From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #18 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 16 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 018 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS RQR: Weapons categories Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Re: RQR: Real Life Combat RQR: re: "Real" combat RQR: RQ rules RQR: Re: TAP Spells RQR: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #16 RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nam@grendal.rain.com (Nicholas Marcelja) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 20:59:24 PST Subject: RQR: Weapons categories one handed long spears -- Mounted lances were upto 1 feet long. But that is a seperate skill. One handed is possible. just hold the spear in the middle. this make is about the same range as a 8 foot spear. usefull only in mass formations. the spear is nocked aside too easly. Categories 1-handed spear (stab only weapon) 2-handed spear (stab only weapon) Naganata/glave/partisan sword blade on end of pole, slash and stab Great Axe/Pole Axe mainly slash and hook weapon, Axe blade reaches over/around the shield. 1 handed sword balance is much different that axe/mace. Basic combat is the same. Two handed sword - its own catgory. some one with many years of combat experience can very quickly pick up a differenct style. Someone who is good in Martial Arts (Akido) can translate this to Fencing or SCA combat in about 6 months. More babbleing by Nick Nicholas Marcelja pacifier.rain.com!grendal!nam nam@grendal.rain.com Genie : N.Marcelja marcelja@sharpwa.com Compuserve : 76056,753 ------------------------------ From: Jon Green Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 06:38:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat > >> Use the following formula: yourMP / (yourMP + opponentsMP) * 100 > > > >I've two problems with this formuala: 1) I don't like _any_ rule which > >needs a calculator (or huge lookup-chart) in order to operate - the existing > >resistance table can at least be calcualted mentally by most people - and; > > The lookup-chart wouldn't have to be any bigger than the current one, would it? Yep - it'd be 21x42 (assuming standard ranges), doublling the size of the existing table. Calculating off-table values would require a calculator, rather than simple mental arithmetic. > I posted my message as a response to several people who thought the current > table was unfair. If I have 10 points and you only have 5 (twice your MP,) > the damage chances are 75/25, if the numbers are 20 and 10 (I'm still at > twice your MP) they jump to 95/05. > If I knew I was _three_times_ stronger than my opponent, I wouldn't be too impressed to find that I could succeed only three times out of four, or that my opponent could get _me_ every fourth time (on average)! Whilst in game-play terms (the MGF factor again), the scales do accelerate very rapidly in favour of the stronger contestant, that does reflect the "dominance or submission" school of spirit combat - remember all those wonderful stories about taming demons and powerful spirits: there is a long fight between equal contestants, followed by the very rapid failure of one - a bit like spiritual arm-wrestling really. Matching unequal contestants, especially very unequal ones, tends to lead to a foregone conclusion. I wouldn't expect to win an arm-wrestle once every four times against someone who could bench-press three times what I can (I wouldn't try in the first place), nor would I expect to win a battle of souls (or even provide tangible resistance, much less significant damage) against a spirit much stronger than me. Just IMHO. But it does teach PCs not to over-reach themselves - and encourages them to self-improvement in order to overcome that ... Jon (who's not flaming, just giving another spin) - -- jonsg@hyphen.com Jon@sundome.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Jon Green Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 06:56:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Real Life Combat > Liam McCauley & Jon Green had a discussion of real life > combats vs RQ-Rules: > And Graeme Lindsell joins the fray... > While this is interesting, what actual rules changes or new > rules are you proposing for RQ combat? I don't have any combat > experience; I can't really design realistic rules based on second > hand testimony. > I made a few suggestions, but my main intent was to add information to aid people creating experimental rule sets (and incidentally to help people with little or no scrapping experience visualise and describe battles). The most significant rules contribution (you didn't mention it) was the suggestion of a tiered approach to weapons skills, to model more closely how real people learn them, and apply cross-training to unfamiliar weapons. > JG: > >an exoensive blade, for > >example, will have hgher HPs and either a higher dice value (e.g. > >use d8 rather than d6) > > Do you mean higher AP's, or are you using the RQ2 rules? > Guilty, your honour! We're using a synthesis of RQ2 and 3 rules - I haven't been able to get a draft RQ4 or AiG set, otherwise we'd be playtesting them. Please someone - even if you can't release the whole set, I could _really_ use the RQ4 shaman rules right now! > JG: > >Weapon breakages are common (*) > >(*) meaning that it's not a rarity, rather than that it happens every > >third time! > > In our current RQ3.5 campaign (which has been running since early 1992), > I can't recall seeing a weapon breakage. I'm sure other peoples milage > may vary, since we don't use the swordbreaker rules or many two handed > swords, which in RQ3 are the best ways to break weapons. > A rule I play for deliberate weapons breakages is an aimed blow to the weapon arm allows damage directly to the opponent's weapon on a success against a successful weapon parry. Haven't used the swordbreaker rules; must look them up this evening. Jon - -- jonsg@hyphen.com Jon@sundome.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk (Liam McCauley) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:09:56 +0000 Subject: RQR: re: "Real" combat Whew! first ever submission to a mailing list (I've only had access to the Internet for a short time) and it was pretty painless (and flame free). Thanks for the constructive comments. I was particularly pleased to see information from people with fencing & SCA backgrounds. My own limited experience of combat tells me nothing about armour, helmets, shields, rough terrain, effects of wounds (except for sore thumbs!) and competitive fighting. Nicholas, you say you have 14 years experience of fighting in the SCA. How much formal training do you do? The reason I ask is because aikido weapons work is all training, and no fighting (unless you happen to get attacked in a pub whilst playing pool!) and I wonder what the difference in effectiveness would be between the experienced and the trained (or a combination). I suspect that a trained person would have more chance of surviving the first couple of fights than an untrained one, which would then make him experienced. I need to think more about this - I've started rambling and re-done several parts of this paragraph already. From some of the other comments made, I think there should be a method for representing awareness in a melee ('zanshin' in aikido terms). I think this may be done using 'Battle' skill in Pendragon - I'm not sure about this, though (maybe someone else could clarify?). It would be reduced by wearing a helmet. Also, keeping your balance, and taking your opponent's is important. Is this represented by 'Manoeuvre in RQ4? One combat effect that I've seen of fatigue (after two days of 3 hour weapons training) is that occasionally people get confused when a weapon is swinging towards them. Beginners can't remember what parry technique they're meant to be practising, and don't parry. More experienced people can't remember what parry technique they're meant to be practising, and instinctively parry. A couple of people picked up on my comment about having made a parry when my opponent had already got within my guard. I totally agree with what was said. I was actually trying to make the point that Graeme Lindsell made, but he put it much more clearly and explicitly than I did. (Incidentally, is it easier to follow a thread if relevant parts of the original text are directly quoted, or if the points are just paraphrased? I have read other mailing list digests which have large chunks of quotes, and quoted quotes which I found a bit tedious, but if that is the easiest and accepted way then I shall use quotes.) In real life, I obviously failed to parry because I would have been hit. Facing a less experienced opponent, that same parry attempt would have probably stopped the blow. In the current RQ rules (by which I mean RQ3 since I have never seen RQ4 / AiG) however, there is no adjustment made to a character's parry skill based on opponent's attack skill or speed. In a RQ2 campaign I played in at college, attack scores over 100% reduced defence (for non-RQ2 players: a score, typically in the range 5-20%, which subtracted from your opponents attack chance; much like shimmer) on a 1 for 1 basis. Perhaps the RQ3 equivalent would be to subtract from parry. Graeme Lindsell asks what RQ rule changes I propose, claiming that he can't design rules based on someone else's testimony. What? Do I have to do all the work? The reason for my posting was to provide some reference for people with no combat experience. It wasn't very long ago that I was in that group, and even now I class myself as having limited combat training (and, thus, lots to learn). Surely a lot of people design rules about (for example) poisons by reading what other people have written about the subject, rather than by killing off their gaming group. OK, I put my hands up to not providing RQ rules for what I'm talking about (it's a fair cop, guv!); the general info for the list suggests discussing "Combat sport verification of combat rules". The problem is that I can say something like "Because most hits in aikido are to the hand, I propose that the RQ hit location tables be changed" which would be complete rubbish. To decide what RQ rule changes should be made to make the combat system more realistic, people need to read accounts from different styles of combat, discuss them, and make up their own minds about what is right (or, rather, what suits their game). Thanks again for the comments - they've all been useful. Must go now as I'm overrunning my lunch hour. Liam McCauley Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk "By means of the way Call out the misguided enemy Advance and persuade him with words of instruction Through the Sword of Love." - O Sensei (Is it just me, or does this sound worryingly like a Humakti sermon?) ------------------------------ From: David Burtin Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 16:47:45 +0100 Subject: RQR: RQ rules Where can I get a copy of RQ4 2.0 & RQ:AiG ? ------------------------------ From: PAUL POFANDT Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 09:24:11 +1000 Subject: RQR: Re: TAP Spells G'day > DO I find Tap overpowered? Not really. What you gain from Tap is >just MPs, and not a huge amount (bear in mind the cost of the Tap spell). What I meant by overpowered is that for the cost of a few MPs, players permernantly loose characteristic points. I was talking from the point of view of the recipient-end of the spell, rather than that of the caster. It offends my sensibilities that a sorcerer might permenantly cripple one of my players just for the temporary gain of a few MPs, lasting possibly only a few minuites. I would think that if the MPs gained exist only for a few minutes, the charateristic loss should be simmilar, and vice-versa. Hence I'd use the rulling that the charateristics lost are lost only for the duration of the spell. To prevent the entire loss of the imact of the spell, I like the idea that some points can be lost permenantly though. >Why would most people want to reduce attributes permanently? To cripple your oppenent (permenently) >>Other GMs may find things different but I know that my players would want >>the spells no mater what the moral implications are (If I let them have it). > There is something very wrong with your players, then. The essence >of RQ roleplaying is to live within a religion and a society. I'd agree with that. But in Brisbane, there anen't that many players. I'll take whoever I can get (currently ex. ab&c players {ie. powergamers}) >>I would suggest that items that rely on tapping, gain a form of sentience after >>years (decades, centuries) of absorbing other peoples POW and INT. >Hmm.... not really. The evil of Tap is that what is tapped really goes - >something is lost forever for some short term selfish gain. This idea was brought on from re-reading elric novels. Stormbringer would seem to something like this (If I didn't know the 'real' background to SB that is) ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 16 Nov 94 17:01:22 EST Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #16 >>brick shit-house (BTW, is this British slang << Aye, lad. >>In RQ terms, I consider that I made my parry, it's just that my opponent's weapon happened to be inside my guard at the time! << You made your parry, I suppose, but it was late. To paraphrase the name of a book I have on "practical" target shooting (ie combat), "No second place winner". Parrying late === missing your parry. I would rule that the Parry skill includes training in getting there on time as well as in the right place. I bet your oppo would have been there, and you rate him higher up the %s than you. By the way, I know whereof I speak; I fight with Jomsvikings Norse Renactment Group. Don't get me wrong - I liked the post. We also find being battered by our mates good research material. The end product of this particular bit I would say is that your Attack and Parry %s are game assessments as to how good you are at (respectively) hitting people with the weapon - anyhow - and avoiding being hit by use of the weapon - including blocks, deflection parries, and just waving it at him and putting him off. Aspects like _how_ you parry I tend to roleplay or assign arbitarily depending on how the player is doing. For example, a hero nimbly coping with 2 or 3 oppos I would say was deflecting elegantly, whereas if poor Karl is on his back desperately (but successfuly) fending off a frenzied attack I'd rule he was hard-blocking... It all boils down to how much detail you want at the sharp end of combat. Certainly, if running PC martial artists (characters, not players!) I'd probably devote a bit more detail to the _sort_ of parry. The smashed left ankles of the Viking bodies, BTW, are almost certainly because a Vike shield has to be braced against the left leg during shieldwall or pig snout and this leaves the left foot temptingly exposed at the bottom of the shield - as we're not _really_ trying to injure each other, this is an illegal shot, but we get occasional slips. Real Vikes would have almost certainly lobbed a low blow at the ankle and gone for the upperworks as the man crumpled. ------------------------------ From: Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:09:22 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... I failed to see Jon Green's rules suggestion, before I claimed that he hadn't made many: >I'd be interested in considering developing a slightly >different classification of fighting skills, to separate fighting >ability into three parts: area skill (hand-to-hand or missile), weapon >class skill (edged or club weapons) and individual weapon (rapier or >1-H short sword), with each category individually trainable, and the >person's total skill in a given weapon being the sum of the component >skills. Any takers? Not here! I lean towards making RQ simpler, not more complex. I especially don't like developing whole new skills systems just for combat. I'd like to reduce the number of skills; here's a short explanation as to why: (Just for the record, I'd like to state I'm talking RQ3 here, primarily, and some RQ2. I've never seen RQ:AiG, and a lot of people never saw the RQ4 Draft 2.0 rules, so if I'm talking about RQ4 I'll say so) One thing I don't like in RQ is the way that skills that are just as difficult to learn cover greatly differing amounts of knowledge: what Loren has termed macro and micro skills. Examples of micro skills include the weapon skills, which are divided up even into attack and parry, and IMO the sorcery spells as well. Macro skills include most of the Lores, IMO the communication skills, First Aid (which heals a whole range of different wound types). I'd put the Craft skills somewhere in between. The RQ4 authors didn't seem to tackle this problem IMO (or they didn't think it was one): they expanded the number of skills and made some Easy and some Hard but without really covering which were macro and micro skills. There are several solutions I can see to this problem: one is to break up the macro skills into micro skills, creating a lot more specialised skills, and to include some method of adding the results of related skills together. This to me has the disadvatage of making character creation even more complex, and needing even larger character sheets to keep track of the many dozens of skills a character. The solution I favour is to wrap up the micro skills into macro skills. Certainly I think there are too many weapon skills: do those of you with combat or martial arts experience agree? I would be inclined to have skills for a limited number of combat styles covering both attack and parry, and giving the GM fiat to leavy an unfamiliarity modifier for using a new but related weapon with that skill. My feelings on realism in RQ (given I have no actual combat experience): To me, the important thing is that a game be realistic within the level of the simulation it is attempting. What I mean by this is that if a game chooses to model a particular facet of combat, the results of playing the rule system should be realistic. At the most simple level, a combat between opponents with differing skill levels should favour the better skilled. One complaint with the RQ3 skill system is the well known problem of differences between skills over 100% being less significant than those beneath, but generally it models this properly. If the game chooses to directly include the size of the combatants (which RQ does, but say AD&D doesn't), then this should also try to give the advantages that I'm told extra size does. Given that RQ tries to make size into as much a disadvantage as an advantage I think it fails here. This, like the over 100% problem, was discussed to death on the RQ4 playtest list: has anyone had any new ideas? Another area where RQ seems to fail is in hit location, from what I've read here and elsewhere. I understand the melee table was meant to randomly simulate the hits of SCA combat, so it's not surprising that it fails with other combat styles. I would say that RQ is trying a very simple approach to hit location that works within the limitations of using a single table: most of the other systems I've seen suggested seem more complex. I seem to have rambled on a bit, and there's work to be done, so I'll stop here. - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #18 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. 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. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.