From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #78 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, April 30 1999 Volume 02 : Number 078 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Storm Bull RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise [RQ-RULES] RQ4 rules 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, 28 Apr 1999 13:21:55 -0500 From: "Guy Hoyle" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Storm Bull |Real Storm Bulls kill chaos. If they die, then that's a real Storm Bull |pumped up kind of death! I've only played a Storm Bull once. My character, Valgrim, from the Ygg's Isles, was not a very impressive character, and he only joined the Storm Bull cult because he flunked the Orlanth initiation tests; I don't know how he managed to pass the Uroxi test! He used Fanaticism in battle, but he still wasn't an outstanding combatant. However, he had the DAMNEDEST Divine Intervention rolls! Twice in battle, he received his deathblow from a chaos creature; he called upon the Bull to let him finish this fight, lest Chaos win the day. His rebirth each time turned the tide of the battle and earned his battle name, Valgrim Bull-Answers-Twice. (It also left him with a POW of 3, unfortunately). Valgrim died yet a third time in a battle against Chaos, and the Bull answered a third time, but after the battle the party didn't have enough Healing magic to put him back together again, as they had done before. - --_ Guy Hoyle (ghoyle1@airmail.net) At first I thought, "Mind control satellites? No way!" But now I can't remember how we lived without them. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:34:23 -0500 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise > Duh? Maybe in principle there are such circumstances, but I for > one would be > happy to use the Dance skill unmodified to tell a story through the medium Um, what Dance skill? I completely agree, if this unlikely situation ever ocurred in a game, a new skill (and Dance is as good a name as any) would have to be created. The whole 'dance as a language' thing was purely hypothetical to demonstrate my point that sometimes skills need to be created to fill the gap in the current rules. > As Simon pointed out, riding games were > invented as a form of mounted combat practice. In our modern I don't doubt it, but RQ3 itself splits similar combat abilities into seperate skills. That's why having Broadsword Attack at 95% doesn't mean a thing when you pick up a Rapier for the first time, according to the rules. The rules even go further, stating that an adventurer using a broadword one handed has a different skill level than when he uses both hands on the very same sword. I've been curious enough about the origins of horsemanship to do a small amount of net research. I'll be the first to admit that this is far from being exhaustive research, but from what I've been able to gather horses WERE first used to help people herd their cattle and sheep. The best example of this was in the Russian steppes around 4500 BC. This is as far back as the archiological team, from The Institute for Ancient Equestrian Studies, can accurately determine the USE for horses in this area, but other evidence has been found with bit-wear on horse teeth dating to about 6500 BC. So I would dispute the assertion that horse riding skills in the ancient world were mainly combat based, but again my opinion is based only on the few sources I could find online. All of this is pretty much irrelevant though. The basic question, to me, is if RQ3 sees the need to have separate skills for one handed and two handed use of the broadsword, or the broad sword and the short sword, etc., why not have a separate skill for mounted spear and foot spear? Or mounted short sword and foot short sword? That's the real issue; not how horses were first used, or what skill to use for story-telling-via-dance. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:54:50 -0700 From: "Jarold Davis" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise >The basic question, to me, is >if RQ3 sees the need to have separate skills for one handed and two handed >use of the broadsword, or the broad sword and the short sword, etc., why not >have a separate skill for mounted spear and foot spear? Or mounted short >sword and foot short sword? That's the real issue; not how horses were >first used, or what skill to use for story-telling-via-dance. > >Rich Allen > If you absolutely need to have mounted weapon skills in addition to unmounted weapon skills in your campaign, then do so. Please. Most of us don't see the need. Those that do see the need, will no doubt implement mounted weapon skills. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:19:14 +0100 From: simonh@msi-uk.com (Simon Hibbs) Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Rich Allen : >> No, because oratory and dancing are different activities. The > >As you're fond of saying, IRRELEVANT!!! My question is: if the intention of >the activity is identical, do you use an existing skill or create a new one? Only you have a fixation about intentions. I'm concerned about the actual activities involved in performing the skills. Surely these tell us how closely related the skills are, not some abstract kind of meta-purpose? >The closest existing skill, for the purpose of my example, was Oratory. Only by some vague link involving entertainment. As I pointed out, the activities involved in performing those skills are completely different. What we're saying is that the things you do, the actions you perform, while playing Polo and while fighting from horseback are the same. Therefore it's reasonable to link the skills, or treat them as the same skill. >I could not hit any part of a target with bow and arrow while mounted, >unless I got in a very lucky shot. The two skills are RELATED but are not >the same!!! You seemed to be implying that polo and other equestrian sports based on military horsemanship, were no closer related to military horsemanship that oratory and dancing. I may have missunderstood your meaning. > Why is it that you completely ignored the rapier and broadsword >example I put forth in response to your comment about sword play? The RQ3 >rules seem to agree with me, in that there are RELATED but separate skills. Does it? In RQ3 they are in seperate weapon categories. Skill in one gives no skill in the other. Maybe not ideal, but it's a tradeoff between rules simplicity and realism. I don't think it's possible to create a rules set that everyone will agree gets the ballance exactly right. > Someone else has stated that the rules for mounted combat, as written in >RQ3, work just fine. I agree! But I also think there is room for >improvement, and that's what this discussion was about. Or so I thought. >Now, can we get back to helpful discussion? Sure, what are you proposing? 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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:25:59 +0100 From: simonh@msi-uk.com (Simon Hibbs) Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Philip : >Duh? Maybe in principle there are such circumstances, but I for one would be >happy to use the Dance skill unmodified to tell a story through the medium >of dance, given that the character has had an opportunity to learn >storytelling dances..... Kama, one of my flat mates, is doing a degree in modern dance. Her disertation is on Semiotics - symbolism and communication through the medium of dance. It's interesting stuff, based on interpretive critical analysis techniques. High flying stuff. You might like to have a read next time you vists. Presumably you could use Dance skills in the same way as language skills. Add the skills of dancer and observer to give the total chance of successful communication. Of course in practice many ancient forms of dance involved theatre and verbal storytelling too. 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: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:48:27 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise >Um, what Dance skill? Sorry, I'm confusing RQ3 and 4. Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Failure is not an option, it's integral to the o/s. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:07:06 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise > >Um, what Dance skill? > > Sorry, I'm confusing RQ3 and 4. In the end of the skill section in Book 1, the addition of needed skills is recommended to referees, and Dance is one of the listed possibilities. It may not be on character sheets, but it is within the scope of the game. Published modules have mentioned Run, Hunter Sign, Spirit Tongue, Knot Language, and probably some others I can't remember. RQ4 made many changes to the skill lists, and adding Dance was one of them. If you want Dance. you got it. If you want mounted versions of all combat skills, you got it. If you want all similar style weapons to transfer at 1/2 or 1/3, that's good too, RQ4 had those too. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:08:55 +0100 From: "Dom Twist" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise >>> No, because oratory and dancing are different activities. The >Only you have a fixation about intentions. I'm concerned about the actual >activities involved in performing the skills. Surely these tell us how >closely related the skills are, not some abstract kind of meta-purpose? Hmm it must be said that I think that Oratory for Dance is pushing the boat out that little too far. In the interests of Maximum Simplicity I'd make the player make a Dex times wotever role. If Dancing was such a key part of his culture I might even commit the crime of having a new skill! >> Why is it that you completely ignored the rapier and broadsword >>example I put forth in response to your comment about sword play? The RQ3 >>rules seem to agree with me, in that there are RELATED but separate skills. IMO Rapier and Broadsword ARE completely different. I have used both...but found neither one any use in the other. Broadswords are just too damn heavy to use any fencing manuvers with! >> Someone else has stated that the rules for mounted combat, as written in >>RQ3, work just fine. I agree! But I also think there is room for >>improvement, and that's what this discussion was about. Or so I thought. >>Now, can we get back to helpful discussion? > >Sure, what are you proposing? It all boils down to MGS (Max Game Simplicity). If you want to add the extra skills go for it! But the ride skill limit seems to work just fine, so y bother tinkering? If it aint broke...... Dom *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:39:58 -0500 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise > Hmm it must be said that I think that Oratory for Dance is > pushing the boat out that little too far. Sorry to drag this out, I just wanted to clear up my side of it. I never once suggested that Oratory should be used as a Dance skill!!!!! I said that, if creating new skills is a bad thing (as was stated by others), then given a society with no spoken language what so ever, but using dance and pantomime to communicate with each other, the Oratory skill was the closest EXISTING skill to use. And that's the last I'll ever mention the bleeping idea! > IMO Rapier and Broadsword ARE completely different. I have used both...but > found neither one any use in the other. Broadswords are just too > damn heavy to use any fencing manuvers with! No arguments there, and what about two-handed broadsword vs. one-handed broadsword? I think those two are sufficiently different to warrant having two skills also. So why then is there so much resistance to having two skills for use of a weapon when mounted and on foot? > But the ride skill limit seems to work just fine, so y > bother tinkering? If it aint broke...... But it doesn't work in the two games I play in. It's not broken, but it certainly could be improved without adding complexity to the system at all. I don't know exactly how to accopmlish this, though, so I turn to the RQ-Rules list for help. That is what this list is for, isn't it? Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:30:53 -0500 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise > If you want all > similar style weapons to transfer at 1/2 or 1/3, that's > good too, RQ4 had those too. Now that's an interesting idea. I wish there was a way to get the RQ4 rules off the net. How does RQ4 handle situations were similar weapons start out at 1/3 or 1/2 other weapon skills, but then progress much differently? Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 30 Apr 1999 10:02:05 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise > > If you want all > > similar style weapons to transfer at 1/2 or 1/3, that's > > good too, RQ4 had those too. > > Now that's an interesting idea. I wish there was a way to get the RQ4 > rules off the net. How does RQ4 handle situations were similar weapons > start out at 1/3 or 1/2 other weapon skills, but then progress much > differently? > Rich Allen As I recall, all weapons in the same group (1H Sword) started at 1/2 and came up to Full after some hours of usage. Between two groups of similar weapons (1H Swd vs. 2H Swd) it was simply 1/2, and between similar styles of different weapons (1H Swd vs. 1H Axe) it was 1/3. This gave you a starting % for a weapon that you don't currently own, and you could add it to your skill list at that level and get independent experience to bring it up further. The intention was to add some flexibility because knowing where to hit was at least as important as being comfortable with the specific weapon. In theory, a 2H Swd master could break his weapon and grab a battleaxe up and use it two handed with a modest skill. If one of his arms was incapacitated, he might still be able to fight one handed, but his skill would be small (1/6). Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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, 30 Apr 1999 10:22:18 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mounted Combat Compromise Rich Allen wrote: > > Sorry to drag this out, I just wanted to clear up my side of it. I never > once suggested that Oratory should be used as a Dance skill!!!!! I said > that, if creating new skills is a bad thing (as was stated by others), then With so much crossover with the BFRP list, I think some folks forget which list they're on. :) > I don't know exactly how to accopmlish this, though, so I turn to the > RQ-Rules list for help. That is what this list is for, isn't it? 's what its supposed to be for, anyway. - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 30 Apr 1999 09:32:12 -0500 From: "Pastorello, Michael" Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ4 rules This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BE9316.3C91E014 Content-Type: text/plain Is there a posting somewhere on the net where all of the RQ4 rules are posted? mike - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BE9316.3C91E014 Content-Type: text/html RQ4 rules

Is there a posting somewhere on the net where all of the RQ4 rules are posted?
mike


- ------_=_NextPart_001_01BE9316.3C91E014-- *************************************************************************** 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 V2 #78 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.