From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #149 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Tuesday, September 14 1999 Volume 02 : Number 149 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments [RQ-RULES] Activity in UK? [RQ-RULES] the History Channel [RQ-RULES] Armour and Encumberance 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: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:51:59 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 > I don't agree. Medieval knights wore their full plate armor from the time > they left their keep/tent to the time they returned, sometimes hours later, > and some accounts of battles I have seen (on the History Channel) lasted > close to an hour. But since they are walking around and not exerting themselves, they are recovering the FP's as they use them. In an extended battle, even in the movies, people have to stop, rest, and catch their breath... they are recovering FP's! > One show I saw refuted to notion that knights were > heavily encumbered while wearing their armor, showing one actor in full > plate doing cartwheels and running sprints. And this was with PLATE armor, I saw the show and that is not RQ Platemail, it is what most games call Field Plate. It is lighter and far less hindering than Platemail, which is a suit of chainmail with slightly curved rectangles of metal 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick riveted in overlapping columns. Field Plate is the pinnacle of the steel making art of the late Medieval period and should only possibly exist in Glorantha among the Dwarves, if at all (although the pictures for the western knights show it, I consider these to be bad artistic assumptions). It would encumber more like Scalemail and give the protection of Platemail. > I don't believe chainmail is even close to the weight of plate, and I have > worn a chanmail shirt. I agree with this assessment, but I think that chainmail is vastly overrated for protective value... it should be less than Lamellar. Chain over padding is good protection against all but crushing blows, but it is not in the same league with the solid armors, most of which use chain or leather to fasten the metal to. > Um, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't believe simply dropping your > pack will automatically recover lost fatigue. If you accept the argument of my last message, then it probably would come back. I have played it both ways. > group just finished taking out a rather large troll "infestation" in which > we faced several waves of trollkins before meeting the three trolls that > were in charge. We had no time for a rest, and no oppurtunity to retreat. > While not the norm, this does happen in our games quite often. Perhaps you should have been captured because you were too tired to continue fighting. That is why the trollkin were sent in first... to wear you out. This doesn't make it inaccurate, quite the contrary. > > Recently I've been studying portrayal of time length of melee in film and > > television. One minute (5 rounds in RQ3) is very typical. One minute would be ten rounds in our modified game, and a two minute fight is unheard of, but we have finished a fight, rested for three rounds while we healed, and rushed into the next battle so that our spells are still up. We have had defensive battles where the waves are a half hour apart and all but the best extended spells go down before the next rush. I don't see any of this as being broken enough to need fixing. The averaging system of RQ2 didn't have enough quanta to reflect small changes, so they went to an adding system. It really works, and any experienced character can negate the problem with spells. Bob S. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:00:35 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 How does the rules work again? Do get –1 to Agility skills for every ENC carried, and –1 to all skills per negative fatigue (cumulative for Agility skills)? I don’t have the books, and can’t remember. Enc affects specific skill such as Spells, Dodge, Swim, Climb and Jump. There might be one or two more, but it is not across the board for Agility skills, only those that need unhindered movement. Negative fatigue points subtract from -Every- skill roll attempted... for any purpose, you are dragging around too much weight for too long to be able to act normally, and fatigue affects the mind as well as the body. Bob S. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: simon_hibbs@lycosmail.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 Rich Allen : >I don't agree. Medieval knights wore their full plate armor from the time >they left their keep/tent to the time they returned, sometimes hours later, >and some accounts of battles I have seen (on the History Channel) lasted >close to an hour. Battles yes, but individual combats would not last an hour. Another point is that knights generaly fought from horseback, so encumberance wasn't as much of a problem for them. >One show I saw refuted to notion that knights were >heavily encumbered while wearing their armor, showing one actor in full >plate doing cartwheels and running sprints. And this was with PLATE armor, >I don't believe chainmail is even close to the weight of plate, and I have >worn a chanmail shirt. Was this full historical weight, or using modern re-enactment style wire loops? The other problem is that chainmail meant different things at different times. Norman style chain coats were enormously heavy, but later medieval chain was designed to be worn under plate mail and was much lighter. Plate armour has the considerable advantage that each segment is supported by straps, so the weight is evenly distributed about your body. The weight of chainmail almost entirely rests on the wearer's shoulders, so it's much more encumbering. > Um, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't believe simply dropping your >pack will automatically recover lost fatigue. These still have to be >recovered through normal means. That's a very strange way to run fatigue. What you're saying is that if I pick up a heavy backpack and then drop it, all of a sudden I'm heavily fatigued? Dropping the pack or carrying it has no effect on my agility and ability to wield weapons from then on? My interpretation is that the fatigue lost due to being burdened is due to the fact you can't move as fast and your ballance is different. This makes physical activities harder to accomplish. However if you drop the weight then that penalty is removed. Of course cumulative fatigue lost due to exertion stays lost. > ...Also, eight rounds is indeed long for a >single combat, but most _battles_ consists of many single combats. Between which you get a chance to recover fatigue lost, so I fail to see the relevence of your point. >I did something similar while watching the new Zorro film (Antonio >Banderas). While the combats were short as you state, there were MANY more >attack/parry combinations during this time than would occur in RQ combat. >Maybe not a good example, as fencing tends to be quicker than sword bashing, >but there it is. RQ explicitly states that it isn't trying to simulate each individual blow and parry. ....... >Oh, I agree that if one was carrying the armor in his arms, he should have >some serious penalties, but wearing 50 pounds of metal is quite a bit >different than carrying it. When I was in the army we used to do 6 mile route marches (run-walk-run) wearing 30+ pounds on our personal load carrying equipment (PLC) plus other gear. I'd much rather be in a fight without it than with it. I can see though that it depends on fighting style. Dodging is effectively out of the question, but if you're effectively standing in a rank with a shield, you're not moving about much. In that case you're just bashing at your opponent and taking blows on your shield and I can see that it's doable. The weight might even work for you by making you harder to knock over (marginaly). However, much more weight than that and it would be a problem. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:41:50 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 Despite some the the statements in my previous messages, I'm not arguing about the current Fatigue rules, and the rate at which they are used up and regained. I think that system works fine. I do, however, object to the amount of "fatigue" loss a character is assesed when wearing armor and carrying equipment. According to the way I understand the word, Fatigue equates to tiredness. The RQ3 rules agree with this. I understand that RQ3 Fatigue points are only used to simluate how much activity can be accomplished before becoming too tired to do anything else, so I can see that dropping equipment would regain that fatigue immediately. (Cool, another arguement I can get into with my GM! And win!) From my experiences, however, too much penalty is assigned when wearing armor, no matter what that armor is made of, and equipment. There is no provision for distinguishing between holding an item versus wearing it (that I know of). Maybe all that is needed is a way of reducing the ENC value of an itme when that item is worn rather than carried in the characters arms. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I'm seeming to make it, but we have very few battles in which a character has time to drop a pack (unless he's willing to give up a round of action) much less take the time to put armor on. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:49:24 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments >From: "Nicholas Marcelja" >I wear a 30pd mail shirt. 15pd helm 12 pd shield 2pd sword. 6pds >vambraces. 10pds greaves. so about 65pds of gear. I have spent 8hours >pluse in armor with about 3hours of that in combat. spread the combat >out over the entire day. >Nicholas Marcelja And don't you suppose that, compared to your unencumbered self, it may be correct to parameterize you with a -5% or -10% penalty for some portion of continuous combat? Or do you mean that you believe that you are not at all affected in your agility or manipulation skills after continuous combat? (An honest question this is. I know Nick. He *is* big and strong -- more than the character (SIZ 12 & STR 16) in Rich Allen's original post). Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 07:20:16 +0100 From: aevans5@csc.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Activity in UK? Gents.... I know this is a tad off subject, but I'm looking for people in the Maidstone, Kent, area who are either in an active roleplay group and wouldn't mind a new member, or are in the same boat as I am in that they are having a devil of a job finding like-minded individuals. I'm sorry to take up the list's time like this, but I couldn't think of any better way of reaching a reasonably sized audience. If anyone is interested, please e-mail me privately at aevans5@csc.com. Regards Andy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:42:44 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] the History Channel >Rich Allen >I don't agree. Medieval knights wore their full plate armor from the time >they left their keep/tent to the time they returned, sometimes hours later, >and some accounts of battles I have seen (on the History Channel) lasted /tease on Video technology had not been invented yet then. Those were re-creations and simulations. ;-) /tease off Those "knights" of which you speak above were exceptional as I suggested in my earlier response. You have not noticed the examples of the [overly] encumbered fighters, who *did* suffer penalties to offensive and defensive parameters. Armor was sometimes regular battle booty, probably because encumbered folks removed parts or encumbered folks were casualties. Just because they allegedly wore that armor for the entirety of the travel (over and back) and battle, does *not* imply [by itself] that the were *not* encumbered. It just means that they tolerated and survived. >close to an hour. One show I saw refuted to notion that knights were >heavily encumbered while wearing their armor, showing one actor in full >plate doing cartwheels and running sprints. And this was with PLATE armor, Seriously now. I have seen that program several times. There were many errors of extrapolation in that program. Rotational momentum is *much* different than linear momentum. None of the examples were involved in bloody combat -- it really is easier when it is not real. Notice as well that the plate mail shown (I know this series is rebroadcast every so often) is not so full as that described in RQ3. The display of the "one-handed" use of the great sword used a similar illusion: Look how much shorter *and* lighter it was than that described in RQ3. > Um, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't believe simply >dropping your >pack will automatically recover lost fatigue. These still have to be >recovered through normal means. IIRC, there is no fatigue lost yet at that point. I think that for purposes of counting down fatigue and endurance to apply the RQ3 parameters does not start until the "strenuous" combat starts. Long term fatigue is a different set of rules. >Also, eight rounds is indeed long for a >single combat, but most _battles_ consists of many single combats. Out >group just finished taking out a rather large troll "infestation" in which >we faced several waves of trollkins before meeting the three trolls that >were in charge. We had no time for a rest, and no oppurtunity to retreat. >While not the norm, this does happen in our games quite often. Indeed, that may be exceptional. Are you saying that there was *no* time for a rest, not even (for example) three rounds? > I did something similar while watching the new Zorro film (Antonio >Banderas). While the combats were short as you state, there were MANY more >attack/parry combinations during this time than would occur in RQ combat. Maybe not so many. Most of that hand waving would not score any damage. RQ rules ignore the choreography except when it is significant enough to cause points of damage. Watch again, counting instead the frequency of penetration of armor rather than empty attack/parry combinations. Zorro was a master. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:14:36 +0100 From: Pete Nash Subject: [RQ-RULES] Armour and Encumberance Rich Allen wrote > I don't agree. Medieval knights wore their full plate armor from the time > they left their keep/tent to the time they returned, sometimes hours later, > and some accounts of battles I have seen (on the History Channel) lasted > close to an hour. One show I saw refuted to notion that knights were > heavily encumbered while wearing their armor, showing one actor in full > plate doing cartwheels and running sprints. And this was with PLATE armor, > I don't believe chainmail is even close to the weight of plate, and I have > worn a chanmail shirt. The armour you saw on the history channel was plate from the high medieval period. It was the height of armour technology just before the advent of firearms which killed the concept of armour over manoeuvrability. Plate in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was actually very thin plates of steel which used ridges and folds to increase its strength. Gothic plate with all its flutings isn't made that way for decoration! So a suit of plate from this period doesn't (relatively speaking) weigh that much. Its about the 55lb mark as Nicholas stated in his post. The secret of _why_ a suit of plate is so unencumbering is because a) The suit is fitted exactly to the person wearing it. b) The various armour segments are supported by the limb/location underneath. Fitting is very important as it allows 'almost' full flexibility of joints without rubbing or catching. From personal experience borrowing a friends helm or legs can seriously reduce your combat skill as the new armour either hurts or interferes with you normal movement. Weight distribution is also important. This is why I personally vouch that a suit of plate is far, far less encumbering than a suit of chain. I can wear my plate for a day and admittedly be tired. When I wear my chain hauberk I end up exhausted. Why? Because the entire weight of the hauberk lies mainly on my shoulders (with a little on my waist). This limits my arm movements and makes it more tiring to raise weapon and shield, since I lift a proportion of the hauberk with the arm. Then again, modern chain weighs a lot more than its medieval counterpart. Butted rings are about a third again heavier than riveted chain. And all of my personal comparisons are for medieval armour, not ancient or dark age. Plate for the ancient period would be Corinthian style and was horribly heavy for its more limited protection. So what we should be looking at is "What is encumbrance and why does it affect fatigue?" Is encumbrance weight or obstructions? I think most readers of this list would agree that it was a combination of both. A sword throughout history weighs between between two to three pounds. Make it nearer three if you include its scabbard and belt. Only three pounds! What's so encumbering about something so light I hear you ask? Well, have you ever tried sitting down whilst wearing one? Or walked through a crowd of people, or the inside of a tent? The damn thing catches, knocks and prods everything you can possibly imagine! Whilst being worn; encumbering yes, fatiguing less so. Armour on the other hand, designed to be worn and not get in the way. Fatiguing yes, encumbering less so. The average soldier in the dark and medieval ages might have been able to wear their armour all day on the battlefield (12 hours of standing about or moving, 30 minutes of actual fights!), but I would guess that they didn't wear it normally unless on duty or expecting a fight. There is a serious danger of heat exhaustion while wearing heavy armour for a long period. As Terje Tollisen pointed out in his post, have you ever tried walking though broken terrain, up hills or even run in armour? You _really_ notice the fatigue loss then. Why are skirmishers and lightly armoured troops effective on the battlefield throughout history? Simply because they can out manoeuvre more heavily armed troops. When I fight in plate I can last maybe 90 seconds at the most (if that even!). That is of course _continual_ combat against one or more opponents. Then I'll simply be too exhausted to maintain a defence, let alone make an attack. I.e. my skills have been severely reduced. If I wasn't wearing my armour I know I could last two or three times longer. (Although I'd probably be beaten to a pulp without its protection!) I can also throw my shots and fight slightly better without wearing armour. Pell practice has shown me that I have a little more flexibility, reach and accuracy when not encumbered with gauntlets, vambracers etc. I may not actually be tired, but the encumbrance is affecting my skill. So maybe the fatigue rules are not all that unrealistic after all... But they're still a pain in the arse to use! > Um, maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't believe simply dropping your > pack will automatically recover lost fatigue. These still have to be > recovered through normal means. When you've worn your chainmail for several hours don't you find you have a feeling of energy and strength for the couple of minutes immediately after you shucked it off? I apologize for the rambling nature of this post... Pete *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #149 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.