this effect is barely noticeable, but I take your point. It also means doing calculations on your skill points (deducting the category modifier) every time you make an improvement roll, which I find tedious. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:52:22 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP > Try asking Chaosium if, given they accept new editions of BRP in > French, they could license you BRP so you could edit it in English > for non Gloranthan game worlds. I don't want to do it comercially. I will continue with BFRP as a fan-pub, but if anyone wants to take this ball and run with it, good luck, and I'd help out if they wanted. If it looks like happening, I'd drop BFRP. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:51:43 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical Bob Stancliff : >> Further more, the calculations are not obvious ! Even after many years >> of RQing, I prefer sometimes to look at the table to be sure that the >> result is a fumble (for low skills at least) ! > You need to work out systems for doing the numbers in your head. Exactly, that's the problem. > Criticals were one of those rules that slow the game but provide a lot of >variety. I do agree with you here, but I prefer simplified and easy to remember rules to calculations. i.e. Specials on 1/5th skill, criticals on an 01 and fumbles on 99 or 00. You can say that if skill is over 50% then fumbles are only on 00. Having specials happen on 1/5th skill is ok because multiplication by 5 is already in the system in the form of characteristic saving throws and the resistance table, so the maths are familiar. As you say, it's worth the effort. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:53:09 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: Re : Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:27:58 +0100 From: "Terje Tollisen" > Any double under the skill is a special success (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, > 66 and 77 for a 80% skilled character), while above the skill is a > critical failure (88, 99 and 00 for the same character) ? >This sounds good, and it works. I play some HarnMaster,and there all >rolls ending on 0 or 5 is a crit. success if the roll is under the >skill and >a crit. failure if the roll is over the skill. It works fine, and is >easy to >play with. Hey, why not a four level success and three levels failure ? It is more than in RQ, BUT AS THERE IS NO MORE HEAVY CALCULATIONS, it is in fact far easier ! Roll equal or bellow skill : normal : normal success dice unit =0 or 5 (ex : 25 or 30) : special dice = double (ex : 44) : critical dice = exact number to roll (ex : 60 for a 60% skill) : super critical Roll above skill : normal : normal failure dice unit =0 or 5 (ex : 85 or 90) : special failure dice = double (ex : 88) : critical failure (fumble) Alain http://www.btinternet.com/~karamo/rqgb.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:57:26 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Character Creation In my character creation house rules, the costs of skills depends on the profession of the character. Three categories : Primary (cheap), Secondary (medium), and Outside (expensive). The advantage is to keep the classification of RQ3 character generation with the multiplier (x1, x2, x3 ..). The skills having a x3 or higher multiplier are Primary. The skills having x1 or x2 are Secondary. All other skills are Outside. Alain. http://www.btinternet.com/~karamo/rqgb.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:59:26 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity >It also means doing calculations on your skill points >(deducting the category modifier) every time you make >an improvement roll, which I find tedious. Technically, you add the cat mod to the die roll, and need >skill or >100 to improve. This is easier than subtraction. In the base rules, there should not be any mechanism for characteristic increase except POW, and this should not have any effect on cat mods. "Advanced Character Development" will cover training, research, stat improvement, learning new skills, learning combat manoeuvers, etc. and should be designed to complement "Advanced Combat" and "Advanced Skills", which could introduce the (optional) concept of Skill Trees, rules for calculating a new skill from an old one. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:09:09 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics I am happy with the current seven RQ characteristics. But may be we can roll them with 3D6+2, giving a range between 5 and 20. Also, a player could choose to have a lower charac (3D6+1) but is entitled to roll 3D6+3 in another one ? Or 3D6/3D6+4 ? once or twice ? Some ideas... Alain. http://www.btinternet.com/~karamo/rqgb.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:06:33 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] related skills Phil : > I really don't see the need for lore skills for different countries, there > isn't a Regional Lore skill in RQ, why add one with all this complexity? Bob Stancliff : > This isn't complex, you imagine it is. > By your argument we should say that there is only one Speak Language >skill... the referee will adjudicate all disagreements regarding which >language is being spoken. I'm sorry Bob, but that's just facetious. The best way i can think of to cope with related skills, is to let you use your best skill for a related task at a penalty. I'd give your Bison rider half his chance at Ride Bison as his chance at Ride Sable. There are similar rules for related languages in RQ3. A for area knowledge, I just assume that sort of thing is an INTx5% roll to know common-ish knowledge. If you're testing for knowledge about a neighbouring area I might give INTx3%. I might give a cartwright half his chance in Craft Cartwright is he was trying to repair a boat. In fact I have a specific example from my current Lunar campaign. I gave a dancer character half her Dance skill in Dodge. I realy don't see the need to make things any more complicated than this. In fact, I think this method is actualy more realistic and intuitive than any of the other methods mentioned so far. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:26:56 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics Alain: >roll them with 3D6+2, giving a range between 5 and 20. I like the 3-18 range, because that gives a nice x5 range of 15-90%, so nobody can start with an automatic chance on Stat x5, it also gives an average of 10 (ok, 10.5) so stat x 5 gives an average 50% chance. Also, compatibility. What is the advantage? As a general (meta-?)rule, we should grade rules changes on the criteria of simplicity and realism, and only if one advantage outweighs the other's disadvantage should contentious rules be considered. Of course, this is all subjective, and the inventor of a rule is always going to think more kindly of it. It is by definition intuituve to them, 'cos they thought of it! If we were to change the stat rolls, I'd prefer 2d6+3, like Simon suggested. 5-15 with average exactly 10, how far wrong can you go? But no, I say stick with 3d6 and 2d6+3 for Siz and Int. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:17:33 GMT From: mab@sdc1.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Mystic Musk Ox) Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Skills Related Skills: Perhaps the easiest way to get around the problem of related skills is simply to say that you can use your skill at half normal %age i.e. if you have Ride Sable at 68%, then your Ride Rhino can't be less than 34%. I guess you might then end up with lots of arguments about exactly what is a related skill, but that is what a GM is there to resolve (by fiat!). I also use a rule of thumb that says you cannot do more than double your actual skill, regardless of modifiers (+/-, magic, situation, etc). I assume that you have to have sufficient understanding fof the skill to make use of the extra %age, and anything more is of no use to you. Character Generation: Someone, some years ago posted a great system, whereby a table was generated of initial skill, vs time increments (months). The values were calculated by basically applying skill rolls over the selected period e.g. The table was calculated by a piece of C code that I have stored somewhere. But basically, for character generation, all you need to do is to have a list of spplicable skills per 'class', and an age. You then get a number of months of training (I use 2 per year over 15), and for each skill, decide how many points you wish to use. Cross reference the initial skill with the months of training and voila! New skill %age. I'll look out the info. I can't remember who did the initial work at the moment though. mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:28:30 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Dana : Most of your points are very good ones. I think where we have diferences thay are minor. On Sorcery, I'd rather go with Sandy's rules as they are. They are complete, commonly available and already widely used. Why re-invent the wheel? > *For divine magic. I am partial towards the blessing/miracle idea that >was mentioned earlier. If you want to go almost totally free form, such as >the Mage system, that to would be nice. Perhaps more geared to elemental >association, not spheres. To be honest I'd rather go for an all-new system, but then I'm biased because I already have the outline for a system in mind ;) I'd like to go for a vaguely historicaly authentic system of ritual magic and invocations. David Weihe : >Better, make percentiles skills the default, and specify meta-rules >for conversion to D20 for the very Rules-light partisans. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I realy think we need to present a single unified rules set. The main reason for this is compatibility with scenarios. The best way to get the system accepted is to have lots of gameable material available. >> Characteristics : Strength, Constitution, Size, Inteligence, Dexterity, >> Perception, Psyche, Appearance. These are rolled on 2D6+3. > >I assume that Psyche takes over for Mana level (annoyingly referred >to as Power in RQ3,which goes against my Physics training :-)? Indeed. Perhaps it shows my penchant for Amber too. >Also, a problem with 2D6+6 is that the range is now different from >that used in BRP, RQ, or D&D. This means lots of annoying conversions >for both old PCs and old expectations. Is there some way to get to the >now-lost extremes, or perhaps does this just affect the initial stat, >not species limits? It's 2D6+3, not 2D6+6. 2D6+3 gives an average of 10, which is only half a point away from the RQ and AD&D average stat roll, so I don't see major problems with familiarity or even character conversions. Characters with stats outside the 5-15 range can be defaulted to 5 or 15, or just treated as exceptional. I don't see it as being a big deal, but you gain a much more sensible stat range. IMHO anyway. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #183 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.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.