From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #73 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 Sunday, June 17 2001 Volume 04 : Number 073 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons Re: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities [RQ-RULES] SPQR 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:37:55 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons Maybe Harrek can't do this routinely. Maybe he's the hero because he's the one who got lucky and succeeded against the odds. > Magic is a non-issue since Harrek has more than the 1000 victims with >weapons. They augment by about 3 and he augments by about 16. It is >possible that about 10 or 20 archers could be considered capable of >augmenting one fighter with enough hit bonuses to approach Harrek's skill, >but it won't take long for the guy to drop. > > An interesting point on the other side is that Greg's stories often have >people taking actions who would be completely incapable of doing so in RQ. >HW can be used to allow fighting with 'incapacitating' damage... it's just >story-telling effects until someone runs out of Action points. 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:30:15 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons > Magic is a non-issue since Harrek has more than the 1000 victims with > weapons. They augment by about 3 and he augments by about 16. It is > possible that about 10 or 20 archers could be considered capable of > augmenting one fighter with enough hit bonuses to approach Harrek's skill, > but it won't take long for the guy to drop. If the 1,000 soldiers are a military unit, they have a wyter with its own magical abilities. They are not a thousand separate individuals, they are a unit with collective strengths. This is an area that RQ only represents in a very limited way, and HW covers in depth. Anyway, consider what happens under RQ when two large units face each other. The 'Murphy's Rules' quote is roughly: 'if a unit of five hundred elite axemen fights for five minutes, at the end of that time a hundred of them will have chopped their own legs off.' I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the point is that RQ isn't intended to model large numbers of fighters and falls to pieces if you try. 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:18:26 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons Andrew wrote: > Anyway, consider what happens under RQ when two large units > face each other. The 'Murphy's Rules' quote is roughly: > 'if a unit of five hundred elite axemen fights for five > minutes, at the end of that time a hundred of them will > have chopped their own legs off.' I own that book and I know the article... it is a vast over-simplification, using bogus statistical assumptions, written purely for comedic value. It made no allowance for attrition due to lesser wounds, unconsciousness, armor, fatigue, etc.! It did bring out the point that the RQ1 critical tables were severe, but it didn't factually represent them. 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, 14 Jun 2001 11:50:22 +0300 From: Markus Battarbee Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:20:15 -0400 > From: Robert Stancliff > Subject: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons > > > On the other hand, it's entirely conceivable that Harrek > > could take on 1000 normal fighters, and should win. > > Therefore RQ is the game system that fails the test, not HW. > There is a huge difference between could win, should win, and always win. > I am saying that unless the foe is better than 10w2, just take it off the > board. There is absolutely no chance of killing him... numbers don't > matter, only skill. Well, HW is more flexible than that. Sorry, I know this is the RQ list, but this needs correcting. If the GM wants to have Harrek slaughter a whole army, the rules allow it. Just ignore 975 of the fighters, because Harrek automatically scores criticals. Then pit Harrek against the 25 officers one at a time - individually, they'll have to get darn lucky to do something to Harrek. If the GM wants to make Harrek really struggle to get through the army, that's fine as well. Use extended contests, with 10 or so high-ranking officers opposing Harrek. Each officer augments himself and receives augmentation from his/her co-officers. And the 99 men under his command give him/her quite an AP pool. Officers may well have Hero Points - I'd call some of them pivotal characters. In this scenario, it's quite possible for Harrek to get clubbed by the same army - dependant on how the army organizes itself. If you dislike ambiguity and flexibility on this scale, feel free to do so. HW works like this so the Narrator can steer the likely results into the direction best for the story. - -B *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Jun 2001 08:29:55 -0500 From: "Boolean Catalyst" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Concept comparisons >Andrew wrote: > > Anyway, consider what happens under RQ when two large units > > face each other. The 'Murphy's Rules' quote is roughly: > > 'if a unit of five hundred elite axemen fights for five > > minutes, at the end of that time a hundred of them will > > have chopped their own legs off.' >StanClifWrote: > I own that book and I know the article... it is a vast >over-simplification, using bogus statistical assumptions, written purely >for >comedic value. It made no allowance for attrition due to lesser wounds, >unconsciousness, armor, fatigue, etc.! It did bring out the point that the >RQ1 critical tables were severe, but it didn't factually represent them. Not only that, but the system doesn't make exceptions for things like group cohesion, and effectiveness. It is assumed that that is supposed to be roleplayed by the PCs, not another number chalked up. But when it comes to NPCs, you'd go nutty to roleplay every soldier in an army. I find it works much better to simply clump together the units and use the average skill level. (ie. the Devastator's Lance Unit work at ___% when attacking, and ___% when defending.) The more damage they recieve, the more those numbers decrease, since they are loosing the elements that stabilize the group. So for each successful hit against them (from a similar unit - within reason.), or perhaps every damage, they lose one member of their force. Obviously the RQ rules were designed for single combat, and so to use EXACTLY the single combat rules for mass melee is ludicrous! 'Sometimes you just gotta generalize.' (and as for anyone standing up to an army of 1000 singlehandedly, with only their skill.... C'mon guys! ARCHERS! I don't care how good the person is, they cannot dodge an entire platoon of archers aiming at ONE GUY! That's completely ignoreing unit tactics,and formations... And fatigue... Eee ghad! Besides, that is using single combat against a unit. It DOENS'T WORK! - granted it makes for a good story, but that's it. Don't try to analyse it... Sheesh) Now with that outta the way... Yes, by RQ1 standards a fighting unit is self-destructive - that is why they changed it through RQ3. No, RQ is not AS self-destructive for units at the above, chopping off legs every minute. The main thing is just use some common sense. If the rules weren't designed for it, don't use 'em for it. Boolean Catalyst _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:12:39 +0100 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: [RQ-RULES] The theory of network externalities > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:32:17 +0200 > From: Julian Lord > Adam : > > > Ryan Dancy did state on the Open Gaming list > that he didn't > > want to see any of the non d20 RPG systems > Wizards owns or > > controls back in print because of the theory of network > > externalities. > > ??? ... Because of the wha' ... ???? > > What is this theory ? From what I understand from him: That D&D succeds because everyone knows how to play it rather than for any innate qualities. Thus every thing should use the same system, so they will know how to play it. Thus there should be no other systems, because they might confuse people from the one true WotC way. Thus the d20 not very open gaming project. Adam *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:46:16 +0100 From: "Tom Zunder" Subject: [RQ-RULES] SPQR I really like that, call it SPQR as in Steve Perrins' Quest Rules. That's the one for me. I also like the idea of a campaign setting with all the same elements as before but one we can play with and develop as a fan setting, so if you do the core and then let us build on it, does that sound ok? 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 #73 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.