From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #80 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Sunday, 12 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 080 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 Brent Michael Krupp RQR: Grognards... David Dunham via RadioMail RQR: more of the same ANDOVER@delphi.com RQR: Parries, etc. Graeme A Lindsell RQR: Focussed Spells Charlie Domino RQR: Rules changes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 17:24:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: RQR: Re: Grognards... On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, Mike Cule wrote: > Hmm, so that's what it means... Or, more precisely (and in the original context): grognard (grOnjar). [Fr., lit. `grumbler'. `Nom donne aux soldats de la vieille garde sous le premier empire, et, en general, a un vieux soldat, le plus souvent en un sens favorable' (Littre).] A soldier of Napoleon's Old Guard. Also transf., a veteran soldier. One can quickly guess why this came to be applied to wargamers. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius." -- Walter Bagehot, 1826-1877 ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 18:16:48 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: more of the same >From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> > >>>He managed to check six weapon skill checks in a single >combat once, and managed to somewhat justify them, as >everyone else looked on amazed. Bow, thrown weapon, spear - >stuck in with an impale, 2h weapon, dropped due to injured >arm, 1h weapon, lost, etc. << > >This has some relevance to the "SR wars" >discussion; if his opponent was a) good and b) equipped >with a low-SR weapon (good-sized troll with a maul oughta >do it) one of those weapon changes would have left him >flat-footed; opponent goes first, no weapon to parry with, >no shield of course. You don't need SR for this, just 2 sequential actions/round. Weapon caddy's first action: rearm. Enemy's first action: toast him. Caddy's second action: Bleed. Enemy's second action: hit him again. >From: GAWINTER@aol.com >It would be simpler to make attacks an opposed roll based on attacker skill >vs. parry skill = 1 roll by attacker or defender. Arrrgh! Please don't make us use the resistance table for each and every combat roll! ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 22:07:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Parries, etc. As to parries, yes, more rolling, but gives the defense something to do, and is important to backwards compatibility! If we don't have that backwards compatibility, I look forward to another endless set of reprints! Please, please, not another cult of Kyger Litor write-up! I was wondering if something couldn't be made of the new card stuff, though: there might be some way to use them instead of dice, if the percentages meant something in a card use. Just a passing thought! ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 14:36:34 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQR: Re: Focussed Spells > > Paul Reilly here. Brent Krupp wrote: > > Graeme Lindsell wrote: > > > A few words in support of a single "Cast Spirit Magic" skill > > Years and years ago I wrote something (I think I put on the Digest) about > running low-magic campaigns. One feature was to take the old > Focussed/Unfocussed distinction (usually Focussed on Self, Unfocussed on Others) > from RQ 2 and use it to know when a new skill, "Focussing", must be used to > cast spirit magic. Yes, I think I remember seeing this. As usual, what I think is an original idea has already been proposed, and my subconscious dredges it back up... How did PCs without Focussing manage to get POW ticks, or were you using another mechanic? - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ From: Charlie Domino Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 23:05:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: RQR: Rules changes Ok, first off, I'll start by admitting to being a grognard (sp?) and not wanting a lot of changes in my RQ. After ten years of being drug along by a terrible excuse for an RPG company (oh, sorry, they're a WARGAMING company), after having cheered the seeming success of RQ2 only to watch it all-but-die under AH, I am anything BUT cheered by the thought of a someone taking a hammer to the game system and going "Ah, I can do better!" Even if that someone is the collective wisdom of this list, myself included. Just MHO: Maximum backward compatability is a marketing NECESSITY, an evil one, but necessity nonetheless. It is going to do no one any good at all to invalidate the already published RQ supplements again, and then wait ten years for a bare dozen products to be published. To add my voice to those who have cried "scenarios!!!," this is the crux of the failure of RQ to become a market power. Not enough "detailed background" on areas small enough to be scenario settings (as opposed to campaign settings). And too few high-quality adventures. To play Devil's Advocate against myself: the "detailed background" is still being made up (and posted) here on the net, every day, so it's not all in Greg's little Red book, ready to go. But some things are broke, and don't work. Those DO need to be fixed, and in a way that doesn't overturn 20 years of previous RQ development and evolution. VERY strong opinion (not humble): if you're going to invent a "new" system altering basic combat and magic (meaning divine and spirit, but not sorcery) then invent a new system. But don't call it Runequest, because it won't be. To be fixed? The things introduced in RQ 3 that didn't work. Fatigue. Lore skills. SORCERY!!! Making magic items. Magic skills. Unarmed combat (ok, that didn't work in RQ2 either.) Combat/magic in the SR turn sequence. Keep parries. Yeah, it's slow, but my players love shouting "parried! " when I'm about to clobber them. Almost as much as they love the word "Tink!", a sound-descriptive word meaning: "sorry buckwheat, but that wimpy excuse for an attack bounced off my protection 4 and curibolli!" Charlie PS: Ok, so curibolli won't go "tink". Sue me. ===================================================================== "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try and take over the world" =========================cdomino@icsi.net=========================== ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #80 ****************************** 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.