From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #202 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 20 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 202 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. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham via RadioMail those tireless dog packs Steven E Barnes Current Sorcery draft Brent Michael Krupp Fatigue rules in Elric... Graeme Lindsell fatigue Colin Watson Running and fatigue owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. Farsee in archery owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. Pendragon to RuneQuest rstaats@mail.lmi.org Pendragon to RuneQuest Bruce Lionel Mason Fatigued SPerrin@aol.com those tireless dog packs SPerrin@aol.com Current Sorcery draft alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Pendragon to RuneQuest alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Current Sorcery draft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 21:49:09 -0700 Subject: Re: those tireless dog packs Steve Lieb wrote >As Steve pointed out, dogs run after their prey in relays. How far could a >single dog run in 2 hours? Probably not much over 20 miles, at top speed. >But packs have been observed keeping this up over DAYS. I've been wondering about this. I know I can't run that much longer if I run with some of my buddies. How can dogs? Surely the prey isn't doing laps around a track, but presumably always away from its pursuer. >We have a skill called RUN You might, but the rest of us don't. (The skill was in the RQ4 draft but dropped in the RQ:AiG draft.) David Dunham Pensee Corporation 206 783 7404 ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:28:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Current Sorcery draft >Volume >Volume is very tricky. It is essentially how one deals with fireballs, >zones of silence, multiple targets, etc. The volumes given below are total >measurements--the shape of the spell is up to the caster. It's a rough >estimation of how many spirits get involved. When dealing with a number >of objects (such as Blessing several swords), each level doubles the >number of objects. I tried something like that. When the sorceror started casting invoke lightning on eight targets at once, and put resist damage on the entire party, I decided to re-think the concept... - -steve ------------------------------ From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fatigue rules in Elric... All this (excellent) talk of fatigue rules made me wonder if Elric (which generally is a good source of "RuneQuest-lite" ideas) has any rules for carrying capacity or fatigue. I looked and it seemed like it had none for carrying stuff, and just GM fiat (basically) for fatigue. Does anyone use a basically Elric system *and* some kind of fatigue rules for RQ?? I (for one) would be curious to hear about this. - -- Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "A man's mother is his misfortune, but his wife is his fault." -- Walter Bagehot ------------------------------ From: gal502@anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 15:59:50 +0300 Subject: Re: fatigue "Styopa" writes: >Not to quibble, but this means, basically, that as long as you succeed, >you'll never get tired. The corollary is that, if you fail, you get trashed. This is my main problem with this system as it applies to combat, where a failed roll (especially a parry) is a bad enough result already: with this system, not only do you fail to parry, you start losing values off all your skills at the same time. Yes, for the average character only 10% of the time, but it seems to be doubly punishing failure; triply, if you roll a fumble. I rather like a different system, where characters could choose to get a significant bonus to their skills (about +20%) at the cost of taking some fatigue penalty, representing the extra effort you can put in to try and succeed. The penalty would probably depend on encumberance. A highly skilled (100%+) character wouldn't have to use this much of the time, but an unskilled character would probably use it a lot. This system does add on more effort for the GM when deciding how NPCs would use it, as the GM usually has to make decisions for a lot more characters than the players. That is one of the advantages of the 75+Con system, where little though is needed to keep track of things. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University "I was 17 miles from Greybridge before I was caught by the school leopard" - Ripping Yarns ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:19:28 +0100 Subject: Running and fatigue __________ Steve Lieb is concerned about running: > here's a thought problem: We have a skill called RUN. (Is this RQ:AiG? I'm not familiar with it.) > It allows the characters to double their move rate (i.e. a sprint). > So, my run [skill] is 90, and Dave's is 60. We run a race. I make my > run, he doesn't (over & over again, as you roll it every round) - not > impossible, as I should make 9 out of every ten rolls. We get to the end > of the race, I win. I ran faster, but am not tired, he ran slower and is. Maybe sprinting should be a special case. In most physical skills you try to useas little energy as possible to acheive your goal. In sprinting the goal is to run as fast as you can which means using as much energy as possible (as efficiently as possible). You can't move at maximum speed without using a lot of energy. Hence I think sprinting should cost 1 or 2 fatigue levels per round automatically (more if you fail your fatigue threshold). I don't imagine many people would opt for all-out sprinting except in sprinting competitions. I might add that I think a "Run Skill" is a rather strange way to try to simulate sprinting. "Usually I run 50 meters in 10 seconds; but occasionally (when I make my skill roll) I can run 100 meters in 10 seconds." It just doesn't seem right. The only way the Run skill might work is if you're making a lot of rolls on a long-distance-run which average out to give your speed. Even so, it's lot of rolling... It might be better to have a flat movement rate which you can increase by sacrificing fatigue levels. What's the current RQ4 rule for movement rate? ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 22:28:52 MEZ Subject: Farsee in archery Sean at Photography: > Does anybody out there ever use the Farsee spell? For a couple of things (like star-gazing), but never for missile combat. Its bonus on search is quite effective, IMO. It does help locate weak spots in an opponent's armour, too, but I'd always switch it off before aiming. > If you do you, Then my D/M came up with a brilliant bonus > for using this rarely taken spell. He recommends that farsee > give an extra 5% to attack with missile weapons for every > point of farsee that you use. This has made the spell very > popular with the elf and hunter types. IMO way too overpowered, even if the reasoning was correct (which I feel it isn't, see below). This gives a somewhat experienced character a plus 20% chance to hit for a Farsee 4 for full 5 minutes. If this effect and Speedart are treated as cumulative, this becomes outright gross. Sean at Photography again: > Sorry I forgot to add the reason it gives you an extra 5%. > The reason is that the target appears closer to you and > is therefore a bigger target for you to hit. No, it isn't. The opening angle for the arrow still is the same, and most of the side error comes from small mistakes during release, not from aiming. Anyway - as soon as the target starts moving, Farsee will be more of a hindrance than a help. Did you ever try and follow a flying bird with a telescope? Now imagine you have to aim say 4 metres before the bird to have it fly into the area where the arrow will go after being released, and just do so with a telescope. Mark Buckley: > Oh the other hand, I can see a case for arguing that > it actually reduces your chance to hit, as I seem to > remember that each point of Farsee halves the apparent > distance from the observer to the target. It would be > therefore screw up your range estimation something > chronic, and also multiply the error in your lateral aim. Quite close to the point. Optical influences make estimating a distance (be it with technique or instinctively) a hell of a job. Shooting into or out of a dark corridor next to a sunlit meadow does cause more inaccuracy than strong wind. Now if my feel for the distance has gone and I don't use any visoring technique (like notches on the bow limb or stringwalking - none of the ancient archers did), my chance to get the distance right is quite poor. The side is less effected, but the length of the shot (the height of the hit) becomes very random unless the archer is well used to aiming thus. Such as training with Farsee on for at least 90 minutes per week... Steve Barnes: > Farsee is already useful. For the same reason telescopes are > useful. Telescopic sights are useful on guns, but I am not > sure how useful they are on bows. I'm sure Joerg can tell us... Modern high-tech bows have a scope to enlarge the gold or whatever of the target so that the archer can aim at the tiny cross in the centre. For precision shooting this apparently works fine, however this is neither my style of archery, nor applicable to moving targets. I have seen people trying to find the target through the scope for some time before they got it into focus, and I suspect a Farsee spell will have a similar effect. Do skeet gunners use telescopes? I did shoot on moving targets a couple of times. I found that to aim over the arrow beat any visor technique other participants used. (For the record: on serious tournaments I shoot a recurve barebow, using string-walking for getting my visor-line. Not quite how our predecessors did it, but fairly precise. Not-so-serious tournaments I shoot instinctively rather than with technique, with various quite light-weight bows - if you know you have to shoot 72 or more arrows, you think twice before you draw the heaviest bow you can muster. Targets don't like overweight shots, either...) - -- - -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 14:36:22 -0400 Subject: Pendragon to RuneQuest Well, my Celtic Faerie campaign is starting out and I need some help from all those Pendragon players on the list. Do you have a quick and dirty translation scheme from Pendragon to RuneQuest? I'm using the Pendragon supplements _Pagan Shore_ and _Beyond The Wall_ as source material, and I need a way to translate creatures, etc. Is there any system besides the obvious one of Lance 22 = 110%? Especially necessary is a way to translate damage from the multi-dice Pendragon to the less damage-heavy RuneQuest. Suggestions from anyone? Dave Dunham, who has taken it in the opposite direction? Thanks all, Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: rstaats@mail.lmi.org Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 13:30:38 EST Subject: Re: Pendragon to RuneQuest Steve, Your skill 22 = 110% is probably the best ``quick/dirty'' method. If you have more time, look at typical skill bands one sees. For example, few NPCs or PCs in my Campaign ran around in the 110%+ category, but you might have a differing range in your own Campaign. A more refined approach is to say: Here are five skill bands in Pendragon and here are four similar ranged bands in RQ: For example, the RQ range bands might look like: Novice 25-45% Skilled 46-60% Good 61-89% Master 90-105% Hero 106%+. Use the following formulation when doing the damage translations: Expected(dmg in Pendragon)/Average Human Hit Points = Exp(RQ Dmg)/AHP. This way the translations will still have the same net game effect. Hope this helps, Rich ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:04:29 -0230 Subject: Re: Fatigued On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Robert McArthur wrote: > > - ----------============HEALTH ZONES AND THEIR EFFECTS=======------------- > > Amber: caused by one of: 1/2 HPs, 1/2 CON in FPs, any location 0 or less > > in HPs, most illnesses, posession, losing 1/2 or more of a stat, 1/2 MPs. > > effect of amber: -20% to all rolls, +1 to SRs. > > I think that this should be more debilitating wrt SRs. 1 extra second > (notionally) is too little IMHO. How about +3 or +5 even? Is a fair point. Maybe it would work better if I use +3 to DEX SRM in Amber and +5 to DEX SRM in red. Hopefully I'll be able to start playing this soon and see how it goes. - ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:38:20 -0400 Subject: Re: those tireless dog packs David Dunham inquires about the wolf pack system of prey pursuit: >I've been wondering about this. I know I can't run that much longer if I run with some of my buddies. How can dogs? Surely the prey isn't doing laps around a track, but presumably always away from its pursuer.< Actually, the prey is running laps. The fast-running wolves also try to herd the quarry in a big circle, so the backup wolves have interior lines for keeping up with the target. The tactic fails when the prey is able to run far enough fast enough in a straight line. Besides, face it Dave, wolves are in better shape than you are. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:39:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Current Sorcery draft Steve Barnes has a problem with the Volume Manipulation in my Sorcery rules... >I tried something like that. When the sorceror started casting invoke lightning on eight targets at once, and put resist damage on the entire party, I decided to re-think the concept...< How much intensity did he have in those spells? How many magic points was he playing with? In the fight I ran last night, the main sorcerer threw two spells--an Invoke Fire that ended up giving a small hot foot to the Bachlach target, and an Intensity 6 Palsy that crippled the critter's abdomen and laid him out for the fighters to finish. At that point, the sorcerer was out of his own magic points and his Staff Power. BTW, doesn't anyone have a rough-and-ready Pendragon-to- RuneQuest conversion system for me? How about Ars Magica to RuneQuest? Roderick Robertson, who is the author of the spirit system in Beyond the Wall for Pendragon as well as the entirety of The Lion of the North for Ars Magica, is playing in my Celtic Faerie campaign. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 20:38:08 BST Subject: Re: Pendragon to RuneQuest Rich Staats helps live up to his name, in replying to Steve P: > Your skill 22 = 110% is probably the best ``quick/dirty'' method Seems pretty good to me in general. You can't really preserve either "effect", or "meaningfullness" in progression terms, between the two systems, so I see nothing better in general terms. > Use the following formulation when doing the damage translations: > > Expected(dmg in Pendragon)/Average Human Hit Points = Exp(RQ Dmg)/AHP. If I understand this correctly, this amounts to basically "halve it" (to go from Pend. damage to RQ). This would give potentially strange results for human types, since the basis for calculating damage is quite different between the two games, but is probably pretty decent for Beasts. Eg, 9 dice of pendragon damage would be 4d6+1d3 in RQ, 12 point armour becomes 6 point, etc etc. Alex. ------------------------------ From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 20:55:01 BST Subject: Re: Current Sorcery draft Respectively, Steves P. and B.: > >Volume > >Volume is very tricky. > I tried something like that. When the sorceror started casting invoke > lightning on eight targets at once, and put resist damage on the entire > party, I decided to re-think the concept... I think a "generic" volume would be asking for trouble, yupyupyup. However, it's still a useful concept. Consider how often various sorcery spells end up saying daft, and frequently also confusing, things like "get 1m radius per intensity, and/or an extra point of damage". What I suggested wrt Sandy's sorcery rules was "spliiting up" such uses, into Intensity and Quantity, but leaving it up to the spell spec. to say how Quantity should be interpreted (e.g., one target per, 1m radius per, etc, etc). Some semi-stanardisation might be useful, though. ("Use volume as per Quantity table #3.") Alex. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #202 ******************************* 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. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html