rust

Yep, the guy spends his holidays in Andalucia and buys some excellent wine there. And as long as it contains alcohol and tastes sweet, I will drink it. I would offer you a glass or three to celebrate the new Rune- quest, but the transport would be a problem, so I will have to volunteer to drink it for you ...

I love it, especially because I did bet on this to happen and someone now has to give me a bottle of good sherry. Good luck with it.

Cthulhu Now minus the Mythos worked quite well for us, it has all a modern setting needs, including lots of firearms (at least in the German version, it even has a weapons supple- ment - I have no idea whether the English version has one, too). As for adventures with- out the Mythos background, it is not difficult at all to adapt any kind of modern adventure from whatever source to the system, from espionage stuff to mercenary missions.

Thank you for the info.

I seem to remember that this forum once had a page with lots of links to Chaosium and almost anyone else who ever published something for a BRP game and had a website. For some strange reason I am unable to locate that page now ... Help would be most welcome.

Ah ... it actually is a website created by a well known Finnish author and role- player, one of his many jokes about Christian fundamentalists in Finland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niilo_Paasivirta

In my opinion, yes, although it is the very late type, not the medieval weapon of the same name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Claymore2-Morges.jpg

I have to admit that I do not know the movie and so trusted the description as a rapier, but you are right, this is definitely not a rapier, to me it looks like a gentleman's smallsword, the successor of the rapier as a dueling weapon.

Well, most rapiers did not have a sharp edge along the entire blade, and many did not have a sharp edge at all, since a weapon designed for thrusting does not need one, so grabbing the blade of a rapier was a quite common maneuver.

I think it was a mix of block and parry. Some of the weapons used were even too powerful to block them with the shield, for example a straight shield block against a warhammer would probably have broken the shield arm. There must have been some shield maneuvers to parry (= deflect) such weapons without absorbing the full impact with a shield block.

Ah, I did not look at the other one, I am only interested in rapiers.

It was the same in Europe, at least until the 18th century. A famous example is Pascha's style from the 17th century, a rapier style which has the emphasis mo- re on the "unarmed" martial arts than on the use of the weapon. To quote Wikipedia:

Not really. Modern sport fencing blades are flexible to avoid or reduce injuries, but historical fencing weapons were pretty rigid, so that a thrust could pene- trate armour instead of just bending the blade.

The "wobbly" one, used by the guy on the left, is the rapier. I suspect that it has the blade of a modern fencing epee instead of a true, rigid rapier blade, which is difficult and expensive to obtain. The way it is used in the video also looks more like modern fencing than like any rapier style I have ever seen. Real rapiers would look and behave like these:

This could well be the case, at least there are parallels. For example, what I have seen of SCA sword fights was typical stage combat and completely ignored most of the historical techniques, especially all the martial arts maneuvers which histo- rically were an important part of sword training. To give an idea what I mean, here are demonstrations of typical maneuvers from the historical books: In my view it would indeed be very difficult to model this historical fighting style with BRP, and the same is true for many other of the documented historical sty- les.

So do I, it is a very elegant tool for getting rid of people.

A rapier was a civilian's dueling weapon, not a weapon of war. If the same per- son would have gone to war he would have used a soldier's weapon, perhaps a claymore in the case of a Scottish clansman. However, to wear a soldier's hea- vy weapon in everyday use with civilian clothes would have been very uncom- fortable and would have been seen as very barbaric. For example, perhaps the most famous rapier duelists of world literature are the French musketeers. However, their rapiers were dueling weapons, their weapons of war were - as their name says - their muskets, they did not use rapiers on the battlefield. To give a fictional modern equivalent, you could appear in polite society with a pistol in a shoulder holster, but if you enter the room with an assault rifle the society will rapidly cease to be polite.

Nice copy & paste, but the sword in the video is still definitely a typical long- sword with not much more weight than the rapier, and the attempt to parry a heavier weapon than that with a rapier would still be bound to fail.

Yep, our house rule was written to model a specific rapier and dagger style, not a sword and shield style.

@ Icebrand The video you linked shows a rapier and a longsword, not a greatsword. A typical rapier weighs about 1 kg and a typical longsword weighs about 1.5 kg, so the difference between the two weapons is comparatively low. However, a typical greatsword weighs about 3 kg, three times the weight of a rapier and twice the weight of a longsword. An attempt to parry a greatsword with a rapier would be extremely difficult and almost certainly fail.

I know, but I got so used to this house rule that I completely forgot that there is this silly official BRP rule.

Of course. Speaking about gold, you might take a look at the basement of some of the tem- ples in the area, it seems you might find interesting things there ...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmanabhaswamy_Temple As a roleplayer I should have some good plans for a clever temple robbery ready, and now I wonder whether my invisible dragon could take me to Travancore ...

No problem there, they usually have lots of intangible and invisible cash you can spend for all the nice invisible things they have at that invisible shop down the road. Which reminds me that I have to do some work on my invisible setting, so I will leave this thread to its fate now.

Here I cannot follow, because I see no connection at all between Christ's bodily resurrection and the problems of the scriptures. Even if the resurrection is a true supernatural fact, parts of the bible can still be contradictory, wrong or only of a historical interest. Christ was not resurrected in order to prove that all what had been written into the bible centuries before his birth or what would be written by his followers after his death was the truth, or to guarantee that there has to be an explanation for problems of the scriptures.

Please don't. A buddhist trolling on a religious subject because he thinks he had a bad day would ruin my day. Oh, and no resurrection in buddhism, but lots of extremely painful hells at least in the Tibetan version, compared to them the Christian hell looks like a luxurious summer camp for children of the high society.