From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #79 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, September 1 2000 Volume 03 : Number 079 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Lite Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy [RQ-RULES] New RQ rules Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy Re: [RQ-RULES] New RQ rules [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Re: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions 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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:18:13 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Lite SPerrin@aol.com wrote: > > else wants to intro RQ to new players might want to check them out. They're > available from the list master (Tal Meta is the list master, yes?) or from > me, for that matter. It's only about 30 pages, if that. There's a lot left > open, and the GM does have to have a grasp of RQ to start with, but I think > you can actually play a game with the rules. Ya, that's me. Right on the RQ section of my page, and everything, along with some stuff by the late Mr. Beyke and Leon Kirshtein. My own somewhat slanted rules are there, too, off under the TalQuest link. - -- 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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:23:32 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy Steve Lieb wrote: > > And I find it ironic that everyone on this list feels compelled to spit > every time they mention the game D&D, or maybe that's just part of the > ritual of the RQ religion. Especially hilarious, when you consider how MUCH > of D&D 3e is a straight ripoff of RQ. I think that if one did a careful > enough conversion of RQ to the d20 system, it would be almost completely > compatible with D&D new products. AAGH HERESY! I played in a 3E demo run by Peter Adkison last year, and remarked repeatedly how closely the system seemed to resemble RuneQuest.... the new PHB only reinforces that sensation. Considering that I'm actually contemplating bastardizing the version of élan (from Stormbringer) that I'm using to bring in an element of point based character development, what I finally wind up with will be interesting, to say the least. :) - -- 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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:26:08 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > I do not know if this is a proper place to discuss D&D3, but things have > been slow on this list and if people are willing to talk about then I am > game. I have enough 3E flame wars to extinguish on the Greyhawk list, but conversions to-from RQ are always welcome. - -- 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, 01 Sep 2000 03:19:12 GMT From: "Chris Stansbury" Subject: [RQ-RULES] New RQ rules I know Ken has my new RQ rules, and has commented favorably on them. Whoever else wants to intro RQ to new players might want to check them out. They're available from the list master (Tal Meta is the list master, yes?) or from me, for that matter. It's only about 30 pages, if that. There's a lot left open, and the GM does have to have a grasp of RQ to start with, but I think you can actually play a game with the rules. They need more work, but I'm working full time and more at Gameworld.com these days, and just don't have the time. Steve Perrin, who really needs to go over the spell descriptins a few more times... ==================== I would love to have a copy of those rules. I have several of the other games. Ringworld, Elric, does that count? Chris Stansbury, who wishes he had kept his copy :( _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:54:47 GMT From: "Leon Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy >Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > > I do not know if this is a proper place to discuss D&D3, but things have > > been slow on this list and if people are willing to talk about then I am > > game. > Tal Meta wrote: > >I have enough 3E flame wars to extinguish on the Greyhawk list, but >conversions to-from RQ are always welcome. No problem. If anyone is interested email me directly and we shall keep it of the list. 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. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:12:33 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Rules Lite, d20, and sleeping with the enemy In a message dated 8/31/00 9:02:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, leonbk@hotmail.com writes: > > > >I have enough 3E flame wars to extinguish on the Greyhawk list, but > >conversions to-from RQ are always welcome. > > No problem. If anyone is interested email me directly and we shall keep it > of the list. > > Leon, That's not what Tal said. As long as you are talking conversions between the two systems, it is pertinent,and the rest of us might be interested, too. As you said, there's not much activity at the moment. Perhaps someone might want to do a dissertation on design decisions between the two systems and which they prefer, and what might be useful from one system when using the other? Steve Perrin, who is an inveterate system mixer... *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Sep 2000 02:12:32 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New RQ rules In a message dated 8/31/00 8:33:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ice_giant@hotmail.com writes: > > I would love to have a copy of those rules. I have several of the other > games. Ringworld, Elric, does that count? > > Chris Stansbury, who wishes he had kept his copy :( > > If someone wants the copies directly from me, please send me a personal email, so I don't end up sending them to the whole list. Oh, and let me know if you need them in some other format than Word '97. Steve Perrin, who, after all, has to attach the files, you might as well do some of the work :). *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Sep 2000 18:10:09 +0200 From: "Mathias Braun" Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Hi out there, I've seen some of the rq-discussion-lists. I was sad to see the RQ IV - Project dying and have only recently gotten a draft version of RQ IV (I think from 1992!). Meanwhile I have two or three draft versions of RQIV and many more RQ-Material. Sadly my group does not play RQ. But we think about reviving an old campaign in my own world GEA. It's similiar in type like acient rome (or glorantha). What I liked the most on RQ (besides it's realistic mechanics) was its unique - world flavor. Not just tolkien-imitating, even when glorantha was (in MY opinion in some parts a bit silly {e.g. ducks} - but every is free to have fun as he likes). To the point: I've seen quite a bit systems, worlds, mechanics. I've also seen quite a bit of fuzzing about RQ Lite, RQ IV, going back to RQII, tons of house rules and so on. But: Hasn't someone thought up a simple basic system that is complemented by optional rules, that define enhancements? I think so and it would be very useful. To my mind a simple, quick system is a good start. Later if you're familiar with the system you can put slots of rules into a rule-pool and use it if you like, some other groups have their own combination of rules, but the same basic rules. There could be also alternative rules for magic, for character creation and so on. Or special tactics for more combat orientated groups and so on. What we now do is: We have taken Chaosium's Elric! (its a good start and for that more RQ Lite than anything i have seen) and beefed it up with parts of RQ3 and Columbia Games Harnmaster, which is quite a nice game. Some parts: * Wound system: forget hitpoints, you can take wounds. You use normal RQ-Weaponstats, but roll on a very simple table where you hit (e.g. Eye ;-) ). Then you make a shock roll with you're accumulated wounds, fatigue and so on. Sometimes you are k.o. but not ever. Nice: You don't have so much all out kills. After the fight you bandage youre wounds and get a healing time (between 1-5), then you roll once a day with healing time*CON on a D100 to see if you heal a wound point. You can also get fever and die of it. Or you can get crippled. * Skillssystem: forget checking the cryptic rules for criticals and specials: if you're roll is dividable by 5 its a special if by 20 a critical (its of course only a success if you roll <=you're skill). * Magic it's fine to have not so much magic users as in RQ (only the ones with power 16+ can do it). There's some more points to it. If anyone likes to here more, write me and I put something together. It's all playtested and works ok for my group. I think we could devise something and put it up on a website (?). It must not be named R.Q. (or ?). Mathias *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Sep 2000 17:21:31 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions >even when glorantha was (in MY opinion >in some parts a bit silly {e.g. ducks} Okay, I don't want to start another Ducks flame war, everyone is free to dislike Ducks if they want to. However, is playing a "duck" (durulz) qualitatively sillier than playing a "goat" (satyr), "horse" (centaur), "bull" (minotaur), or "fish" (mermaid)? 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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 13:11:10 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Mathias Braun wrote: > Hasn't someone thought up a simple basic system that is complemented by optional >rules, that define enhancements? I think so and it would be very useful. >To my mind a simple, quick system is a good start. Later if you're familiar with the system >you can put slots of rules into a rule-pool and use it if you like, some other groups have their >own combination of rules, but the same basic rules. I think this is the approach the RQ4 should have taken (and that any potential RQ-ressurection should take as well). Not so much a drastic reinvention of the wheel, but more a Feat of reorganization. Aside from a few (well-known) cases, I think that RQ3 holds up remarkably well, and that its biggest problem is in presentation -- a new player (or GM) sees all those rules laid out end to end and is overwhelmed by the system's complexity, not realizing that 9/10 (well, maybe not, but probably 3/4) is actually optional and there's a quite simple and effective system hiding inside. RQ-UltraLite (something similar, perhaps, to Steve Perrin's current system) would serve as baseline, and each section would then have systematically laid out possible enhancements for those who want more realism, options, and bookkeeping. Each section would be mutually independant, so a GM could use Full Advanced Super Character Generation but still maintain baseline combat and magic rules; or vice versa. I have nothing against Lite rules sets; they're good for people who don't want to hassle with bookkeeping and for people who want a quick intro for new players, but I don't think that should be the ONLY way -- I'm not afraid of a little Complexity with a Purpose (pardon the George-Dubya-Bush-ism) and don't see why I should be forced to constantly extrapolate on a case-by-case basis just because someone else might be offended by the very notion of (optional, and claerly labeled as such) detailed Fatigue rules. (In further defense of optional detailed rules: as a layperson, I don't necessarily know the real-world effects of a lot of things, but would still like to make judgments in my game that come reasonably close to reflecting reality (rather than Hollywood); it's nice to have a well-researched and common-sensical precedent in a rulebook to use as a guideline, so I'm not always having to make off-the-cuff guesses at things like how fast a trained climber can scale a cli! ! ff, or how long someone can swim before becoming exhausted, or even what's likely to happen if someone drops a lighted oil-lamp.) Anyhow, it's pretty easy to bemoan how things should've been after the fact, but I still harbor this fantastic notion that someday, somehow, RQ might be resurrected and become the Ultimate role-playing system I've always felt it had potential to be. Trent *************************************************************************** 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, 01 Sep 2000 13:28:27 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions Phillip Hibbs wrote: > >Okay, I don't want to start another Ducks flame war, everyone is free to >dislike Ducks if they want to. However, is playing a "duck" (durulz) >qualitatively sillier than playing a "goat" (satyr), "horse" (centaur), >"bull" (minotaur), or "fish" (mermaid)? I REALLY don't want to become involved in a Ducks flamewar, as I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but my immediate reaction to the above is that while all the other cases have a firm basis in RW "serious" folklore and mythology, the best known (only?) precedent for Ducks is Disney and WB cartoons. Thus, rightly or wrongly, there's a pretty high perceived-relative-silliness quotient. Admittedly, this speaks to the mindset and preconceptions of the reader/player more than any "qualitative" difference, but to pretend it doesn't exist, for anything other than the sake of pure argument and debate, is, well, silly. Trent, trying not to be controversial and hoping I didn't inadvertently spark something. P.S. Playing a satyr is pretty silly too. *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Sep 2000 13:53:42 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ: new versions, old versions, conversions In a message dated 9/1/00 10:37:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, trentfs@ix.netcom.com writes: > > I REALLY don't want to become involved in a Ducks flamewar, as I don't have > a strong opinion one way or the other, but my immediate reaction to the above > is that while all the other cases have a firm basis in RW "serious" folklore > and mythology, the best known (only?) precedent for Ducks is Disney and WB > cartoons. Thus, rightly or wrongly, there's a pretty high perceived-relative- > silliness quotient. Admittedly, this speaks to the mindset and > preconceptions of the reader/player more than any "qualitative" difference, > but to pretend it doesn't exist, for anything other than the sake of pure > argument and debate, is, well, silly. > > Incident One: Greg Stafford allowed each of his playtesters and contributors for White Bear and Red Moon to either have a city named after him or to name a city. One of the playtesters pointed to one of the cities and said, "Duckburg." Greg decided that was asking for trouble from Disney, so he changed it to Duck Point. Incident Two: Neville Stocken, then the owner-creator-manager of Archive Miniatures, came up with a set of figures based on the cover of Howard the Duck #1. He called them "A Barbarian Duck and his Old Lady." He then found that Marvel Comics was not happy with people ripping off Howard (and then Marvel found that Disney was not happy with folks ripping off Donald, but that's another story) and needed an excuse other than copying Howard for having the figure. He appealed to his old friend Greg Stafford, for whom he had already done several WBRM-oriented figures. At the time, we were putting RuneQuest together and felt that we needed a hobbit/halfling like race that would be small and quick but weak. So we invented RQ ducks. Incident Three: (and only tangentially related) One of Neville's designers came up with the Duck rationale that at one point a wizard had tried to summon one gigantic fire-breathing dragon, and had instead gotten 1000 cigar-smoking drakes. Where they got the ducks to breed with is a question best left unasked... Just a little history on the actual creation... Steve Perrin, who also created trollkin... *************************************************************************** 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 #79 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.