From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #73 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 Friday, August 11 2000 Volume 03 : Number 073 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor [RQ-RULES] Spirits & Spirit Combat Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Plate.... Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Plate.... Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour RE: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question 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, 8 Aug 2000 15:59:24 -0400 (EDT) From: simon_hibbs@lycosmail.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor Spirits & Spirit Combat astor@prismnet.com writes: > If someone wearing a seven > point breastplate was hit by a pistol shot doing only six points of damage, > would they simply be able to shrug it off, at least according to the > Runequest combat system? If this is the case, then why was armor >considered useless by the time the Renaissance rolled around? Penetrative power of musket rounds wasn't that much greater (if it was at all) than longbow shafts at the same range. The big advantage of muskets was that they were much easier to train troops to use. Thus missile weapons became a much bigger factor on the battlefield. This discouraged the use of armoured cavalry not because the armour of the rider was more likely to be penetrated, but because the horse were so vulnerable. Another major factor discouraging the armoured heavy cavalry was their very high cost of maintenance compared to other troops, such as dragoons and light cavalry. Social/financial factors were at least as important as military and technological factors. I think cannon were probably the final nail in the heavy cavalry coffin. Few targets could offer so tempting a cost/benefit ratio per cannonball. 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: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:00:19 -0400 (EDT) From: simon_hibbs@lycosmail.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Spirits & Spirit Combat Ricky.Dawson@celexa.co.uk : >The first assault was on the Shaman who was immediately knocked to the >ground writhing in agony (he had no spirit shield up !!..dah ! - nor did the >GM account for the time it takes for a spirit to coalesce), instead they >followed the normal rules for spirit combat with the Shaman losing and the >spirit taking possession of his body (and thus leaving the Shaman as a >discorporate spirit). I have no idea how your GM runs this if he is using strict RQ2 rukes with RQ3 spirits. I don't see how the two can possibly be compatible without a mix of rules and magic from the two systems. In RQ3 rules, which the spirits are written for, they only posess when the target is reduced to 0 MPs. Thus the shaman should have several rounds to cast spirit shield or block. In RQ3 his fetch should add to his defence in spirit combat anyway. Also, passion spirits covertly posess, so he is still in concious controll of his body when he recovers his MPs (and conciousness). His fetch can attempt to drive out the spirit, and he can cast spirit shield/block on his fetch, and loan it MPs (or take it's MP losses in spirit combat from his own MPs, I think). It sounds like your GM cocked up the rules somewhat. I have no problem with that if the GM has a flexible approach to the rules. Maybe these spirits have different powers to the normal ones and that expålains what happened. However it's plain wrong to inflict non-standard rules, results and abilities on the players while only allwing them stuff strictly by the book (IMHO). 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: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:34:36 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Plate.... In a message dated 8/8/00 12:03:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thazar@globalnet.co.uk writes: > > Firearms and armour were around together a fair while before the eventual > triumph of the gun. > > After all the English Longbow and the Crossbow were also capable of > penetrating armour......ask the French after Agincor! > According to the accounts I have read (Shakespeare aside), by the time of Agincourt, French armor was quite capable of stopping most English arrows. They had suffered badly from the arrows at Crecy and Poitiers and half dozen less known affrays and their armorers had improved. However, where their armorers had learned their lessons, the knights were no more educated than they had ever been. They marched (rather than rode) in full, arrow-proof armor uphill across a wet plowed field. When they found the English drawn up before them in alternating formations of archer and knights, with the knights slightly withdrawn, they ignored the archers (from whom they would gain no honor by fighting) and wedged themselves into the knights' formations, essentially making it impossible to swing a weapon for the press of people. Meanwhile, the archers had put down their bows and picked up billhooks and mauls and used their muscles, toned by years of pulling 100 pound bows, to work smashing into the sardine can that was the French formation and knocking out and killing French chivalry. Many a yeoman went home a rich man from a French knight's ransom. > The The English Civil war springs to mind.....muskets were 'common' but the > use of plate armour was common enough by those rich enough to equip > themselves or their men with it.....although many assumed that a good leather > coat would do just as well... > > In general, they were right. I don't remember what kind of musket the Cromwell folks were using, but by the time of the flintlock, and perhaps the wheellock before it, a musket could fire frequently enough that an armored man could not just take a hit and keep coming. He would be hit several times and his armor would be so much swiss cheese. Or perhaps, apropos of a previous post, a stew strainer. Steve Perrin, who finds the musket and pike period a fascinating one. Rent and watch "The Last Valley," starring Omar Sharif and Peter O'Toole (I think) if you haven't already. *************************************************************************** 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, 08 Aug 2000 22:31:44 GMT From: "Leon Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor I believe it is in CoC that the idea of armor penetration was introduced. The same could be applied to both crossbows and long/composite bows. For example a bullet from a rifle would ignore 6AP. While a pistol would have an armor penetration of 4AP but only at point blank range. This may reflect well in your campaign. Leon Kirshtein www.geocities.com/leonbk/ "No good deed shall go unpunished." ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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, 08 Aug 2000 20:52:20 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Plate.... >Firearms and armour were around together a fair while before the eventualy triumph of the gun. > >After all the English Longbow and the Crossbow were also capable of penetrating armour......ask the French after Agincor! And crossbows helped the Italian city-states resist against many different opponents who relied on knights. (also showing my SCA roots, but then SCA combat makes me appreciate RQ combat) 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, 08 Aug 2000 23:16:16 MST From: "Northern DM" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armor I am using blackpowder weapons in my current campaign. How I use them is that flintlock does 3d6 damage and a musket does 4d6 damage. If a 6 is rolled, another dice is rolled. Armour protects in that it stops d6 damage per level of armour. Leather stops 1d6 damage Chainmail stops 2d6 damage Plate stops 3d6 damage The Northern DM ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:16:16 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour > Consider that the velocity and force of a ball shot from a musket would be quite a bit more than an arrow. Even if you decide to allow very thick armor to compensate, I would apply knockback to any shot that hits. A common fallacy. Bullets do lots of damage because they have high kinetic energy. Knockback would be caused by momentum, and the impact of a bullet on its target is the same as that of the recoil on a firer. (There are exceptions with modern firearms, but not for black powder era weapons). Andrew *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Aug 2000 17:46:32 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour >A common fallacy. Bullets do lots of damage because they >have high kinetic energy. Knockback would be caused >by momentum, and the impact of a bullet on its target >is the same as that of the recoil on a firer. KE and Momentum are the same thing. You're right, the knockback is the same (or less than) the recoil, but remember that the person firing the gun is braced for the recoil. 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, 9 Aug 2000 12:57:51 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour >Andrew >A common fallacy. Bullets do lots of damage because they >have high kinetic energy. Knockback would be caused >by momentum, and the impact of a bullet on its target >is the same as that of the recoil on a firer. The momentum at impact would be less than the recoil on the firer since the ball slows down during transit. Knockdown occasional occurs, especially with severe wounds, but not knockback. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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, 09 Aug 2000 13:52:12 -0400 From: rico@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Guns and Armour Andrew wrote: > A common fallacy. Bullets do lots of damage because they > have high kinetic energy. Knockback would be caused > by momentum, and the impact of a bullet on its target > is the same as that of the recoil on a firer. The shooter would be braced, the target most likely not even aware he was being shot at. But we're talking about game effects, not real life (as such). If a ball shot from a gun doesn't do more damage, or have more effect on the target, than a sling stone there would be absolutely no reason to use one. Reload times are much faster for the sling; ammo is only dependant on the amount of stones that can be carried, no powder to haul around and keep dry, no flints to keep track of, etc. So, I would give a knockback on a successful hit by a gun shot. Cinematic standards apply here, I think; realism can only go so far! 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: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:14:43 -0400 From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question Just wanted to let everyone know that I've added an interactive guest book to Pete's RuneQuest Page!. The main URL is http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm , but you can jump straight to the guest book at http://www.maranci.net/rqguest.htm . I've also been adding to the Chatter section fairly often, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time announcing each update to that section. I've got a couple of quick questions: First, I have another adventure to write up. It would be helpful to know how much detail is most useful for GMs; for example, should NPCs be written up as entire character sheets, with all skills included? Or is a more digested version okay, such as the ones I used in "To Kill A Monster"? Second, I'm trying to decide what setting to use. The scenario I want to write up is basically a generic fantasy one; it can fit into Glorantha easily (in fact, I first intended it to be Gloranthan), but it can also fit into a lot of other settings, and I ended up running it in a Dunsanian version of CoC's Dreamlands. So what would be most useful to you? A Gloranthan writeup, a generic fantasy writeup, other? Thanks for any feedback! ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RQ Page! scenarios, sheets, more: http://www.maranci.net/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: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:26:39 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question > for example, should NPCs > be written up as entire character sheets, with all skills included? Or > is a more digested version okay, The more detail the better, but you don't need a whole character sheet! The NPC format in most published RQ module should work. > Second, I'm trying to decide what setting to use. Generic!!! It's easier to add detail specific to each campaign world than it is to remove specific detail from a world you're not playing in and then add your own anyway. 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: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:50:28 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question In a message dated 8/10/00 8:17:30 PM Central Daylight Time, peter@maranci.net writes: << So what would be most useful to you? A Gloranthan writeup, a generic fantasy writeup, other? >> Well, even if it _were_ written with a Gloranthan slant to it, I'd just disregard the setting anyhow, so generic sounds better to me... -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: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:01:22 +0100 From: "Meirion Hopkins" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question From: Peter Maranci > > Second, I'm trying to decide what setting to use. The scenario I want > to write up is basically a generic fantasy one; it can fit into > Glorantha easily (in fact, I first intended it to be Gloranthan), but > it can also fit into a lot of other settings, and I ended up running > it in a Dunsanian version of CoC's Dreamlands. So what would be most > useful to you? A Gloranthan writeup, a generic fantasy writeup, other? How about a generic writeup, with a note as to how you'd fit into Glorantha (Where? When? Any encounters which might benefit from being more Gloranthan IYO). Meirion - Go for the cake AND eat it! *************************************************************************** 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, 11 Aug 2000 07:33:52 -0700 (PDT) From: dabick@excite.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ page update and a question Peter asked a couple of questions. On your question of NPC format; the format from "To Kill A Monster" was very good. Listing base percent skill just gives me more clutter to scan through to get to the important things. As for what setting to use, I play in Glorantha so a setting there makes it easier on me. However, a generic setting is easy enough to convert. On the plus side of a generic scenario, it can be placed anywhere in Glorantha that I want. So after a little rambling, I would vote for Generic. Just one request. Have the file in a format that can be edited. Whether it is RTF or TXT. I can then insert my notes and make adjustments for my personal setting. If the file PDF, I can only print it and then I am back to the old pencil to for notes. Jim _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html *************************************************************************** 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 V3 #73 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.