From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #67 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 Friday, June 8 2001 Volume 04 : Number 067 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? RE: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever [RQ-RULES] New BRP game [RQ-RULES] Roll to cast Battle Magic Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale [RQ-RULES] [not] HW versus RQ Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game 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, 7 Jun 2001 17:51:59 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? > Brad Furst > I've never played in a campaign using RQ earlier > than RQ2. Is it true that those earlier rules do > not require characters to roll POWx5 (plus magic- > bonus minus encumbrance) in order to cast Battle > Magic? I am not certain about RQ1 either, but I think it required POW x 5 - Enc. I am pretty certain that RQ2 was POW x 5 - Enc. If you read the rule in RQ3, it is POW x 5 - Enc, but if you read the examples, it allows the inclusion of the Magic bonus. > Is it important (for RuneQuest? for Glorantha? > for "game balance"?) to require characters in > RQ3 or RQ4 to roll POWx5 (plus magic-bonus minus > encumbrance) in order to cast Spirit Magic? It > seems like this (dropping the requirement) would > be an expedient way to quicken the game play. The idea of magic in Glorantha is that it is not certain to work, it requires will and focus to summon magic. Divine magic is very accurate, but even it can fail. I won't say that POW x 5 - Enc is the best value, since it usually gives a success rate between 30% and 55%, but it forces you to balance your character's desire for armor against his desire to cast spells. I have generally found that it is easier to get a big damage roll than it is to get a big armor value, so this forced decision does tend to weaken the character's survival ability, especially at lower levels when the character still has to throw many of his own spells. A x6 multiple would have given much better chances for success, and this would have made magic more important at an earlier stage in the game, but since it applied to everyone, it would probably still be 'balanced'. I do tend to feel that rolling casting chances is a good idea... there is a satisfaction to succeeding at a skill test that you know you are likely to miss. As for game play, it is often better in RQ to roll all of the dice you would need if an action succeeded, all at the same time. By using different colors for different purposes you can determine quickly whether you hit, parried, what your damage is, and the location. Being prepared before it is your turn to act makes a big difference in the time you take up. Keeping a modified list of the damage you do with the weapon in hand, and others you intend to switch to, with adjusted figures for the current spells, and divided out for special and critical values, will also help you determine the final results quickly. This form of bookkeeping can be done between your turns to act, and is only good sense and forethought. Another way to speed play is to minimize declaration of intent, allowing more flexibility when resolving actions, and don't count strike ranks... strike ranks ONLY matter when there is a question of who acts before someone else. Divide the battle into groups that are fighting each other and handle each group separately so that you can reduce some of the confusion. Try not to have characters in one group act against those in another group unless the character leaves the current group, the action will not have effect until the next round, or the other group has not acted. Bob 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:30:58 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Robert Stancliff wrote: > > Brad Furst >> I've never played in a campaign using RQ earlier >> than RQ2. Is it true that those earlier rules do >> not require characters to roll POWx5 (plus magic- >> bonus minus encumbrance) in order to cast Battle >> Magic? > I am not certain about RQ1 either, but I think it required POW x 5 - Enc. >I am pretty certain that RQ2 was >POW x 5 - Enc. If you read the rule in RQ3, it is POW x 5 - Enc, but if you >read the examples, it allows the inclusion of the Magic bonus. In RQ1 (and RQ2?) Battle Magic is automatic pending opponent's resistance. I've always used straight POWx5 adjusting for neither ENC nor Magic Bonus, because I like the uncertainty of a roll, but still prefer to keep things quick. This applies to PCs and NPCs alike (as should everything in RQ). > As for game play, it is often better in RQ to roll all of the dice you >would need if an action succeeded, all at the same time. By using different >colors for different purposes you can determine quickly whether you hit, >parried, what your damage is, and the location. Being prepared before it is >your turn to act makes a big difference in the time you take up. Keeping a >modified list of the damage you do with the weapon in hand, and others you >intend to switch to, with adjusted figures for the current spells, and >divided out for special and critical values, will also help you determine >the final results quickly. This form of bookkeeping can be done between >your turns to act, and is only good sense and forethought. Very good advice all. Rolling all your dice (hit+loc+dam) at once and having your various percentages (including spells & fatigue) pre-figured are both huge time-savers for combat; enough so that I don't think you need to... > Another way to speed play is to minimize declaration of intent, allowing >more flexibility when resolving actions, and don't count strike ranks... >strike ranks ONLY matter when there is a question of who acts before someone >else. Divide the battle into groups that are fighting each other and handle >each group separately so that you can reduce some of the confusion. Try not >to have characters in one group act against those in another group unless >the character leaves the current group, the action will not have effect >until the next round, or the other group has not acted. I seem to be in the minority of continuing to like and use strike ranks. I like seeing the players scramble to get an action in before that bad-guy onslaught they know is coming on SR7, and occasionally squeeze something extra in on SR 9 or 10. I've found that the tighter structure actually encouraged tactical thinking, as opposed to more free-form systems where they always tended to fall back into the rut of attack-counterattack. I prefer miniatures and battle-mats for the same reason (the visual representation encouraged the players to actually maneuver rather than stand toe-to-toe until somebody dropped) but usually didn't have the desired materials available and ended up improvising with dice and coins and such. Also, I think the fact that combat takes a long time in RQ is a Good Thing -- it gives each fight more significance. I would usually plan on only having a big/serious fight (as opposed to practice bouts, barroom brawls, hunting accidents, and such) every third or fourth session, but I fully intended that such fights would take up most of the session. More often than that and violence/death became blase, like video games and D&D. 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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:49:11 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? As those who have perused my rules know, I have a basic magic roll based on the POW x 5 roll that can be increased for spirit magic users. I no longer use the Resistance table but have opposed roles for everything, which does slow things down, but the Resistance Table as such has real problems with anything outside a 1-20 range. And while I have Fatigue rules, I never use them. I'm very bad about keeping track of END in Hero and Quantum in Aberrant, too. At least my system doesn't use Fatigue Points... Steve Perrin - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Furst" To: Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? > At 03:55 PM 6/7/01 -0400, Ken wrote: > >In a message dated 6/7/01 2:30:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Brad writes: > >>It seems like this (dropping > >>the requirement) would be an expedient way to quicken the game play. > > > >I'm guessing with this supposition, that you're still gonna be using > >resistance rolls, right? > > -Ken- > > Yes, I would expect to continue resistance rolls. I was just wondering > whether rolling for spirit magic casting was one of those details, like > counting Fatigue, that might get dropped without serious consequences. > > > > > > ____ > 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. *************************************************************************** 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, 08 Jun 2001 11:08:08 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ Forever Steve : > Would you pay a reasonable price for a download of more expanded rules, even > though you have the core rules in hand already (or can get them easily from > the listmeister)? I wouldn't. I would *certainly* buy a paper version though, and so would many, many others I suspect. Distribution of such a "fan" product would be very easy as well, through people like Wizard's Attic, the German Tradetalk fanzine, Reaching Moon Megacorp, etc.. The best would probably be Tradetalk ; they published Sandy's Sorcery and his Shamanism, frinstance. I personally would be very pleased to publish a French translation of the rules through our French "Erudits de l'Ambigu" fanzine, and it would be *very* easy to sell. I really, really dislike the idea of paying for downloads ; I really, really like the idea of "fan" publications. Julian Lord Mikko : > Fantasy Questing? FantasyQuest sounds OK ... SomethingQuest anyway, IMO. Who owns the name "HeroQuest" these days ? Is that stupid boardgame OOP ? Has the tm lapsed ? Mebbe summing like RulesQuest, RabbitQuest, Re-Quest, RebelQuest, RebornQuest, Reckless Quest, or etc. (no matter how cheesy) so's we can all refer to it as RQ ... Come to think of it, has anyone ever trademarked the 2- and 3- letter sequences "RQ" or "RQ4" as names for fantasy RPGs ? "Steve Perrin's RQ4" ? Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Jun 2001 12:03:33 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: Thomas Zunder Subject: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game I suggest RuneWorld. It makes it clear where the roots of the game lie. I suggest that a price in the $10 region would be sellable. Would it have the existing divine magic structure and spirit magic? Would it replace sorcery with a more Elric!/MagicWorld/CoC ruleset? Would it actually include your original fantasy setting (North Coast was it, or North Bay?) or just be a ruleset.. I think there are a lot of BRP fans who'd enjoy a more freewheeling version of the game with a nod to both the classic religious structure of RQ and another to the madcap fantasy of D&D. It needs to be like RQ in the areas of religion, or we could just all migrate to Elric! Maybe you should do a ruleset that uses your setting as examples (a la Rurik Runespear, a sample cult) and then a separate book that details the setting, with both RW and d20 stats. I would suggest a small scale setting, probably the size of the SF Bay area (with unexplored inland areas, so that refs could slot it into a spare coastline in another world and allow cultures from overseas in small colonies or city states). That way you offer a new runic game and also can cross sell the setting to D&D players. _______________________________________________________________________ FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:26:54 +0100 From: David Ford Subject: [RQ-RULES] Roll to cast Battle Magic I doubt that anyone bothered, but in RQ2 all Battle Magic would fail on a roll of 96-00 on D100. I believe this applied to all spells, including those cast upon yourself. [page 33 RQ2 rule-book] I would like RuneQuest 5 to include rules for the following; fatigue morale In combat these issues are very important. Warriors can only swing swords for so long until their arms get tired, and morale is a key issue in deciding the outcome of a battle as any reader of history will know. David Ford *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Jun 2001 07:07:44 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale Morale is tricky, and best taken care of in role play, not rules. It becomes a rule for miniatures gaming. Granted, an NPC Morale rule could be done, but at most it would be a guideline for the GM. Sometimes he just needs the opposition to stick it out, no matter how dumb it is, and players should always have control of their PCs' morale. That leaves morale for NPC allies, and something can be done on that score fairly easily. Fatigue rules I have, and I think they are less cumbersome than most. I just don't use them as GM and haven't actually played for some time. Since some players inevitably blow those rules off given the chance; it just makes the GM a traffic cop trying to enforce equal effects to all players when he's trying to tell a story. For GMs who like that kind of thing, the rules are there. Steve Perrin - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Ford" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 4:26 AM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Roll to cast Battle Magic > snip< > I would like RuneQuest 5 to include rules for the following; > > fatigue > morale > > In combat these issues are very important. Warriors can only swing swords > for so long > until their arms get tired, and morale is a key issue in deciding the > outcome of a > battle as any reader of history will know. > > David Ford > > > *************************************************************************** > 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, 8 Jun 2001 11:07:46 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] [not] HW versus RQ > Unfortunately, in my opinion, Hero Wars makes it impossible for 1000 > normal fighters to kill Harreck since his skill is so much higher, they will > never succeed at an attack. Action points don't matter if your opponent has > more than two mastery on you. Even one full mastery is almost > insurmountable and requires the most extreme luck. I disagree, but this isn't the place for the discussion on how to handle such incidents in HW (if you want it, you'll find a lot of helpful stuff in the HW list archives). I'll point out that the strength most posters have been claiming for RQ is its ability to model skirmishes. If you try to use the RQ mechanisms to represent battles involving 1,000 warriors you get ludicrous results - see the quote in Murphy's Rules. IMO discussing the relative merits of RQ and HW in the abstract is no more fruitful than the PC/Mac argument. It all comes down to what is better for the kind of game you want to run and the sort of players you've got. 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, 8 Jun 2001 07:12:27 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Okay, we now have votes to keep the word Rune and votes to keep it Quest... :) Quest is easier in many ways, because then I'm not forced to come up for a rationale for having the word Rune in the title in the first place. But most of the good Quests, including QuestWorld, have been taken. Aside from that, most of Tom's ideas are exactly what I have in mind. However, if someone is expecting an elaborate cult system like Glorantha's, it's going to be more than $10.00. I could probably do my Middle Sea campaign as a "world," perhaps with Bitterswamp as a starting point... Thanks everyone, keep the ideas coming. Steve Perrin - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Zunder" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 4:03 AM Subject: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game > I suggest RuneWorld. It makes it clear where the roots of the game lie. > > I suggest that a price in the $10 region would be sellable. > > Would it have the existing divine magic structure and spirit magic? Would it replace sorcery with a more Elric!/MagicWorld/CoC ruleset? > > Would it actually include your original fantasy setting (North Coast was it, or North Bay?) or just be a ruleset.. > > I think there are a lot of BRP fans who'd enjoy a more freewheeling version of the game with a nod to both the classic religious structure of RQ and another to the madcap fantasy of D&D. It needs to be like RQ in the areas of religion, or we could just all migrate to Elric! > > Maybe you should do a ruleset that uses your setting as examples (a la Rurik Runespear, a sample cult) and then a separate book that details the setting, with both RW and d20 stats. I would suggest a small scale setting, probably the size of the SF Bay area (with unexplored inland areas, so that refs could slot it into a spare coastline in another world and allow cultures from overseas in small colonies or city states). > > That way you offer a new runic game and also can cross sell the setting to D&D players. > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.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. *************************************************************************** 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 #67 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.