From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #68 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, June 9 2001 Volume 04 : Number 068 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale RE: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game RE: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game--A possible name! [RQ-RULES] POW Rolls 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, 8 Jun 2001 12:03:29 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale > David Ford wrote: > I would like RuneQuest 5 to include rules for the following; > fatigue, morale I would like to point out that the only RQ4 version I have ever seen was an early play test version and, to my knowledge, it was never finished (especially sorcery). I see no need to discuss RQ5 if there was never a finished RQ4. > 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. I must ask... how many battles have you ever been in that took more than 1 minute? 2 minutes? Even in real life, fatigue doesn't enter into the equation until you have finished one skirmish and are immediately starting another. Long term fatigue rules to determine how fresh you are starting the battle at are probably more useful, though players don't like them any more than normal fatigue rules. I certainly agree with Steve that morale has to be determined by story considerations. A referee should know before a fight starts, under what conditions the foes will break. A simple rule of thumb is 50% losses or the lose of the two best fighters. Otherwise, you can look at comparative losses to see whether the difference is significant. I was playing in a big fight recently where we started at 10 to 20 odds, but several of us were superior fighters. I knew players might die here, but retreat was not an option. When it got to 4 effectives against 8 with three of theirs losing in spirit combat, I figured we were just about to carry the field and heal our forces. But a player DI'ed for all of us to escape and I was so upset because if he had asked us healed, one of the PCs would not have bleed to death, we would have defeated the entire force, and then escaped the area with some loot. I guess the player broke morale. 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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:16:05 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game What about just 'Quest'? Rich > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 12:13:44 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game > Okay, we now have votes to keep the word Rune and votes to > keep it Quest... I like the title "Runes of Power" but that would make it essential to retain most of the Gloranthan magic view which is too unique to ignore from a copyright or trademark viewpoint. Unfortunately, if you drop runes, then it stops being Gloranthan at all. "Mythic Quests" is OK, especially if hero questing rules are included. 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:38:44 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game Steve Perrin wrote: > > 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. QuestQuest? ;-) > 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 should think it would cost more (a supplement maybe?). For a "generic" rules system you really wouldn't need/want to include an elaborate fleshed-out set of cults though, no? I'd say all you'd want is some generalities on how cults operate and maybe a couple of simple examples of designing a cult (e.g. "The Sun God", "The Sea God") to show how it's done. > I could probably do my Middle Sea campaign as a "world," perhaps with > Bitterswamp as a starting point... Sounds interesting, have you posted info on this previously? > Thanks everyone, keep the ideas coming. I'd like to see some kind of psionic/psychic ability rules; I've yet to find any for an RQ/BRP related game that I really like. IMO they should operate in a fashion different from any of the magic systems, so that they have a different "flavor". 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:40:47 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? Steve Perrin wrote: > 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... Is your Fatigue system still based on rolls over 75+CON with a sliding scale of penalties based on ratio of ENC carried vs STR (like you proposed here sometime in the mid-90s)? If so, I used that system in play for a couple years and found it to work very well - as well as any Fatigue system I've ever used. Fatigue played a significant role in combat, especially long fights, but without being statistically cumbersome or overwhelming. Even my typically rules-phobic players seemed to like the drama it added to fights. 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, 08 Jun 2001 13:24:25 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale Robert Stancliff wrote: > > 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. > I must ask... how many battles have you ever been in that took more than >1 minute? 2 minutes? Even in real life, fatigue doesn't enter into the >equation until you have finished one skirmish and are immediately starting >another. Long term fatigue rules to determine how fresh you are starting >the battle at are probably more useful, though players don't like them any >more than normal fatigue rules. How many battles in Real Life or in RQ games? The former, none. The latter, several. I can recall at least a couple set-piece battles that lasted up into 40-50 rounds, and at least one instance where the PCs had to let a group of overmatched bad-guys escape because they were simply too fatigued (and too low on MP) to give pursuit. Sure in a single short combat of 5-10 rounds Fatigue should probably be ignored, but for long battles (or a series of short ones with little or no recovery time in-between) I find it absolutely essential to the way I run my games. 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, 8 Jun 2001 14:27:34 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale > Trent wrote: > ... The latter, several. I can recall at least a couple > of set-piece battles that lasted up into 40-50 rounds > ... for long battles (or a series of short ones > with little or no recovery time in-between) I find > it absolutely essential to the way I run my games. These have happened about 4 times in the 8 year history of my game. Battles have usually been between 6 and 15 creatures on a side and have usually taken under 10 rounds, 20 at the most. Enforcing fatigue rules in these cases had no advantage to anyone. In the early days of the campaign, I made sure that everyone had at least 7 fatigue so that fatigue couldn't have a detrimental effect if we ignored it. Later, when the players started getting heavy armor, they all had Strength or Vigor spells to boost their fatigue, and fatigue only mattered if they didn't get the spell cast. I would be interested in a simple rule like: there is a cumulative 10% penalty after every skirmish of about 10 to 15 rounds. 7% of each 10% penalty can be negated by 30 seconds of rest. The remaining penalty requires sleep or long rest to recover. This kind of rule is far worse for weak fighters than experts, does anyone consider it a reasonable compromise? Bob S. *************************************************************************** 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 12:24:37 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Robert Stancliff wrote: > I would be interested in a simple rule like: there is a cumulative 10% > penalty after every skirmish of about 10 to 15 rounds. 7% of each 10% > penalty can be negated by 30 seconds of rest. The remaining penalty > requires sleep or long rest to recover. > This kind of rule is far worse for weak fighters than experts, does > anyone consider it a reasonable compromise? I don't know if I'd say it's reasonable. It penalizes people who don't have full plate armor covering their entire body. The point of taking lighter armor in RQ3 was that it was so much less ENC that it didn't lower your fatigue as much as full plate would. *************************************************************************** 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 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael C. Morrison 8-543-4706" Subject: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game *** Reply to note of Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:00:05 -0400 (EDT) *** by runequest-rules@lists.ient.com At the risk of making you out to be an egotist, Steve, how about "PerrinQuest"? ;) It keeps the flavour of the original, and reminds us whose game it is ... and then we can mind our Ps and Qs (do I hear a groan?). Oh well, make of it what you will ... Michael *************************************************************************** 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 12:54:31 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Michael C. Morrison 8-543-4706 wrote: > At the risk of making you out to be an egotist, Steve, how about > "PerrinQuest"? ;) It keeps the flavour of the original, and reminds us > whose game it is ... and then we can mind our Ps and Qs (do I hear a groan?). Hmmmm... :) "Perrin's Quest Rules"? PQR. That way it contains a reference to RQ anyway... Could just call it "RuleQuest". "RubeQuest" might be the wrong image... "Steve Perrin's Quest Rules?" = SPQR. :) *************************************************************************** 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 18:37:46 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? It hasn't changed since then, since I haven't had the opportunity to playtest. Thanks for doing that for me... :-) Steve - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] to require characters to roll POWx5 to cast Spirit Magic? > > Steve Perrin wrote: > > 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... > > Is your Fatigue system still based on rolls over 75+CON with a sliding scale of penalties based on ratio of ENC carried vs STR (like you proposed here sometime in the mid-90s)? If so, I used that system in play for a couple years and found it to work very well - as well as any Fatigue system I've ever used. Fatigue played a significant role in combat, especially long fights, but without being statistically cumbersome or overwhelming. Even my typically rules-phobic players seemed to like the drama it added to fights. > > 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, 8 Jun 2001 18:42:32 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale As soneone who has fought in so-called "light" armor, I can assure you that it can make you just as tired as full plate. Mostly it has to do with blocking air passage. Fighting indoors is particularly exhausting in short order. That said, I agree that some kind of penalty for full plate and other heavy armors is probably justified. That's why I based mine on character CON and weight of the armor. Steve - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Newman" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:24 AM Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue and Morale > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Robert Stancliff wrote: > > > I would be interested in a simple rule like: there is a cumulative 10% > > penalty after every skirmish of about 10 to 15 rounds. 7% of each 10% > > penalty can be negated by 30 seconds of rest. The remaining penalty > > requires sleep or long rest to recover. > > This kind of rule is far worse for weak fighters than experts, does > > anyone consider it a reasonable compromise? > > I don't know if I'd say it's reasonable. It penalizes people who don't > have full plate armor covering their entire body. The point of taking > lighter armor in RQ3 was that it was so much less ENC that it didn't lower > your fatigue as much as full plate would. > > > *************************************************************************** > 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 18:45:56 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game--A possible name! Actually, as I was working at a mundane job today, it occurred to me that we have all missed the obvious name, Ruin Questers. It may be too close, I'm going to check with some folks who are closer to the subject. And for those who were wondering and haven't seen by previous posts on the subject, I have asked Hasbro and been told that all role-playing is done through WotC. I asked WotC and was told that they haven't yet made any plans for RuneQuest... About the only hope I have of regaining the name is hoping that WotC forgets to renew the Trademark... Steve - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael C. Morrison 8-543-4706" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: [RQ-RULES] New BRP game > *** Reply to note of Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:00:05 -0400 (EDT) > *** by runequest-rules@lists.ient.com > > At the risk of making you out to be an egotist, Steve, how about > "PerrinQuest"? ;) It keeps the flavour of the original, and reminds us > whose game it is ... and then we can mind our Ps and Qs (do I hear a groan?). > > Oh well, make of it what you will ... > > Michael > > *************************************************************************** > 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, 9 Jun 2001 11:31:02 +0100 From: "Tom Zunder" Subject: [RQ-RULES] POW Rolls Drop 'em, Elric! and CoC don't have em, we never played them with RQ2 whatver the rules might have said. Game runs quicker. Also drop hit locations, strike ranks, fatigue and encumbrance. Adopt Major Wounds from Elric!/SB etc. and replace sorcery with something more fun. Oh, that's my RQ 4.5! !! NOTICE NEW EMAIL! Old one still works but is flaky. !! Tom Zunder - tom@zunder.freeserve.co.uk http://www.elric.org.uk ICQ: 1521799 Yahoo: kantor_rythmeiger *************************************************************************** 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 #68 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.