From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #31 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, April 13 2001 Volume 04 : Number 031 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Dumping Strike Ranks [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 [RQ-RULES] slipped through 'quality-control' at AH Re: [RQ-RULES] slipped through 'quality-control' at AH Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 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, 13 Apr 2001 11:59:58 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Dumping Strike Ranks Exactly right, if you are using Strike Ranks, which is one reason I dropped them. To much time spent figuring SR each melee round. Easier to use the Magic World Dex-based initiative. In a message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:26:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Stancliff writes: << > I do feel that someone suitably fast, WITH Coordination > spells AND a fast weapon probably should attack twice as > often as some small bloke with a shortsword. > Jeremy But why is the long weapon considered 'faster'? It has more mass, is harder to control, and harder to change direction of travel. The smallest, lightest weapon is truly the 'fastest'. The long weapon only has a reach advantage as long as the opponent holds back. If he can get to his weapon's normal reach, there is no advantage to the long weapon. It is better to say that lances and pikes must attack 3 or more meters to get WSR=0. WSR=1 weapons must be able to attack 2 meters, and WSR=2 weapons must attack 1 meter. If an opponent is inside your weapon reach, then the WSR is set to 4. In some cases you could change your fighting style with the weapon such as using your WSR1 long spear as a WSR2 quarterstaff. At close range many one-hand weapons can be used for short clubbing attacks at WSR4. Stancliff >> *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:03:06 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Once upon a time, when my RQ3 was brand new, I noticed that when making a new character the player rolled 2d6+6 instead of 3d6. I thought that this difference was simply intended to give player characters an advantage and to match the character parameters nearer to how the players played the characters. I continued then to expect that the average human INT was 10 to 11. Some later time, as players from outside our incestuous group joined in campaigns, I was persuaded that actually the expected value of all human INT (including NPCs) was 13 (that is, 2d6+6). Now that character who had survived from older campaigns with INT=10 was labelled a dunce. So we retrofitted such older characters. I was further persuaded that this was the right thing to do when I studied Chaosium's Trollpack, which, IIRC, explicitly parameterizes this change from 3d6 to 2d6+6 for INT. But recently I read something somewhere, seemingly authoritative (What was it? Some Avalon HIll publication during the Ken Rolston reign? _Lords_of_Terror_?) which indicated that 3d6 remained the expected value for the norm of human population. What is the consensus on this list? Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Brad Furst wrote: > [...] > But recently I read something somewhere, seemingly authoritative > (What was it? Some Avalon HIll publication during the Ken Rolston > reign? _Lords_of_Terror_?) which indicated that 3d6 remained the > expected value for the norm of human population. > > What is the consensus on this list? As I understand it, INT 1-7 is reserved for animals and other creatures of fixed INT. At least that's what the bestiary says. Chimps and dolphins would be around INT 6, maybe 7, and the least intelligent possible humans would start at INT 8. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:14:49 -0400 From: "Joseph Elric Smith: Servant of Arioch: Lord of the Seven Darks" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Well I let pc role 2d6 +6 and npc roll 3 d6 ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics. Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil then you. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Furst" To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > Once upon a time, when my RQ3 was brand new, I noticed that when > making a new character the player rolled 2d6+6 instead of 3d6. I > thought that this difference was simply intended to give player > characters an advantage and to match the character parameters nearer > to how the players played the characters. I continued then to expect > that the average human INT was 10 to 11. > > Some later time, as players from outside our incestuous group joined > in campaigns, I was persuaded that actually the expected value of all > human INT (including NPCs) was 13 (that is, 2d6+6). Now that > character who had survived from older campaigns with INT=10 was > labelled a dunce. So we retrofitted such older characters. I was > further persuaded that this was the right thing to do when I studied > Chaosium's Trollpack, which, IIRC, explicitly parameterizes this > change from 3d6 to 2d6+6 for INT. > > But recently I read something somewhere, seemingly authoritative > (What was it? Some Avalon HIll publication during the Ken Rolston > reign? _Lords_of_Terror_?) which indicated that 3d6 remained the > expected value for the norm of human population. > > What is the consensus on this list? > > Brad Furst > esoteric@teleport.com > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com > with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:26:17 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 >As I understand it, INT 1-7 is reserved for animals and other creatures of >fixed INT. At least that's what the bestiary says. Chimps and dolphins >would be around INT 6, maybe 7, and the least intelligent possible humans >would start at INT 8. Yes, okay.... But is 10 = average human, or is 10 = sub-normal human. Does INT=13 somewhat equate to I.Q.=100? INT=13 is about one standard deviation greater than the mean of 3d6. ____ Brad *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:42:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > Yes, okay.... > But is 10 = average human, > or is 10 = sub-normal human. > Does INT=13 somewhat equate to I.Q.=100? > INT=13 is about one standard deviation greater than the mean of 3d6. My understanding is that you roll 2d6+6 not because adventurers are better people but because that's the range for humans... so I'd say the average would be 13 for humans. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:43:35 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Brad Furst wrote: > But recently I read something somewhere, seemingly authoritative >(What was it? Some Avalon HIll publication during the Ken Rolston >reign? _Lords_of_Terror_?) which indicated that 3d6 remained the >expected value for the norm of human population. This source was wrong; 2D6+6 for INT applies to all humans. I don't have access to anything to cite authoritatively right now, but I know I'm right. Whoever wrote the above was probably a former-RQ2er who was simply mistaken and slipped through 'quality-control' at AH - like that section from 'Strangers in Prax' about there being no horizon on Glorantha, or the artwork in 'Troll Gods' ;) Trent *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:58:19 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > What is the consensus on this list? > Brad Furst My preference is that 3d6 is the human average and that players are above average. I have a player who has actually played longer than I have who argues the adjusted average view. I bypassed the whole issue by giving players 85 stat points and letting them design their character... oh, INT over 12 costs double. You are welcome to have two or three high stats, but you will end up with a 9 or several 11's. Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:14:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > My preference is that 3d6 is the human average and that players are > above average. I have a player who has actually played longer than I have > who argues the adjusted average view. > I bypassed the whole issue by giving players 85 stat points and > letting them design their character... oh, INT over 12 costs double. You > are welcome to have two or three high stats, but you will end up with a 9 or > several 11's. But, to argue Brad's point further, if you have characters with a 9 INT, and you call that "slightly below average", and animals (and other fixed INT creatures) top out at 7, then that only leaves 8 INT as the single number to cover every human from just above animal intellect to just below average. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:15:21 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] slipped through 'quality-control' at AH >slipped through 'quality-control' at AH - like that section from >'Strangers in Prax' about there being no horizon on Glorantha, or >the artwork in 'Troll Gods' That no horizon irked me more than all of that artwork. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:28:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] slipped through 'quality-control' at AH On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Brad Furst wrote: > >slipped through 'quality-control' at AH - like that section from > >'Strangers in Prax' about there being no horizon on Glorantha, or > >the artwork in 'Troll Gods' > > That no horizon irked me more than all of that artwork. You know, I had thought before about putting Glorantha afloat somewhere on the Ringworld... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:27:30 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 - --part1_55.1407b1d5.28089f12_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 12:14:10 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad wonders about the state of INT in RQ: > What is the consensus on this list? Well, I'm with the 7 is the highest possible animal (fixed) INT, while INT 8 is the absolute dumbest one can be, and still be considered to have non-fixed INT. INT 8 is the realm of that quintessential chicken head, that imbecile, the human moron (which I'm sure I saw printed in _something_ official). If INT 8 ends up being rolled for the character's INT while rolling the book-specified 2D6+6, I'll either let the player roll occupation as normal, and rule that some sort of head injury occurred prior to the him entering the game, or I'll let the player choose to have his dunce character be a Fool. BTW, one of the most successful characters in my old campaign was a huge, imbecile of a warrior. :) -Ken Murphy- - --part1_55.1407b1d5.28089f12_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 12:14:10 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad wonders
about the state of INT in RQ:


What is the consensus on this list?


  Well, I'm with the 7 is the highest possible animal (fixed) INT, while INT
8 is the absolute dumbest one can be, and still be considered to have
non-fixed INT. INT 8 is the realm of that quintessential chicken head, that
imbecile, the human moron (which I'm sure I saw printed in _something_
official).
  If INT 8 ends up being rolled for the character's INT while rolling the
book-specified 2D6+6, I'll either let the player roll occupation as normal,
and rule that some sort of head injury occurred prior to the him entering the
game, or I'll let the player choose to have his dunce character be a Fool.
  BTW, one of the most successful characters in my old campaign was a huge,
imbecile of a warrior. :)
 -Ken Murphy-
- --part1_55.1407b1d5.28089f12_boundary-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:30:23 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int > > My preference is that 3d6 is the human average and that players are > > above average. I have a player who has actually played longer than I have > > who argues the adjusted average view. > > I bypassed the whole issue by giving players 85 stat points and > > letting them design their character... oh, INT over 12 costs double. You > > are welcome to have two or three high stats, but you will end up >with a 9 or > > several 11's. > >But, to argue Brad's point further, if you have characters with a 9 INT, >and you call that "slightly below average", and animals (and other fixed >INT creatures) top out at 7, then that only leaves 8 INT as the single >number to cover every human from just above animal intellect to just below >average. There are many references indicating that animal Int and human Int are NOT compatible. They are numberically similar for determining ability modifiers and for "cunning" type rolls. Beyond that they are completely different attributes. So, and Int 7 human still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal. - -Andrew /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:50:43 -0600 From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Robert Stancliff wrote: > > > What is the consensus on this list? > > Brad Furst > > My preference is that 3d6 is the human average and that players are > above average. I have a player who has actually played longer than I have > who argues the adjusted average view. > I bypassed the whole issue by giving players 85 stat points and > letting them design their character... oh, INT over 12 costs double. You > are welcome to have two or three high stats, but you will end up with a 9 or > several 11's. > Stancliff I've been pondering the parameters for a point assignment system myself. How did you arrive at 85 as the number of points to distribute? My thought was to give enough points so that someone could be exactly "average" for the dice rolled (i.e. they have enough points to assign mean values for each attribute). Using RQ3 rolling conventions (2d6+6 for INT and SIZ, 3d6 for everything else): The mean on 3d6 is 10.5 x 5 stats = 52.5 The mean of 2d6+6 is 13 x 2 stats = 26 --------- Sum = 78.5 I'd probably be "nice" and round that up to 80 myself, but 85 seems a bit high to me (maybe not for "adventurer class" characters if we want to open that can of worms again). Oooops, I just re-read your second paragraph, the extra points are in support of the higher INT cost I'm guessing? Back in our way old D&D days we experimented with several different re-averaging approaches to giving adventurers a bit better abilities, some of which could be used here as well, the ones I recall: * Roll as many times as there are stats (6 in D&D), and assign the numbers rolled to stats as desired * Re-Roll the lowest of the rolls (6 in D&D) * Roll an extra die (e.g. 4d6 in D&D) and take the highest 3 dice Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #31 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.