How much is a pint and other basic RQII questions

[Verderer]

Yes, I haven't been find a list for regular and all-important ale house items such as beer, ale and pies. While I can always wing it, I thought it a bit odd, as these are always on the top of the list of things my players' PCs (and sometimes the players themselves) seek to buy and consume in copious amounts. Is there such a list in some of the corebooks?

I would also like to verify that I have understood critical success and fumble correctly: critical chance is 10% of your modified skill, but fumble always either 99-00% (or simply 00% for skills above 100%)?

Why is fumble chance so small? Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the chance in reverse to critical success? For example, if you skill was 75%, then your fumble chance would be 98% (25%/10=2.5 rounded up to 3). Is there any good reason for not using such a houserule?

In terms of Clockwork & Chivalry, I would expect black powder weapons especially to have increased chance for fumbles, and indeed I recall reading in RQ pirates about such rules. I must dig up my digital edition to check it out.

Another thing, which also is more C&C specific, is armour prices. Would the standard prices listed in the corebooks be still relevant for 17th century? A price for a plate helmet sounds a bit high in my inexperiences ears. Looting armour seems to be a major opportunity to amass a fortune...

A couple of more. Having briefley leafed through the Monster Colisseum, it seems that in RQII the gnome is an un-gnome entity? Sorry about weak pun... :roll: In other words, is there a write up for a gnome character/race anywhere? I can probably find one in the BRP books though.

About combat styles. In our C & C campaign, After having explained (hopefully correctly) combat styles to my players, most of them took Sword & Dagger over the siingle Sword or Dagger option. It seems to make sense since you get an extra action and all? And if I read the rules correctly, there seems to be no penalty involved, if you use either the dagger or the sword alone? You'd still get to use your full skill for Sword & Dagger?

So why would anyone choose a simple Sword/dagger skill in the RQII game? There must be some other reasons than style or habit? I am inclined to rule that since this dual wielding style relies on two weapons, using the skill with only one weapon would involve a sligtht penalty, since you're fighting with 'one hand tied'? And especially if you use the dagger in the 'wrong' hand? Have I understood this rule correctly, and how would you rule this in a 'three musketeers' type game?

 

[Dan True]

I would also like to verify that I have understood critical success and fumble correctly: critical chance is 10% of your modified skill, but fumble always either 99-00% (or simply 00% for skills above 100%)?

Why is fumble chance so small? Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the chance in reverse to critical success? For example, if you skill was 75%, then your fumble chance would be 98% (25%/10=2.5 rounded up to 3). Is there any good reason for not using such a houserule?

Up to you, but when I look around at various rea-world "skill checks" I see that it is far more common for a skilled-worker to attain absolute-succes than absolute-failure. Of course this would still be true for a high skill level, but for a 50% skill there would be 5% chance of critical-success and 5% chance of failure. Which seems too extreme for my taste. Critical failures should be only when things really go to heck! When the trap you're about to disarm blows up, when the King's bracelet you're repairing are ruined and so on.

Logically you can say that a worker with any idea of what he's doing, will know when things have gone bad (failure) and then stop before they're becoming critical failures. Only rarely does things go so bad that you cannot see it on the way there.

In terms of Clockwork & Chivalry, I would expect black powder weapons especially to have increased chance for fumbles, and indeed I recall reading in RQ pirates about such rules. I must dig up my digital edition to check it out.

Well, in the 17th century blackpowder weapons were becoming a lot safer, depending on if it is early or late. Around 1600 handguns and handcannons would probably be kinda safe (a 2% fumble chance is not far off). However cannons are still in the habit of blowing up sometimes. In Denmark it was customary for cannon makers to sit upon their cannon the first time it was fired, to ensure that they did proper work. I take it this means that the problem with cannons was more about quality of casting, than about handling of the crew. That way good-quality cannons would never explode, while average-quality cannons should probably have normal fumble chance.
If the setting is late 1600 (almost 1700), then cannons would also be pretty safe, as advances in casting have made them better. They're also often cast from iron now instead of bronze... Which helps a lot.

The age of "blackpowder is as dangerous to you as it is to the enemy" are the late 13th and 14th century.

Another thing, which also is more C&C specific, is armour prices. Would the standard prices listed in the corebooks be still relevant for 17th century? A price for a plate helmet sounds a bit high in my inexperiences ears. Looting armour seems to be a major opportunity to amass a fortune...

No, they would not be relevant. Casting and smithing techniques have made armor much cheaper to produce, in the 16th hundreds it was not uncommon for mercenaries to go to war in breastplate, plate helmet and with a pike. Trade and focussed productivity has made everyone much more wealthy than in a medieval settings. Furthermore a lot of the armor (linen, chainmail fx) are completely outdated.

I usually make damages to any armor they take from dead foes. That way they don't become THAT wealthy, as the chainmail will be severely damaged after having been chopped through (of course, if they haven't damaged an armoured part, this can't work). But beware of sending heavily-armoured NPCs after you're players if they themselves are not armoured (in which case, they probably can't carry the foes armour as well). Armour really makes a difference.

About combat styles. In our C & C campaign, After having explained (hopefully correctly) combat styles to my players, most of them took Sword & Dagger over the siingle Sword or Dagger option. It seems to make sense since you get an extra action and all? And if I read the rules correctly, there seems to be no penalty involved, if you use either the dagger or the sword alone? You'd still get to use your full skill for Sword & Dagger?

So why would anyone choose a simple Sword/dagger skill in the RQII game? There must be some other reasons than style or habit? I am inclined to rule that since this dual wielding style relies on two weapons, using the skill with only one weapon would involve a sligtht penalty, since you're fighting with 'one hand tied'? And especially if you use the dagger in the 'wrong' hand? Have I understood this rule correctly, and how would you rule this in a 'three musketeers' type game?

Well, a lot of cultures will not have Sword/dagger skill, and a player will thus have to learn it elsewhere. However, in a 17th century setting sword/dagger should be more common. You can also rule (as I would) that using, say a bastard sword, effectively will require the "1H sword" skill instead of the Sword/dagger skill. There really is a lot of difference in fighting with a 1½ hand sword and with sword&dagger.

- Dan

 

[ThatGuy]

I too have been curious about some prices for items not included in the books. Ale, wine, tea, etc.

But what about Soap? Or eating utensils (I've seen some pretty cool renaissance replica stuff that had to be relatively pricy back then)? Sometimes common items can be important and simple plot devices.

 

[Radioactive Ape Colin]

The prices used for armour in RQ2 are too high for C&C to be realistic, yes, but they went with RQ2 prices for simplicity. A few things will help you though:

1) By the mid-1600s (when C&C starts) the fully-plate cuirassiers are all but gone. there are a rare few holdouts, but for the most part their days are over. They were just too expensive to raise and maintain. So, the plate armour you will encounter will be mostly breastplates, helms, and tassets (plate skirts that protect the abdomen).

2) Although pikemen and harquebusiers were equipped with helms, breastplates (and in the latter, tassets), many soldiers actively discarded heavier armour as cumbersome. Add in the common supply difficulties, and the fact that the Royalist forces in particular often ended up equipped with substandard arms imported from the continent, and the armour becomes less common.

3) Armour is likely to have seen use. It might be a bit battered, dented, scuffed, or otherwise damaged, if only in minor ways. It will be clearly used. If you just killed someone wearing it, and caused any serious damage to an armoured location, the armour will be rent and almost worthless for sale. This all means that even if you can sell it (not in any way guaranteed) you'll only be getting a small fraction of its cost.

4) The idea that anyone can scavenge used armour and then make a killing selling it ignores the realities of the ECW and 30YW: it assumes a) interested parties have enough funds to make such purchases (seldom the case; you're more likely to be offered a pittance, or an IOU/requisition note that's never likely to be reimbursed), or b) that they won't simply take it from you by threat and force for the war effort (thank you for the donation!).

5) Although scavenging was common, you'd still have to be careful. Some folks take a dim view of such looting, especially if it becomes in any way evident you've been looting from "their side". Armour can be marked by the maker, which can be a clue in some cases.

6) If you're really worried about this problem, never ask someone about the realistic costs of buff coats; they could sometimes be ridiculous!

cheers!
Colin

 

[Verderer]

Up to you, but when I look around at various rea-world "skill checks" I see that it is far more common for a skilled-worker to attain absolute-succes than absolute-failure. Of course this would still be true for a high skill level, but for a 50% skill there would be 5% chance of critical-success and 5% chance of failure. Which seems too extreme for my taste. Critical failures should be only when things really go to heck! When the trap you're about to disarm blows up, when the King's bracelet you're repairing are ruined and so on.

Logically you can say that a worker with any idea of what he's doing, will know when things have gone bad (failure) and then stop before they're becoming critical failures. Only rarely does things go so bad that you cannot see it on the way there.

True, but in the case of skilled worker, I wouldn't require such skill checks in the first place, unless there was uncommon risk, stress or haste involved. Maybe it would more useful to consider this issue in connection with combat which is more what I was thinking about? To me it seems a character with 50% in a weapon skill is only an average fighter, really (remembering skill scale extends well over 100%). And I don't see why criticals have a shifting range, when fumbles do not? You don't have to be extremely skilled for the fumble range to drop around the 99-100% area, do you?

Well, in the 17th century blackpowder weapons were becoming a lot safer, depending on if it is early or late. Around 1600 handguns and handcannons would probably be kinda safe (a 2% fumble chance is not far off). However cannons are still in the habit of blowing up sometimes. In Denmark it was customary for cannon makers to sit upon their cannon the first time it was fired, to ensure that they did proper work. I take it this means that the problem with cannons was more about quality of casting, than about handling of the crew. That way good-quality cannons would never explode, while average-quality cannons should probably have normal fumble chance.
If the setting is late 1600 (almost 1700), then cannons would also be pretty safe, as advances in casting have made them better. They're also often cast from iron now instead of bronze... Which helps a lot.

The age of "blackpowder is as dangerous to you as it is to the enemy" are the late 13th and 14th century.

Maybe so, and I don't claim to be an expert with firearms of the period, far from it. But as to the safety of black powder small arms, it was still playing with open fire and gunpowder essentially, and add to this that loading etc. was extremely fiddly compared with modern standards. Even games such as CoC have fumbles for modern automatic weapons. And from playing point of view, I wouldn't want to make firearms too realiable, so that they would dominate play.

Another thing, which also is more C&C specific, is armour prices. Would the standard prices listed in the corebooks be still relevant for 17th century? A price for a plate helmet sounds a bit high in my inexperiences ears. Looting armour seems to be a major opportunity to amass a fortune...

No, they would not be relevant. Casting and smithing techniques have made armor much cheaper to produce, in the 16th hundreds it was not uncommon for mercenaries to go to war in breastplate, plate helmet and with a pike. Trade and focussed productivity has made everyone much more wealthy than in a medieval settings. Furthermore a lot of the armor (linen, chainmail fx) are completely outdated.

That's what I thought. Any ideas about how to convert plate mail prices, so they would be better in sync with other prices for this era?

Oh, and my mentioning of looting armour was not so much meant as serious suggestion, but a reflection of the high cost of a, say lobster pot helmet. :wink:

 

[Mikko Leho]

Maybe so, and I don't claim to be an expert with firearms of the period, far from it. But as to the safety of black powder small arms, it was still playing with open fire and gunpowder essentially, and add to this that loading etc. was extremely fiddly compared with modern standards. Even games such as CoC have fumbles for modern automatic weapons. And from playing point of view, I wouldn't want to make firearms too realiable, so that they would dominate play.

Black powder weapons got a bad reputation when smokeless powder was introduced to the market. The new propellant needed new weapons for their much increased explosive powers. When people loaded their old black powder weapons using newer propellants, guns started to blow up. This had nothing to do with black powder or guns designed for it, which had been safe (as guns can ever be) to use for centuries.

 

[doomedpc]

When people loaded their old black powder weapons using newer propellants, guns started to blow up. This had nothing to do with black powder or guns designed for it, which had been safe (as guns can ever be) to use for centuries.

Well I never knew that

Also remember that prices are extremely patchy. The conflict has skewed the economy generally, while in addition there are incredible variations due to whatever peculiar local circumstances are prevailing. To further confuse things (because it's fun), the weather is colder than usual, and has been for a while, and trade is not flowing smoothly, so food has been scarcer than usual. It means things will be grim for many. Even those fairly wealthy before the war might find themselves at the mercy of the rising prices, particularly if they have been dispossessed due to living in a, predominantly, enemy area.

Also, as far as arms and armour go, there are military standards and they should be the norm, but there are incredible variations. A rich patron might purchase standardised equipment for his men, although the specifics might vary between regiments (even if they are not officially meant to), but on an individual level, hastily assembled forces participating in a local conflict might have a much less uniform appearance and variety of armaments.

Long Live the Mainspring!
Peter Cakebread

Cakebread and Walton
Purveyors of Fine Imaginings

 

[Radioactive Ape Colin]

If you want to adjust costs to make them more realistic in-keeping with the period, give me a day or two and I'll dig out a few ECW volumes and give you some baselines to work from when adjusting.

Colin

 

[Khamulcalle]

If you want to adjust costs to make them more realistic in-keeping with the period, give me a day or two and I'll dig out a few ECW volumes and give you some baselines to work from when adjusting.

Colin

Nice!

I am also very interested in this, thanks!

/Khamul

 

[Verderer]

Sounds great, thanks!

 

[Dan True]

True, but in the case of skilled worker, I wouldn't require such skill checks in the first place, unless there was uncommon risk, stress or haste involved. Maybe it would more useful to consider this issue in connection with combat which is more what I was thinking about? To me it seems a character with 50% in a weapon skill is only an average fighter, really (remembering skill scale extends well over 100%). And I don't see why criticals have a shifting range, when fumbles do not? You don't have to be extremely skilled for the fumble range to drop around the 99-100% area, do you?

I would call for a check in those situations, just to see if they succeed in creating a better-quality item. There are some rules for creating items in Arms&Equipment in you wanna use them, with some weapon enhancements coming from higher-than-average-quality weapons.

In my eyes, the critical-ranges have shifting ranges and the fumbles do not because it isn't too hard to realise the danger of dropping a sword or likewise, and then quickly spinning out of the attack (thus failing, instead of fumbling). Having varied fumble ranges would have some effects:
- More calculating. It will take a bit longer time for each roll to determine what the effect is - not much, but a bit.
- Low-skilled players will have a significantly large chance of doing really stupid stuff. For a 30% skilled warrior (slightly trained, as 20% is basis for average people) there would be a 7% chance of dropping a sword, stumbling, losing armour and so on. That is a fumble for every 15 attack/parry roll. Try picking up a sword and see how often you drop it or fall prone (not that much).
- It makes for very chaotic battles when not using highly-trained combatants, which in turn can mean that many opponents will be finished off because they drop their weapons or fall prone, instead of the players winning over them by superior skill... And winning because the opponent fumbles is not very heroic.

Maybe so, and I don't claim to be an expert with firearms of the period, far from it. But as to the safety of black powder small arms, it was still playing with open fire and gunpowder essentially, and add to this that loading etc. was extremely fiddly compared with modern standards. Even games such as CoC have fumbles for modern automatic weapons. And from playing point of view, I wouldn't want to make firearms too realiable, so that they would dominate play.

Well, it all depends on what you wish. If you wish that blackpowder weapons often should misfire, blow up or so on, then by all means design it that way, even though it may not be historical correct - the style of your setting is what matters the most! Screw history, if you wan't a setting where picking up a pistol is potentially dangerous for yourself. Remember: Your RuneQuest will vary. That goes for the house-rule discussed above also, of course

On a side not: I really hate fumbles on modern automatic weapons, because they are always ridiculously high. When I served conscription, my weapon(Colt C7) jammed 4 times during the first 2 weeks and then not at all from then on, because I learned how to clean it properly. But most game systems don't take cleaning of weapons into account, and therefore end up jamming waaaaay too much.

- Dan

 

[Deleriad]

FWIW when crafting items etc I use the skill descriptions given and rule simply that a failure means creating an item of inferior quality.

So if you're a Professional 50-75% and fail your roll you produce a competent piece of work. If you're a novice and fail then you simply produce a piece of garbage that is not fit for purpose.

I've never bothered to sit down and quantify the effects but I regard "professional" quality as the norm so a competent item is fit for purpose but may be weaker, uglier, prone to wear under stress etc.

 

[PhilHibbs]

So if you're a Professional 50-75% and fail your roll you produce a competent piece of work. If you're a novice and fail then you simply produce a piece of garbage that is not fit for purpose.

I've never bothered to sit down and quantify the effects but I regard "professional" quality as the norm so a competent item is fit for purpose but may be weaker, uglier, prone to wear under stress etc.

As a game mechanic, how about allowing a second roll to "salvage" the materials used and try again? You could also take your time over it to get a +20 or +40 modifier, but ruling that you have to fail twice in a row to botch it could work. I'd also rule that a crit on the second roll isn't as good a result as a crit on the first.

 

[Verderer]

Well, it all depends on what you wish. If you wish that blackpowder weapons often should misfire, blow up or so on, then by all means design it that way, even though it may not be historical correct - the style of your setting is what matters the most! Screw history, if you wan't a setting where picking up a pistol is potentially dangerous for yourself. Remember: Your RuneQuest will vary. That goes for the house-rule discussed above also, of course

On a side not: I really hate fumbles on modern automatic weapons, because they are always ridiculously high. When I served conscription, my weapon(Colt C7) jammed 4 times during the first 2 weeks and then not at all from then on, because I learned how to clean it properly. But most game systems don't take cleaning of weapons into account, and therefore end up jamming waaaaay too much.

- Dan

I get what you and Mikko mean, and I may indeed have developed far too negative a view of period guns. I can only say that this conception is derived from various RPG rules, not historical research.

And I guess it makes sense not to make things too difficult for low skill characters, they have it pretty tough already.

But the Colt example you mentioned, it seems interesting that increasing your 'guns' skill (ie. knowing how and when to clean your weapon) also helped you to sort out 'fumbles' related to you gun? So you could say that a poor weapon skill will increase the chance of fumbles just in this way? Assuming of course, that we accept weapon cleaning drill as a part of weapon skill. So we might assume a low skilled character do a poor job of cleaning or skip cleaning altogether, and thus increase the risk for fumbles, because he's not properly trained. But anyhow.


Still, can anyone point me to a list of tavern goodies that would work with 17th RQII campaign? :wink:

 

[Ultor]

Still, can anyone point me to a list of tavern goodies that would work with 17th RQII campaign? :wink:

Not quite what you're after, but
http://www.littlewoodham.org.uk/research/mark.htm

A full quart of the best ale or beer by measure sealed. 1d
A full quart of single ale or beer by measure sealed. ½d
A feather bed with necessary apparel for one man one night and so depart. 1d
A feather bed by the week for one man alone. 6d
The like feather bed for two together by the week. 10d
A mattress or flock bed by the week for one or two. 6d
A chamber with two beds good furniture one night and so depart. 4d

 

[Dan True]

But the Colt example you mentioned, it seems interesting that increasing your 'guns' skill (ie. knowing how and when to clean your weapon) also helped you to sort out 'fumbles' related to you gun? So you could say that a poor weapon skill will increase the chance of fumbles just in this way? Assuming of course, that we accept weapon cleaning drill as a part of weapon skill. So we might assume a low skilled character do a poor job of cleaning or skip cleaning altogether, and thus increase the risk for fumbles, because he's not properly trained. But anyhow.

Well, if you assume weapon cleaning drill as part of weapon skill then yes, you are correct. I would however say it should not be like that... I did not become a better shot, just because I learned how to clean my weapon properly. It had no influence on how often I hid the target. Besides my "weapon cleaning skill" could have been used on a machine gun, a 20 mm cannon and so on, without "a lot" of extra training. Some would be neccesary - but nothing compared to the amount of training needed to hit as well with a machine gun as I did with my rifle (i.e. getting the skill at the same level).
If one should wish to implement weapon cleaning drills in an rpg, it should be as a general skill for each weapon category. At least that's what I think.

Still, can anyone point me to a list of tavern goodies that would work with 17th RQII campaign? :wink:

I have a ressource that's originally from this site: http://www.kipar.org/. However, they seem to have dropped the theme, so I take the liberty of uploading it myself.
"http://www.dtrue.dk/Pirat/piratestuff.zip" - this zip-file contains some historical correct prices for a lot of stuff, you can try to convert them using some base ware (milk is classic if you can find a rq-price for milk. Else take a sword or something). It also contains some info on various weapons used by pirates and A LOT of different carribean-info stuff. I have compiled the zip file myself, and it's my server so it is safe.

The whole info is very pirate-themed, but still usefull for 17th century in general.

- Dan[/url]

 

[Verderer]

Great stuff Dan and Ultor, many thanks! These will be a big help.

 

[Dan True]

Great stuff Dan and Ultor, many thanks! These will be a big help.

No problem.

 

[Radioactive Ape Colin]

Okay, let's get the ball rolling. To put things in perspective, here are some typical yearly family incomes from the Stuart period:

A baronet: £800
An esquire: £450
A gentleman: £280
An eminent clergyman: £72
A military officer: £60
A freeholder: £55-£91
A tenant farmer: £42
An artisan: £38
A common seaman: £20
A labourer: £15
A cottager: £7
A female servant: £1 (often less)

Colin

 

[Radioactive Ape Colin]

Some costs:

1 pint, Ale: 1 farthing (quarter of a penny)
1 loaf bread: 1d.
1 pint, Wine: 2d.
1 meal, country inn: 4d.
1 meal, London inn: 6d.
1 lb, cheese: 4d.
1 lb., sugar: 1s.
Deck of cards: 6d.
Eggs, dozen: 4d.
Horse: £5-£10
Clock: £11
Lantern: 1s 6d.
Shoes, pair: 1s. 6d.
Coach: £40
Bible: 6s.
Cheap 2-3 Bedroom Apartment: 40s.-60s./year
Small, 1 Bedroom House: £4-£5/year plus £20-£25 entry fee
Cottage: 10s./year
30-acre leasehold: £20/year
Hedging Bill: 10d.
Riding Saddle: 7s. 6d.
Suit of Spanish Cloth with silver lace: £7
Dutch Coat lined with fox fur: £4
Buck Leather Doublet: £3

I can provide more examples of common goods/wages, etc., but next up will be some weapons/armours.

Colin