From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #152 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 Sunday, September 19 1999 Volume 02 : Number 152 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #151 (Auto Reply) Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #151 (Auto Reply) [RQ-RULES] Greater skill, less endurance expenditure [RQ-RULES] OOP Glorantha stuff Re: [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments [RQ-RULES] Argh (archives?) RE: [RQ-RULES] vision Re: [RQ-RULES] Argh (archives?) Re: [RQ-RULES] vision [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 Re: [RQ-RULES] OOP Glorantha stuff RE: [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 Re: [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 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, 17 Sep 1999 10:54:53 -0400 From: Ukkie Subject: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #151 (Auto Reply) This is an automatic reply generated for Ukkie. I hate you! You are sick! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com and http://MailAndNews.co.uk Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. - ------------------------------------------------------------ *************************************************************************** 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: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:40:49 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Encumbrance in RQ3... Rich Allen wrote: > > > Yes, pretty much. I'm currently trying out a system that subtracts from > > the character's DEX when he's overencumbered, affecting movement and > > inititive rather than flat skill percentages. > > Hey, I like that! Please let us know how it goes, and how it works! EFFECTS OF ENCUMBRANCE A character who is unencumbered (is carrying less than his FAT in ENC) suffers no penalties. A character who is lightly encumbered (current FAT equal to or less than -5) has his DEX lowered by 1. A character who is moderately encumbered (current FAT equal to or less than -10) has his DEX lowered by 3. A character who is severely encumbered (current FAT equal to or less than -15) has his DEX lowered by 6. And finally, a character who is desperately encumbered (current FAT exceeding -16) has his DEX lowered by 10. Worn armor distributes it's overall weight across a character so that it only encumbers him for half the value expressed for it's overall weight. Similarly, gear stowed in a backpack/saddlebag also applies only half it's actual weight to encumbrance. I use the RQ4 movement calculations, and a DEX based Strike Rank system, so a character with SIZ 12 and DEX 12 has a move of 4 and begins an action on DEX 12. With light encumbrance, he starts acting on DEX 11, but still has his move of 4. At moderate, he starts at 9 and still moves 4. Severe drops his action to 6, and his move to 3, and desperate has him striking at the very end (DEX 2) and moving at 2, as well. - -- 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: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:43:28 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #151 (Auto Reply) Ukkie wrote: > > This is an automatic reply generated for Ukkie. > > I hate you! > > You are sick! Goodbye, Ukkie. That's two lists I've gotten this on, now. - -- 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: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:04:20 +0100 From: Pete Nash Subject: [RQ-RULES] Greater skill, less endurance expenditure > From: William Wenz > This is an interesting idea that deserves to be looked at. I have > observed and talked to SCA knights about fighting and energy > conservation. They have agreed that how you spend your energy while > fighting is very important. There are very good fighters that are in > pretty bad shape endurance wise, they are very good at conserving their > energy while fighting. It is a trick I'm trying to learn.- Kurt I have noticed this too. Not only in SCA fighting but also other martial arts. I have studied what these 'masters'(?) do and have resolved it down to this. A highly experienced fighter only throws one or two shots (or combinations for the pedantic) but those attacks almost invariably hit and 'disable' their opponent. They make sure that their attack is not wasted. Whereas a less experienced fighter throws far more attacks and has a lot less success in scoring hits. This is mapped fairly reasonably across to RQ by a master being able to kill his foe far quicker than less skilled people and thus expending less fatigue in the long run. Of course this doesn't _quite_ match what I see most knights doing, which is waiting on full defense for four or five of his opponents attacks (waiting for the foe to become tired) and then counter striking once, killing the poor sap. The chances of a critical in RQ make this an unwise tactic to follow... 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:26:50 +0100 From: "MHopkins" Subject: [RQ-RULES] OOP Glorantha stuff >Bob Eldred > > The important question on this is "What are the odds, then, of them > reprinting some of the out-of-print stuff that's hard to find any more?" > > Like Glorantha, for instance. I'd consider killing to find one of those > that I didn't have to send to the other coast for. I'm terrible about that. Following the recent reprint of Pavis & Big Rubble I emailed Rick Meints and enquired about future publications. He replied "The second volume will either be Griffin Mountain or Borderlands." So hopefully there is a good chance that the whole RQ2 back catalogue will become available over time. Obviously the RQ3 stuff is a different matter. Maybe Moon Design Publications will get the license for these too at some point in the future. Meirion *************************************************************************** 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: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:34:15 -0500 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] re: Encumbrance general comments Nicholas Marcelja wrote "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" I don't know that this is true- I'm not saying it isn't , I just don't know that it is. It certainly seems like I spend more energy when fighting two handed- but I fight it much less often than sword and shield. Most people start fighting sword and shield for practical reasons, they are better protected while they build their endurance, strength and skill. Once this is done , they move on to other styles. It is there for difficult to make the comparison. It is certainly a different skill and uses different muscles which must be brought up to condition. It is often more aggressive than sword and shield fighting- you can turtle up and be very defensive without spending much energy- so this may account for extra energy also. I am not disagreeing with the idea of more energy used, I am just trying to explore it a little further. Rich Allen wrote: "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." This is an interesting idea that deserves to be looked at. I have observed and talked to SCA knights about fighting and energy conservation. They have agreed that how you spend your energy while fighting is very important. There are very good fighters that are in pretty bad shape endurance wise, they are very good at conserving their energy while fighting. It is a trick I'm trying to learn.- 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: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] Argh (archives?) For some reason #151 reached me, but #150 did not. I looked for an online archive with no luck. Can anyone point me to an archive, or possibly send me #150? Thanks! -->Pete - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net Malden, MA FRP adventures, art and 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: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:43:11 +0200 From: "German Cantabrana Gonzalez" 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. Yes, I think that EVERY reduction based in a % is very dangerous because an expert in a skill perhaps don't care with a little penalty and yes an unskilled one but a x50% is very hard to everybody. I prefer reduce the skill in the same amount to everybody. JAM *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:09:36 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Argh (archives?) Peter Maranci wrote: > > For some reason #151 reached me, but #150 did not. I looked for an online > archive with no luck. Can anyone point me to an archive, or possibly send > me #150? Thanks! ftp://ftp.mpgn.com/Gaming/RuneQuest/MailingListArchive/ has it. - -- 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: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:31:06 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] vision A couple of posts back, German apparently quoted me: > 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. Yes, I think that EVERY reduction based in a % is very dangerous because an expert in a skill perhaps don't care with a little penalty and yes an unskilled one but a x50% is very hard to everybody. I prefer reduce the skill in the same amount to everybody. I had _meant_ a 50% skill reduction in _general_ due to the fact that 1 eye is _half_ of your normal set; thus a decrease by 1/2 your normal skill%. This doesn't _actually_ work out to _actually_ be a -50% modifier unless the character is at 100% with the skill. -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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:31:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "German Cantabrana Gonzalez" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF02AA.03EFB440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable << I had _meant_ a 50% skill reduction in _general_ due to the = fact that=20 <<1 eye is _half_ of your normal set; thus a decrease by 1/2 your = normal=20 <

<<   I had _meant_  a  50% skill = reduction in=20 _general_  due to the  fact that
<<1 eye is = _half_  of=20 your normal set; thus a decrease by 1/2 your normal
<<skill%. = This=20 doesn't _actually_  work out to  _actually_  be a  = - -50%=20 modifier
<<unless the character is at 100% with the = skill.
 
Yes, but I think that is too hard the reduction by 1/2 of the = normal skill,=20 I always put a malus of xx% (probably an untrained farmer with 30% see = imposible=20 to control a weapon to aim a hit to the head of a foe and a master = don't) When I=20 must to divide by 3, the maximun malus is 66%. Look if you have 180% and = you=20 want to shot to the boss of a group of three foes you are loosing 120%. = Too=20 hard.
 
Too, I think that if you lose an eye you don't have to decrease = your skill=20 with missile. Everybody when shot close the "bad" eye 'cos one = of the=20 human eyes lie when you are aimming.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF02AA.03EFB440-- *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:26:58 -0400 From: Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] OOP Glorantha stuff where can I get this stuff? I need it badly, where can I get it please some one tell me thanks ken MHopkins wrote: > >Bob Eldred > > > > The important question on this is "What are the odds, then, of them > > reprinting some of the out-of-print stuff that's hard to find any more?" > > > > Like Glorantha, for instance. I'd consider killing to find one of those > > that I didn't have to send to the other coast for. I'm terrible about > that. > > Following the recent reprint of Pavis & Big Rubble I emailed Rick Meints > and enquired about future publications. He replied "The second volume will > either be Griffin Mountain or Borderlands." So hopefully there is a good > chance that the whole RQ2 back catalogue will become available over time. > > Obviously the RQ3 stuff is a different matter. Maybe Moon Design > Publications will get the license for these too at some point in the > future. > > Meirion > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:39:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Terje Tollisen Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 >Too, I think that if you lose an eye you don't have to decrease >your skill with missile. Everybody when shot close the "bad" eye >'cos one of the human eyes lie when you are aimming. True, most people close one eye when aiming any missile weapon. But before they do that they make an estimate of the range to the traget, using both eyes. A person with just one eye have no depth vision, and therefore can not make out the range to the target. That is gonna make it really hard to take aim properly. One of my players have played a nomade with one eye for a while now. His father got corruped by chaos, and sacreficed one eye of his son to his new god. I gave the player -40 to scan and all missile weapons and -20 to search and track (depth vision is more important for scan). - -Terje Tollisen __________________________________________________ FREE Email for ALL! Sign up at http://www.mail.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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:32:26 -0500 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:19:42 +0200 Well, does anyone know a person with only one eye? That may be the best way to get a handle on what kind of a handicap it is. I have a friend who also fights in the SCA that is missing an eye, but I haven't been able to talk to him for a year. I have been told that there are some tricks, like moving the head back and forth, that will compensate for depth perception. I don't have any answers, but am just trying to add to the debate. thanks - 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #152 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.