From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #43 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Saturday, April 28 2001 Volume 04 : Number 043 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Knockback Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Giants [RQ-RULES] Time requirements for experience checks [RQ-RULES] Sandy's Sorcery [RQ-RULES] Knockback Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? [RQ-RULES] Re: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #42 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:44:34 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Knockback On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:26:09 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >Andrew and I are agreed, despite the published rules, that Knockback >should not ordinarily deal damage of a magnitude like weapon damage. One way around this is to introduce the concept of "subdual" damage (lifted from "Bushido" originally, but there are lots of games, e.g., Hero system, that uses two *types* of damage -- real, serious, need-time-to-heal damage, and temporary, breath-knocked-out-of-you damage). If you rule that knockback causes "subdual" damage, not "real" damage, then I think the rules can be used as written. You could conceivably be knocked unconscious by being slammed into a wall, but it's unlikely to ever actually kill you. Adding the concept of "subdual" damage also allows for the introduction of various other concepts into the game -- for example, non-lethal fist fights. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:44:31 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:45:19 EDT, SPerrin@aol.com wrote: >And the specific reference is to Kari's ability to snatch a flung weapon out >of the air and send it back to its thrower--usually fatally. "It's all in the reflexes". And a deluxe bonus imitation-fur-lined no-prize to the first person to correctly identify the (distinctly non-Norse) movie that line comes from! - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:44:35 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Giants On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:23:24 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >I think the SIZe parameters changed from RQ2 to RQ3 and were never >very good at translating SIZe to height for giants, anyway. How big >is a giant (for example the giant in Snake Pipe Hollow or the >kneeling giant in Balastor's Barracks? Are the SIZe and STRength and >CONstitution and AP and damage values, which are published, >believable? Are gaming parameters going to interfere with "willing >suspension of disbelief?" > >If we know the RQ SIZe of a creature like a giant, do we have a good >idea of its height and mass? The RQ3 rules say that a giant gets 3D6+6 SIZ & STR for every 2m. You can work backwards; assuming an average of 16.5, divide the giant's STR and SIZ by that value and multiply by 2 to get a height in m. Adjust to taste, of course. If a calculator isn't handy, divide the SIZ by 10 and you'll get a close-enough-for-government-work figure for height in m. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:44:33 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Time requirements for experience checks On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:49:27 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >After the initial handicap is equalized, they get to the same next >increment. I will grant that in a self-paced school one will get >there faster than the other, but in RuneQuest the tests and skill >checks are not self-paced. Rather, the characters roll for increase >after the same arbitrary time period (usually a week of rest and >contemplation, right?). Hmm. One of our House Rules is that for training, research, etc., the character's skill bonus is subtracted from the number of hours required (minimum of 10 hours), so "gifted" characters will generally train much faster and further in a given period than "non-gifted" characters, all else being equal. (Equally, negative bonuses increase training time.) [There are still problems with this due to the linear nature of the skill bonus; a "better" system would probably involve proportionate levels of improvement instead, but there comes a point when some things become more trouble than they're worth .] But your point about "all experience checks are a week" is interesting. It is indeed a completely arbitrary value and independent of the abilities of the individuals. Even the RQ3 rules only say that experience checks "generally" take a week. Perhaps that's more of a holdover from a type of campaign run in discrete "adventures" with blocks of time in-between; our games tend to be more of a "continuous flow of time" style with no discrete "adventures" as such. So I'd propose that the length of time required for "experience checks" be changed from a flat value of a week to a calculated value of "X", where "X" is measured in hours (to keep it in line with time requirements of other types of training; adjust as necessary if you don't measure training times in hours in your game). "X" should take into consideration the following things: * The number of skills being checked; * The level of those skills; * If you're using rules involving "hard" and "easy" skills, these should be taken into account (I don't bother in my game); * Skill modifiers for the individual; * Is a POW check also involved? [As a purely "game" thing, calculating "X" ought to be as painless a process as possible.] Here are some suggestions (only!) for this: * POW gain rolls require (current POW x 3) hours of uninterrupted contemplation & rest (not sleep!). [This has the added bonus (?) of permitting POW-depleted characters to potentially regain some POW during play of an adventure.] * An experience check in a skill requires (current skill level - skill category bonus) hours of uninterrupted contemplation & rest (not sleep!). * Up to five skills (including "POW gain" as a "skill" for this purpose) may be "contemplated" simultaneously. The hours of rest required is always the greatest required for the five skills [just as a "game" thing to prevent players from constantly shuffling around skills for optimum time gains]. "Uninterrupted contemplation and rest" should be considered as loosely as possible; "uninterrupted by adventure" is perhaps the best way of putting it. Sleep, eating, normal everyday shopping and so on would not count as "interruptions". Having to go rescue a princess *would* be an interruption. * Experience checks may be deferred indefinitely until the character has sufficient time available for the contemplation. * Research training times (i.e., self-training) are *increased* by the times calculated above (so, assuming you have a skill bonus of "0", if your current skill is 15% and you do research, it will take 15 hours to do the research and then another 15 to contemplate before actually making the skill increase roll). [Otherwise research always takes the same amount of time that training takes, which doesn't feel intuitively correct to me.] Thoughts? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:44:30 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Sandy's Sorcery On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:19:36 -0400, Tal Meta wrote: >Spawned primarily by the hinted at but never seen system developed by >Sandy Petersen (speaking of which, anyone know if he's done any >revisions to his Sorcery system of late? it's been 3-4 years since I've >seen a new one...) I believe that the version presented in "Ye Booke of Tentacles" vol.1 is his most up-to-date version -- but even that's a few years old now; still, I don't know that these need further revision. YBOT #2 has his Shaman rules, incidentally. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:35:30 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Knockback > We also rule that parried damage doesn't apply for determining knockback. > Debatable as to "realism", but we found without such a rule knockbacks were > too common. A parry usually involves deflecting the blow rather than blocking it (which is why you can parry a spear with another spear). So that seems quite reasonable to me. Andrew *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Apr 2001 23:41:17 -0500 From: "J and/or Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? "Shakes the Clown"? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Probst" To: Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:45:19 EDT, SPerrin@aol.com wrote: >And the specific reference is to Kari's ability to snatch a flung weapon out >of the air and send it back to its thrower--usually fatally. "It's all in the reflexes". And a deluxe bonus imitation-fur-lined no-prize to the first person to correctly identify the (distinctly non-Norse) movie that line comes from! - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:13:22 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:41:17 -0500, "J and/or Ellen" wrote: >"Shakes the Clown"? Never heard of that one, so it's not the one *I'm* thinking of! - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:20:01 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:01:01 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >This difference would have a significant effect upon the game world >balance, yes? Is it important? Do any of you adjust the ranges for >magic according to which game world (Glorantha, Fantasy Europe, etc.) >you use for play? Some other game systems have ranges which simply >extend to Line-of-Sight, yes? For Glorantha, I would assume that the default ranges and durations for divine magic is a result of the Compromise. Individual spells often adjust these of course, but individual spells tend to be deity-specific rather than "Common", so any adjustments will tend to follow the deity's strengths/weaknesses. >Meanwhile I have be asked to comment re: some suggestions for >house-rule changes wherein the ranges for Divine Spells vary >according to whether the caster is Initiate or Acolyte/Priest or Rune >Lord. My first inclination is to say that the range is determined by >the deity rather than by the caster. I'd certainly agree with the latter point. Note that in our game we use POWx5 as the range of *spirit* magic, and the POW of a shaman's fetch is included for that calculation, so shamans get to use the (normally) low-power spirit magic spells in high-powered ways. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Apr 2001 22:39:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? > "It's all in the reflexes". > > And a deluxe bonus imitation-fur-lined no-prize to the first person to > correctly identify the (distinctly non-Norse) movie that line comes from! Considering the context, it's got to be Meet the Feebles. *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:49:25 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Brian Newman wrote: >> "It's all in the reflexes". >> >> And a deluxe bonus imitation-fur-lined no-prize to the first person to >> correctly identify the (distinctly non-Norse) movie that line comes from! > >Considering the context, it's got to be Meet the Feebles. Yeah? Which scene are you thinking of? (It's been some time since I last saw MtF, but since I have it on DVD now research is easy .) It's not the movie I'm thinking of, but your answer might be as good as mine . - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Stay together, cheeks!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Apr 2001 23:10:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Bruce Probst wrote: > >> "It's all in the reflexes". > >> > >> And a deluxe bonus imitation-fur-lined no-prize to the first person to > >> correctly identify the (distinctly non-Norse) movie that line comes from! > > > >Considering the context, it's got to be Meet the Feebles. > > Yeah? Which scene are you thinking of? (It's been some time since I last > saw MtF, but since I have it on DVD now research is easy .) > > It's not the movie I'm thinking of, but your answer might be as good as mine > . One of the scenes where Wobert the Hedgehog is working with the knife-throwing lizard... I can't remember it right offhand, might be wrong. *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:41:27 +0100 From: "Dom Twist" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #42 Sorry to post this but:- How the heck do you un-subscribe to this list!?!?! I've followed all the sugestions to no avail! I must point out I love Rune Quest and will be using it for my base fantasy system for the forseable future........but I really dont think a indepth rules forum helps me or my game much anymore. The Gloranthan digest is fun as it deals with the World but neither Hero-Wars nor RQ rules discussions do much for me......I'm into the why not the how. Still its been good.........could the administrators remove me from the list....and the rest of you....may you're dice rolls never fumble! DomT *************************************************************************** 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 #43 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.