From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #71 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, 8 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 071 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 Majordomo RQR: Actions, SR, and Fatigue (fwd) Loren Miller RQR: Sandy's sorcery rules Gregory C. Walsh RQR: LONG post on Horse Combat Rules Bryan J. Maloney RQR: "Battle magic" as a skill Steven E Barnes RQR: "Battle magic" as a skill SPerrin@aol.com RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... Steven E Barnes RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... Keith Ivey RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... Bryan J. Maloney RQR: Accounts Graeme A Lindsell RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Majordomo Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:41:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Actions, SR, and Fatigue (fwd) Forwarded message: From postmaster@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Fri Feb 3 00:36:59 1995 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 21:38:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199502030538.VAA27001@radiomail.net> To: owner-rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Subject: Actions, SR, and Fatigue David Cake defends SR: >First attack happening before second attack is almost >useless, as hardly anyone second attacks unless berserk or desperate. Au contraire, people often cast a spell and then attack. This would be a second attack. (What I should have said was second action, except I didn't want to confuse the issue since defense is an action.) Anyway, given that most attacks are parried, so nobody takes serious damage, it matters little who goes first. Combat boils down to alternating blows, and who gests lucky first is what's important. Given that this seems to be the reality of combat, we don't need a complex rule like SR. If we're stuck with SR, I do agree with David that they should be used only for sequencing (and an optional rule as well), and the action system be the primary focus. Actually, I'd agree with Graeme Lindsell that SR are inaccurate because there's no connection with Fatigue. In really long fights, I get slower as I get tired. Perhaps Fatigue should make you go second -- note you don't need SR for this to work. One level of Fatigue (however this happens) makes your first action count as a second action for purposes of who goes first. If you attacked twice while Fatigued, your second attack happens after everyone else's second action. It might be simpler not to say you have two actions/round, but that each round you can Act and Defend. You can instead Act twice or Defend twice. Act is either attack, spell, or extra movement. ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:46:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Sandy's sorcery rules They are pretty darn enormous, so if they didn't get to you let me know and I'll see if I can break them up. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: "Gregory C. Walsh" Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 13:15:08 -0500 Subject: RQR: LONG post on Horse Combat Rules As requested, I am sending out the rules I am developing for mounted combat in my horse dominated campaign. Sorry for the long post. Please comment. Cheers, Greg Outline: *Movement *Horse Fumble Chart *Falling *Saddles *Horse Types *Movement: This is extremely important. First start with a human, Movement is what you can do while doing 2 actions melee rnd. Running consumes one of those actions. Sprinting consumes two of those actions. Race Movement m/sr m/melee rnd cost 1 m/melee rnd run cost Human 3 3 30 1 fp 60 2 fp Horse 10 10 90 1 fp 180 2 fp Race Sprinting m/melee rnd cost Horse 240 4 fp Human 90 4 fp For riders, getting a horse move does *not* require a roll (90 meters). getting a horse to cover 180 meters requires 1 action and a riding roll. That is, the rider must convince the horse to go fast *and* he/she must guide the horse skillfully over the terrain. Bonuses and minuses given for terrain, horse condition. getting a horse to sprint generally requires two actions, and two sucessful riding rolls. See below. Riding roll: Fumble, consult riding fumble table Fail: Horse moves 120 meters Suceed: Horse moves 180 meters Special: Horse moves 210 meters Crit: horse moves 240 meters. Notes: When book keeping a chase, divide all distances by 30 meters. Just keep track of hash marks. If you crit your first roll, and where planning on using both actions on riding, then you loose the second action. I guess. No one has done this yet in my play testing. *Riding Fumble Chart: 01-05 horse Stumbles, reduce speed by 30 meters 06-10 horse Trips, hurts ankle, reduce speed by 30m for 1d3 rnds 11-15 rider looses balance, spend 1d3 melee rnds recovering 16-20 clothing/armor strap breaks, roll location for loss 21-25 must drop item(s) in hand or fall off of horse 26-30 saddle loosend, reduce by 1 level. 31-35 strap breaks, loose 1 item off of horse. 36-40 rider wrenched in leg (-1 hp, -3 fp). 41-45 riders vision impaired (-25% for 1d3 melee rnds). 46-60 rider Jolted Str 15, may Jump, may use Luck. 61-65 rider Jolted Str 25, no Jump, may use Luck. 66-70 rider Jolted Str 35, no Jump, no Luck. 71-84 horse falls, rider Jolted Str 35, may Jump, Luck. 85-93 horse falls, rider may Jump, Luck. 93-98 horse falls on rider, no Jump, no Luck. 99 blow it badly, roll twice 00 blow it real badly, roll 3 times. "Jolt of Str X". This means the rider is jolted in his/her saddle, and may make a riding roll to try to hold on. It works like knock back, and same is applied when smack for lots of damage while on horse back. Results depend on saddle type. *Saddle Enc Fumble Fail Suc Spec Crit None 0 Fall Fall No SZ Reg Brace Riding 4 Fall No SZ Reg Brace Horse Nomad 8 No Sz Reg Brace Horse Not Knight 14 Reg Brace Horse Not Not Fall is self explanitory. No SZ means Jolt (or dmg) is counted as special knock back dmg. Reg means Jolt or dmg is counted as regular damage (subtract Size). Braced means use Size plus Strength Horse means Size plus Horse's Strength (horse is pulling for you). Not means even if you are riven in two, your pieces will be clinging to the saddle. NOTE: Every point of glue holding a character into the saddle adds 10 Str towards resisting this kind of thing. Almost everyone is my campaign uses nomad saddles. Riding bare back in combat is considered a very bad idea. *Falling Damage. Stopped. 1d6 Riding (90 meters) 2d6. Gallup (<90 meters) 3d6. Jumping: fumble +1d6 dmg, fail +0, sucess -1d6 dmg, special -2d6, crit -3d6 dmg. (If there are extra dice, you can add actions. A sucessfull Jump means you can land on your feet.) Riding in Poor Conditions (terrian, lighting, and weather), add bonus and minuses to skills, make riding rolls more often. *Horse Breeds. Right now I am only concerning myself with the Steppe Ponies. Str 4d6 + 12 Fatigue 34-35 Con 3d6 Siz 4d6 + 12 Dmg Bns: 2d6 Load of rider. I calculate Enc like this. It is a little silly, but I am working on it. 2*(Size of rider)+Enc carried. Since Steppe people are about avg size 9-10, this makes for 2*(10) {rider} + 8 {saddle} + 10 {gear} = 38, so the horse starts at -4 fatigue. A problem. I am still playing with this. Those are my horse rules so far. Still play testing them. ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 13:32:02 -0500 Subject: RQR: "Battle magic" as a skill Well, using "battle magic" with skill mechanics is pretty much what I'd call "low-powered sorcery". ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 11:09:27 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: "Battle magic" as a skill >Well, using "battle magic" with skill mechanics is pretty much what I'd call >"low-powered sorcery". While the rules mechanism is similar (use of a skill), this does not make Battle Magic a subset of Sorcery. They are not even related, as the method of spell aquisition is entirely different. This is like saying Brew Pratzim and Archery are related, since they are both represented by skill rolls. - -steve ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:00:19 -0500 Subject: Re: RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... Steve Barnes says: >>While the rules mechanism is similar (use of a skill), this does not make Battle Magic a subset of Sorcery. They are not even related, as the method of spell aquisition is entirely different. This is like saying Brew Pratzim and Archery are related, since they are both represented by skill rolls.<< Ah, but one must remember that the idea of battling spirits to acquire Battle Magic is a construct of the RQ3 rules. Before that, they were just "learned," just as sorcery is learned. I have no problem with this similarity in learning, but I think that if you are going to base BM on a skill roll, it should be learned like any other skill. This is not to say that I agree with the POWx5% chance of using Battle Magic. My comments on that are elsewhere. Also as I've said elsewhere, I could be persuaded to support no roll at all for Battle Magic, though we would have to go back to using Magic Points so as to put some limit on the type. As you may recall, I started talking about another % roll in an effort to rid the game of any need to keep track of "points." Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:01:01 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... >Steve Barnes says: > >>>While the rules mechanism is similar (use of a skill), this does >not make Battle Magic a subset of Sorcery. They are not even >related, as the method of spell aquisition is entirely different. > >This is like saying Brew Pratzim and Archery are related, since >they are both represented by skill rolls.<< > >Ah, but one must remember that the idea of battling spirits to acquire Battle >Magic is a construct of the RQ3 rules. Before that, they were just "learned," >just as sorcery is learned. Let me state that I am no lover of RQ3... However, even in RQ2, the method of learning spells was different from learning skills. > I have no problem with this similarity in learning, but I think that if >you are going to base BM on a skill roll, it should be learned like any other >skill. This is not to say that I agree with the POWx5% chance of using Battle >Magic. My comments on that are elsewhere. Also as I've said elsewhere, I >could be persuaded to support no roll at all for Battle Magic, though we >would have to go back to using Magic Points so as to put some limit on the >type. As you may recall, I started talking about another % roll in an effort >to rid the game of any need to keep track of "points." What is wrong with using MPs? My only complaint is about the mechanism of the RR table, which breaks down at high POW values... - -steve ------------------------------ From: Keith Ivey Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:39:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 SPerrin@aol.com wrote: > [...] I think that if you are going to base BM on a skill > roll, it should be learned like any other skill. I agree. I thought that was what we were talking about. Note that learning the skill "cast spirit magic" would be different from learning spirit magic *spells* (which would still be necessary and could be done the RQ3 way). It's different from sorcery, in which (at least in RQ3) each spell is a separate skill. > Also as I've said elsewhere, I could be persuaded to support > no roll at all for Battle Magic, though we would have to go > back to using Magic Points so as to put some limit on the > type. Either a skill or no roll would be okay with me. I just don't like the POWx5% chance with no way for shamans (for example) to increase it (though it does provide an incentive for PCs to keep their POWs up). I still don't see what the big problem with MPs is. Eliminating them would be a pretty radical change (and fairly un-RQ-like), and I don't think the gain (if any) is worth it. - --Keith Ivey Washington, DC ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 20:00:11 -0500 Subject: RQR: Accounts I would like to offer a small correction. I do not use Kirsten Jacobus's account. I use Kirsten Maloney's account. ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 15:12:10 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: "Battle magic" as a ... A few words in support of a single "Cast Spirit Magic" skill I was part of discussions on this topic on the RQ4 list some time ago, always in support of the idea. My reasons were: - - That RQ is a game that models a PCs abilities mainly by skills: those things that aren't based on skills are either things you can't learn to get any better at, ie a CON roll to survive disease or things so simple that they should be considered automatic, such as walking. I didn't really think spirit magic fell into either of these categories, since it obviously takes some concentration and thought to cast, and unlike walking people do not start casting spells from an early age. This is obviously very much a matter of opinion. - - Like Matt Thale, I didn't like the idea of a rune lord/shaman etc with 30+ years experience of casting spells suddenly dropping to almost zero after a DI or enchantment. - - I don't like systems that develop a mechanic (in this case, a %ile skill system) and then immediately throw it out when some slightly different case appears. Some of those who had playtested the idea found that people usually got a tick in Cast Spirit Magic in every scenario, and that the skill headed for 95%+ pretty quickly. This was the most significant argument against the idea IMO, but I find this is true of a lot of skills, such as Scan and First Aid, not to mention a PCs favourite attack and parry skills. Steve Perrin writes: > I have no problem with this similarity in learning, but I think that if >you are going to base BM on a skill roll, it should be learned like any other >skill. This is not to say that I agree with the POWx5% chance of using Battle >Magic. My comments on that are elsewhere. Also as I've said elsewhere, I >could be persuaded to support no roll at all for Battle Magic I feel that we have to distinuish between the _ability_ to cast a spell and the chance you have to cast it. RQ3 clearly gives origins for spirit and divine magic - spirits and gods respectively. Humans (and other PC races) apparently can't create this kind of magic themselves, and have to steal or buy it off other magical powers that can. I don't see that acquiring a spell from one of these powers should necessarily give you an automatic chance to cast it, in the same way that buying a sword doesn't get you 100% sword attack. RQ2, as Steve mentioned, has Battle Magic being learned more like skills, but I feel that this makes the argument for automatic casting weaker, for the reasons I've outlined above. As for the skill itself, I think a base chance of 30-40% + magic bonus is adequate if we remove the IMO absurd effect of encumberance on casting chance. I don't see any need to give an increased chance to cast heal, characters with base level skills tend to be pretty weak at everything else. I'd worry more about 25% Parry than 40% Heal... There's also the MGF factor: personally, I don't find MGF increased by giving characters some automatic powers and other with skill rolls without reason. In this case it just makes emphasizes the use of magic over skills, which I don't think is obviously a good thing. All IMO, of course. - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #71 ****************************** 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.