From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #32 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 Saturday, April 14 2001 Volume 04 : Number 032 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int Re: Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int RE: [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? [RQ-RULES] House Rules 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 13:20:59 -0500 From: "J & Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 I don't understand why, in such a world as Glorantha, humans would evolve in such as way that they'd be more smart than strong or healthy. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:43 PM 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. *************************************************************************** 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 15:52:52 -0400 From: "peterm/maranci.net@mail.maranci.net" Subject: [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ Well, in my book there's no question: All normal humans have INT and SIZ of 2d6+6. Otherwise a large percentage of humans would be stupider than most animals (I am now straining hard not to mention a certain White House occupant)! :-) SIZ would be similarly ridiculous. One in 216 adult humans would be size 3 - which is really tiny in any version of RQ. That simply doesn't make sense. Extremes of SIZ and INT fall outside the normal range. A human midget might be SIZ 3, but that would be due to exceptional circumstances. Likewise, humans more stupid than an intelligent animal can exist, but they are far more rare than would be expressed by 3d6. Another point to consider is the difference between fixed and unfixed INT. There is nothing in the rules (that I'm aware of) which says that INT below 8 MUST be "fixed" - and we know that even an INT of 18 could be converted into fixed intelligence through a Divine spell (I forget which one, it's in the Glorantha book). Brain damage might reduce a human to below 8 INT, but not necessarily remove their INT's unfixed quality. In any case, the idea that player characters are inherently superior to NPCs is antithetical to RQ. I've never seen any rule to support that idea; the closest thing I recall was a suggestion that female PCs might be rolled up using male dice ranges. And I'm not even sure about that. ->Peter - ------------------------------------------------------ Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ & Roleplaying! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.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 15:58:24 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > 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? > Oooops, I just re-read your second paragraph, the extra points are in > support of the higher INT cost I'm guessing? I judged by feel what I felt an 'average' adventurer should have, and I do expect them to be above normal human average because they are willing to dream the big dreams and step outside the boundaries of mundane life... basically they feel slightly superior to the norm because they are. For more experienced characters I could go as high as 90, but for a 15 or 16 year old beginner 85 gave you a well rounded fighter with a 10 - 12 INT, or a rather wimpy genius. One of the longest running characters in my game started at age 15 with 7,7,17,18,9,11,10. Some early effort and training brought his STR & CON to 10 and his POW to 13. With a few stat spells he is a self-made man and doughty fighter. At 20, he carries Balastor's Axe, is the appointed lord of a small keep in the Rubble, is very close to making Acolyte of Pavis, and is nearing the skills to qualify as a Sword of Humakt. He also has 16 invested POW used to make spirit binds, Strengthening enchantments, and Divine magic sacrifices. Point assignment gives you built in stat balance. If one is high, then another is low. You can't be great at everything, and you can plan a certain level of stat training for the long view. Looking at the skill modifiers, INT is most important and DEX is only slightly less important. Combat goes the other way and makes SIZ most important with CON second, and then STR. Magic can affect most of these temporarily, but SIZ and INT are the most unchanging. In the long view I am convinced that INT and DEX are the most important, but I could see charging double for any stat over 15. In seven years of play testing my system, I actually think that I should have given players 90 points, but, instead, I have compensated by allowing a free annual stat check which represents the body's adjustment to any strenuous life style. It is only reasonable that people get gradually better at the things they have to do every day. This even applies to APP since some people depend on looking good. It is a worthwhile player strategy to divide job tasks and run characters that are specialized for about two areas. High STR, CON, and SIZ give you a rather dumb, slow fighter who can take a beating and keep coming. Low SIZ and high DEX give a very stealthy character with great archery. High INT and POW give a sage with knowledge and communication specialties. It is harder to specialize in RQ than in a game like Champions, but it is certainly possible. 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 16:16:33 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ > Well, in my book there's no question: All normal humans have > INT and SIZ of 2d6+6. Otherwise a large percentage of humans > would be stupider than most animals IF you are going to roll stats, which most do, I suppose. There is a valid argument to use 2d6+6 for all adult stats. Children with stats below 8 would be sensitive to diseases that would kill them in infancy., some cultures would cull the 'weak and deformed' to improve the human species, and these characters are rare, if ever, fun to play. Your opinion may vary... > In any case, the idea that player characters are inherently > superior to NPCs is antithetical to RQ. I've never seen any > rule to support that idea; the closest thing I recall was a > suggestion that female PCs might be rolled up using male dice > ranges. And I'm not even sure about that. Peter Actually, the gender rolls for elves in the creature books are more severe for females, and I think there was a general rule somewhere for rolling humans that gave females lower strength and size but shifted the points to dexterity or appearance. There is plenty of support for natural leaders to be above the norm in some areas, and in many myths they seem to excel in all areas. Hero Wars really rakes the masses over the coals... only characters that will be important to the story have any skills or stats worth mentioning, everyone else has gruel for brains. The smart PC buys the entire clan as followers so that they will be reasonably competent. This reminds me a lot of Champions with their Incompetent, Normal, and Competent Dependent NPC's. Then come Agents, Heroes and Super-heroes. 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 16:55:10 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Robert Stancliff wrote: > Point assignment gives you built in stat balance. If one is high, >then another is low. You can't be great at everything, and you can plan a >certain level of stat training for the long view. Points vs rolls is one of those long-term game philosophy debates which I seem to have ended up on the losing side of. I've never liked point-based char-gen systems, because Not All Adventurers are Created Equal, Life Ain't Fair, and Game Balance is a Myth. However, players getting stuck with inferior or ill-suited characters is a very real possibility, which is why I use a method similar to one of the options listed in the old 1st edition AD&D DMG: let each player roll stats for up to 6 characters and choose the one they like best. Some players will choose the 1st one rolled, to save time or give themselves a challenge, unless there's an obvious defect, some will always choose the character with the highest overall stats, but most will weigh the options and choose the character that seems to best match the player's ideal character-concept (brawny, stealthy, egghead, etc.). Sure it takes a while longer, but it's the best system I've found to balance the desire for players to have characters they like while still maintaining the (IMO necessary) random element. 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 17:39:50 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int - --part1_a6.128c4392.2808cc26_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 1:41:04 PM Central Daylight Time, andrew@crashbox.com writes: > So, and Int 7 human still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal. > > -Andrew > > But INT 8 is the minimum for humans in RQ3. INT 7 is reserved for dolphins or apes or whatever, so you couldn't have an INT 7 human. -Ken- - --part1_a6.128c4392.2808cc26_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/13/01 1:41:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
andrew@crashbox.com writes:


So, and Int 7 human still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal.

-Andrew



  But INT 8 is the minimum for humans in RQ3. INT 7 is reserved for dolphins
or apes or whatever, so you couldn't have an INT 7 human.
 -Ken- - --part1_a6.128c4392.2808cc26_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 17:57:45 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/13/01 1:41:04 PM Central Daylight Time, > andrew@crashbox.com writes: >> >> >> So, and Int 7 human still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal. >> >> -Andrew > > > >   But INT 8 is the minimum for humans in RQ3. INT 7 is reserved for dolphins > or apes or whatever, so you couldn't have an INT 7 human. >  -Ken- At the time of creation, no, but that Brain Fever's a bitch (however, if a PC did get fevered down below 8, he'd probably be due an honorable retirement). 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 14:59:14 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Animal Int vs Human Int Sigh. Let me rephrase. (Unless of course you buy into the 3D6 intelligence roll.) So, and Int 7 *Troll* still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal. Regardless of my mistatement the issue is that intelligence is not comparative across animals and people. Just because I said 7 (when by 2D6 you can't have that but by 3D6 you can) still doesn't equate human intelligence with animal intelligence. And if you simply beleive that a person with an Int of 8 is just a little smarter than an Ape, then you've got a skewed sense of intelligence. It may have been in my AiG copy but I thought I saw this in RQIII. - -Andrew >In a message dated 4/13/01 1:41:04 PM Central Daylight Time, >andrew@crashbox.com writes: > > >>So, and Int 7 human still has many more capabilities than an Int 7 animal. >> >>-Andrew >> > > > But INT 8 is the minimum for humans in RQ3. INT 7 is reserved for dolphins >or apes or whatever, so you couldn't have an INT 7 human. > -Ken- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 18:06:01 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT & SIZ Robert Stancliff wrote: > I think there was a general rule somewhere for >rolling humans that gave females lower strength and size but shifted the >points to dexterity or appearance. IIRC (which isn't a given) the entry for 'Human' in the RQ3 Creatures Book has females at 2D6+3 for STR and SIZ, with no accompanying bonuses (unless you count not being able to have STR 3-4 a bonus...). However, this explicitly only applies to NPCs unless the player prefers it. 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 20:04:04 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Stephen Posey wrote: > > 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). I have played in games (both RQ and other) where characters were forced into the "average" mold, and have never been happy. What's the point of a 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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 17:19:14 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? talmeta@cybercomm.net >I have played in games (both RQ and other) where characters were forced >into the "average" mold, and have never been happy. What's the point of >a 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? Experimenting with NPCs, I have discovered that access to magic and training skill percentages up can surely compensate for average characteristic scores. I would rather have a Sword of Humakt with average characteristics than an untrained 15-year-old with little magic but high characteristics. 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 21:54:48 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] House Rules I've revamped the RQ section of my web page. All the various house rules I've got have been moved to their own page. If anyone else has anything they'd like me to host, just send it to me directly. :) - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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 22:26:09 -0600 From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Tal Meta wrote: > > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > 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). > > I have played in games (both RQ and other) where characters were forced > into the "average" mold, and have never been happy. What's the point of > a 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? Good question, and one that I vacillate on. One can argue that NOBODY (or very few people) excel at everything, so while one can apply the points to create Joe Shmoe, they can also be distributed to create someone with one stat highly above average, or be somewhat above average in perhaps two or three. And will be correspondingly low elsewhere. OTOH, I can also see the argument that someone who goes adventuring is likely to be slightly above average overall and perhaps significantly so in several areas. I also vacillate on the desirability of randomness (and how much) in the process. How about some kind of combination of the two, e.g. roll 2d6+3 for each characteristic, then distribute, say, 25 points as desired? 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 #32 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.