From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #150 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 Wednesday, September 15 1999 Volume 02 : Number 150 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] vision [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 [RQ-RULES] Webpage update [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 RE: [RQ-RULES] vision RE: [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill Re: [RQ-RULES] vision Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Re: [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill Re: [RQ-RULES] vision Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... 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: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:27:18 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] vision In the RQ rules, when a character uses a skill such as Scan or Search or Track, there is an assumption of "normal" vision capabilities, yes? If that character had only one eye instead of two, it is expected that the referee may impose some penalty when using such skills, yes? What if, for example, the one-eyed character is using Second Sight to target an aura? No penalty because there is no relevant physical handicap to impede "seeing" the magic aura? Or yes penalty, because that aura vision is yet superimposed upon the physical background which is imprecise to the one-eyed character? 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 16:11:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill I may be banished to some bad place for even bringing this up, but according to the latest babble on Usenet Hasbro has essentially given control of Avalon Hill's corpse to Wizards of the Coast. I assume that everyone is aware that Hasbro just bought WOTC -- if not, welcome to roleplaying. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what all this might portend for RQ? Personally I suspect that this is the final nail in the coffin -- Hasbro and WOTC have no reason to generate any potential competition for AD&D, assuming that Hasbro is even interested in RPGs at all (as opposed to the D&D mark for computer games, which might well be VERY interesting & profitable). On a totally unrelated point: I'm starting up a new scenario/minicampaign using RQ mechanics and set in a fantasy world that is pretty much unique - -- a universe without a planet, in which islands float in endless blue sky. Has anyone done anything with with RuneQuest in this sort of setting? I'm trying to break out of all of the cliches of fantasy RPGs, which means I'm also trying to come up with many forms of "magic" that do not use spells. Incidentally, the game is being played in Malden (near Boston, MA) on Sunday afternoon/evenings. There are four players at present, but I could fit in one more. If anyone's interested, drop me a line. -->Pete - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net Malden, MA RQ adventures, sheets, & more: http://www.tiac.net/users/maranci/rq.htm *************************************************************************** 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 15:58:28 -0500 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 Having participated in SCA combat for the past few years, including a few wars, I must say that fatigue and encumbrance are a major part of battle. In fact many fighters wear what some call sport armor, that is armor that is designed for the minimum required or desired protection to lessen weight and encumbrance. This kind of armor provides much less protection than what most people would want to wear in real battle. In history a similar thing occurred, soldiers got rid of any encumbering armor they did not feel the loss of movement or height carried was a good trade for the protection it gave them. The kind of armor worn in battle was different, sometime very much so, than the heavy late period tournament armor. Even then, armor is not light. It is functional and while not exhausting to wear, it does cut down on the about of work a combatant can do. Also a individual bought is very fatiguing if it lasts more than a couple of minutes, and wearing out an opponent is a common stratagem. In a larger conflict, rest is taken on the fly to a large extent. A combatant may walk more slowly to the next knot of combat, until he catches his breath. In a recent war, one battle I participated in lasted for two hours. I had to spend a good 10 to 15 minutes of it sitting on the ground resting after a lengthy spear duel. In armor I can run, I do have a amazing amount of flexibility, and can carry fairly heavy loads, but it is to a much lesser degree than when unarmored. If you disagree I invite you to spend some time in armor and try it out. Keeping in mind, of course, that such activities like SCA combat, while close approximations, are still only approximations. Who knows, you might even be good at it and can come kick my but at the next war. :) Kurt *************************************************************************** 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 22:02:21 +0100 From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Webpage update Just a note to say the following updates have been made to my webpage: * Hill of Gold Quest for Orlanthi * The Well of Wisdom (the version stored on my page up until now was a draft that was accidentally uploaded) * Arkati secrets The URL is: http://members.xoom.com/wakboth/ Cheers, Nikk _____________________________________________ "Tough on Sin, tough on the causes of Sin!" - Surantyr the Nonheretic Nikk Effingham E-Mail: nikk@MailAndNews.com Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/wakboth/ *************************************************************************** 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 22:26:13 +0000 From: "Nicholas Marcelja" Subject: [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments Ummm right I should point out that I am 6ft 4in and 330 pds before the armor. I would say my sword swing skill is at most a -5% my run real fast skill is -20 or 30. I would say my acceleration from a standing start is -30% at least. my top speed maybe -15% turning at top speed .. no no no. I already have a bad knee. towards the end of the day fighting it takes longer between each fight to pull the energy together. Note: I would put the energy expenditure of a two handed weapon user at about 2 to 3 times that of a sword and shield fighter. That is just to keep even with the sword and shield fighter. > >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 > > > > Nicholas Marcelja nam@grendal.rain.com or marcelja@sharpwa.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 20:08:03 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3 In a larger conflict, rest is taken on the fly to a large extent. A > combatant may walk more slowly to the next knot of combat, until he > catches his breath. In a recent war, one battle I participated in lasted > for two hours. I had to spend a good 10 to 15 minutes of it sitting on > the ground resting after a lengthy spear duel. In armor I can run, I do > have a amazing amount of flexibility, and can carry fairly heavy loads, > but it is to a much lesser degree than when unarmored. Oh, I agree that wearing heavy armor will cause more tiredness and cause it quicker than not wearing the armor, and that's as it should be. I'm just not sure the amounts given in RQ3 are accurate. I _have_ worn chain armor, and I have no doubt that your experiences are accurate. I don't think it is analogous however; you don't spend 75% of your waking life as a warrior, whereas RQ warrior types do. Somebody swinging a huge hammer all day long will undoubtedly be very tired at the end of the day, when he is new at the job, but after a year I'd imagine he's not anywhere near as tired, and after ten years it probably won't phase him at all. Or to put it another way: spending a strenuous day riding a bicycle up and down mountain roads does not mean I can go out and race in the Tour de France. I don't mean to make light of SCA-type fighting; I wish I had the time to do some myself! In any case, I plan to try out something like the ideas Terje Tollisen posted a few days ago. I don't think I'll be using a skill for this, but I haven't decided yet. Maybe it will just be a formula based on the number of years spent wearing armor as a warrior. I dunno. 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:54:45 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] vision Normal vision is not required for second sight, I'd imagine a blind shaman could get by in life. Mystic Vision, however, is overlaid on top of normal vision. It's no use at night. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ 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. *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:57:50 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill >I assume that everyone is aware that Hasbro just bought WOTC >Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what all this might portend for RQ? Hasbro own the name "RuneQuest", but as I understand it, have no right to create a new roleplaying game based on the BRP mechanics. They can reprint RQ3, I think, but would have to pay royalties to Chaosium for use of their text. That's why Avalon Hill never intended to continue with RuneQuest as we know it, RQ:Slayers was a totally different game system in a totally different setting - only the name was the same. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ 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. *************************************************************************** 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 22:07:37 +0100 From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] vision >In the RQ rules, when a character uses a skill such as Scan or Search or >Track, there is an assumption of "normal" vision capabilities, yes? If >that character had only one eye instead of two, it is expected that the >referee may impose some penalty when using such skills, yes? Yes, that seems very fair. I impose a reduction by half of all skills based upon sight i.e. Scan, Search etc... I'm not too sure about Track, but yes I s'pose that does involve vision. I also impose penalties on skills involving depth perception, such as all missile weapon attacks. >What if, for example, the one-eyed character is using Second Sight to >target an aura? No penalty because there is no relevant physical handicap >to impede "seeing" the magic aura? Or yes penalty, because that aura >vision is yet superimposed upon the physical background which is imprecise >to the one-eyed character? Now that'd be just cruel : ) Nikk *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:12:28 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Rich Allen wrote: > > I know I've heard that others on the list have simply dropped the fatigue > rules, but I really like having limits to things like combat and exertion > based on fatigue. What I would rather see is either a method of reducing > the ENC value of equipment in an intelligent manner, or possibly an increase > in the amount of fatigue a character starts out with. I don't think a > simple ENC/5 or similar system would do justice, so are there any other > ideas out there? I've always ruled that anything which is designed to be worn (i.e. armor) or that is designed to redistribute weight (backpacks) only count for half ENC when properly worn. WHich is to say that when a backpack is worn over both shoulders, it's only 7 ENC, but if slung over only one shoulder it couns as 14 ENC. - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:37:32 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] HASBRO/WOTC/Avalon Hill Peter Maranci wrote: > > Anyone care to hazard a guess as to what all this might portend for RQ? > Personally I suspect that this is the final nail in the coffin -- Hasbro > and WOTC have no reason to generate any potential competition for AD&D, > assuming that Hasbro is even interested in RPGs at all (as opposed to the > D&D mark for computer games, which might well be VERY interesting & > profitable). This was pretty much my take on the buyout - with AD&D under their belts, they have little if any need now to resurrect RQ as a fantasy RPG. Especially now that D&D3 is in the works - many of the changes made there have a distinct RQ feel to them (I managed to play in a D&D3 demo run by Peter Atkison at our convention last Saturday). > -- a universe without a planet, in which islands float in endless blue > sky. Has anyone done anything with with RuneQuest in this sort of setting? I had a flat, endless 'plane' once, with islands in the sky overhead. - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:45:06 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] vision As a side-note to the vision debate: I'd always assumed that having only 1 eye would knock your vision skills down by _half_, as a lot of us assume. However, on some unknown medical show ( though I'm _sure_ it was on one of the Trinity of Gamer Channels: The History Channel, Discovery, or The Learning Channel), it was noted that having only 1 eye reduces your vision by about _30%_. Go figure..... :) Your pal, _Ken- *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:55:22 -0700 From: "Jarold Davis" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Tal wrote: >I've always ruled that anything which is designed to be worn (i.e. >armor) or that is designed to redistribute weight (backpacks) only count >for half ENC when properly worn. WHich is to say that when a backpack is >worn over both shoulders, it's only 7 ENC, but if slung over only one >shoulder it couns as 14 ENC. > Hmm.. following that thought, would a suit of chainmail for a SIZ 12 be 10 ENC? That would be right in line with RQ2 ENC for armor. I find the Fatigue rules something akin to sand in my shorts at the beach. I like Terje's idea of an armor-wearing skill. *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:55:44 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Well, I happen to _like_ the RQ3 FTG/ENC rules; though I'm _currently_ using a modified version of them that I found in an old _Heroes_ magazine, where each point of damage done lowers your FTG as well ( blunt weapons would do 1pt less than rolled to FTG, while brawling-type natural weapons like fists do 1/2 their damage in FTG pts). Talk about taking a _drubbing_! If I can find the rules I'll fill in some more details :) The group I've recently hooked-up with have tossed the RQ3 FTG/ENC rules right out the window, and they all seem happy with the ones out of the ill-fated RQ4 (which I don't particularly care for). Your pal, -Ken- *************************************************************************** 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 #150 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.