Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 17:13:03 +0100 From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Digest Subscriptions) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 17 Feb 1993 This is an semi-automated digest, sent out once per day (if any messages are pending). Replies will be included in the next issue automatically. Selected articles may also appear in a regular Digest. If you want to submit articles to the Digest only, contact the editor at RuneQuest-Digest-Editor@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM. -- Send Submissions to: Enquiries to: The RuneQuest Daily is a spin-off of the RuneQuest Digest and deals with the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha. Maintainer: Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM --------------------- From: cdarlast@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Chris Darlaston) Subject: Dragonewt Minatures Message-ID: <3064.9302151619@pop.mcs.dundee.ac.uk> Date: 15 Feb 93 16:19:01 GMT Hi All... I have a problem. I am looking for a Warrior Dragonewt lead minature. I know that there were some sold about 1984, but I cannot get hold of any near me at the present time. Does anyone know of anywhere that you can still get hold of them, or does anyone have an old one that they do not want, but want to go to a good home (Or bad home even!) Thanks. ********************************************************************** * -------------------------------------------------------------------- * * |Chris Darlaston | JANET: cdarlast@uk.ac.dund.mcs | * * | | INTERNET: cdarlast@mcs.dund.ac.uk | * * |Postal Address: |--------------------------------------| * * |14 Shandon Ave, | Dreams can help to hold the world | * * |Northenden, Manchester. | together, but then again... | * * |ENGLAND | Nightmares make it more interesting! | * * |M22-4DP | (Profound Quote Number 1) | * * -------------------------------------------------------------------- * ********************************************************************** --------------------- From: okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com (Jeff Okamoto) Subject: Re: KoS and multiple Argraths Message-ID: <9302161806.AA29717@hpcc90.corp.hp.com> Date: 16 Feb 93 18:06:47 GMT > From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) > Subject: KoS and multiple Argraths > > But still the (very detailed for the years 1615-1627 or so) definately > contradicts the Minaryth timeline. Aargh! Greg you bastard! Would people be interested in seeing a timeline I'd come up with some time ago? > PS It was good to see Leika Ballista mentioned. I think she is a PC from GSs > campaign. At least some of her exploits are written up in Dragons Past in > Wyrms footnotes. Yes, Leika, along with many other names were PC's in the old Chaosium house campaign. If Ken Rolston ever works on the Pamaltele pack, you may find some more prior PC's there (from Sandy's newer house campaign). Jeff --------------------- From: okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com (Jeff Okamoto) Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 15 Feb 1993 Message-ID: <9302161811.AA02363@hpcc90.corp.hp.com> Date: 16 Feb 93 18:11:45 GMT One interesting coincidence that even Greg hadn't noticed until I brought it to his attention: the year that contained "The Day the Magic Changed" was 1625 (8/1) and corresponded to the year that RQ3 was published! Jeff --------------------- From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (alex) Subject: Re: Lots of Fri, 12 Feb Stuff. Message-ID: <9302162248.AA05289@carcass.dcs.gla.ac.uk> Date: 16 Feb 93 22:48:00 GMT From: Alex Ferguson John Dallman: > Our priestess has had the same shadowcat companion (a SIZ 6 one) for > many years. "Ghost" started as a familiar, but got promoted to Alied > Spirit. Not all shadowcats are suitable for familiars; some are only > "ordinary" large cats. Waitaminute. Does this mean: the [deleted] stats are only applicable to the cats especially favoured as familiars, to wit the Kero Fini ones? Or... what? At any rate, you could still choose to use any old moggy (or whatever else) as a familiar/ally/whatever, according to my understanding. Clay L: > > "And," continued the player, "our heroes have no real chance to become true > > Gloranthan heroes and have their names hailed by future generations." Steve G: > So what's new - it's been open knowledge since 1978 that Argrath > Dragon(spear|tooth|friend) would free Sartar (probably around 1640ST, > according to the earliest references I have) - not Kathreda of the Three > Earths (my own favourite Gloranthan PC), or Thane Duntris of the Brenholme > clan (the notional leader of that PC group). How many lines in KoS does, say Jor-eel get? And her stats are approximately . There's clearly ample room in the future history storyline to accomodate pretty heavy-hitter Heroes without having to change things around, even if you stick to every single last printed self-contradictory word of the Official Line. Trouble is: how are you going to run characters like this under RQ{2,3,4}? Or under any other game sytem known to man? "Next year, under 'HeroQuest'..." > > but is Raus a shaman? > Certainly not in the RQ2 material. The big cult thing has made it difficult > for RQ to support things like the Chinese style of ancestor worship. Too true. I think the temple sizes concept needs to be loosened quite a bit. If only one person in some country engages in ancestor worship, then hard cheese. But if lots do, this must generate lots of "mythic ripples", even if they each worship a different ancestor at a different site. Any thoughts on how the much-vaunted Dawn Age Seshnelan Ancestor Worship worked? Tom Zunder: > I think that the 18 POW requirement in RQ2 was too hard. I like the current > rules. No priest would reduce his POW that low, it would allow too much > chance of spiritual defeat and would screw his spirit magic. I was thinking of non-adventuring priests-- i.e., most of them. (Not necessarily PCs.) They wouldn't ordinarily run much risk of being bopped in spirit combat or whatever. My point is that priests _should_ need a high POW, purely for their priestly functions, and under the current rules, there is no such mechanism. Would you HeroQuest with a POW of ? Then should you be leading a worship ceremony, which is a "mini-HeroQuest", after all, with a POW of ? > Also they can't sacrifice POW that quickly We're still only talking about 1 POW per season. Not terribly fast at all, really, and not the kind of activity that falls outwith a Priest's ordinary functions. (Praying, gifting POW... "No, stop that immediately!" cries the god :->). It's the perverse nature of the incentive that bothers me: a non-adventuring priest, who gets most of his POW gain rolls from worship ceremonies will have a much greater chance of obtaining divine magic, if (s)he keeps his/her POW as low as is feasible. Odd, n'est-pas? > If power > gamers play in your campaign, then one should limit them in ways which > don't adversely affect NPCs and good PCs. Having been running my current RQ campaign for 1 (one) week now, power- gaming isn't beyond the "latent" stage, so that's not my point of view at all. And I'm _not_ advocating "bring back 18 POW mins!", I'm looking for a feasible, or at least believable, alternative. > Rules: Could we have more chat and fewer rules? Bah, humbug. :-) Let's have more chat _and_ more rules, or at least discussion of the odd game mechanic here and there. Ticking "much more" to every box is perfectly valid in this case, up till the point that Henk's machine starts blowing a gasket or two, at least. But sign me up for the AD&D posting lynch mob. :-) Alex. --------------------- From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (alex) Subject: Re: The Sunday RuneQuest Daily, 14 Feb 1993 Message-ID: <9302162317.AA05299@carcass.dcs.gla.ac.uk> Date: 16 Feb 93 23:17:23 GMT Clay {God} L{earner}: :-) > Was there really a GodTime? Tricky. But if the Godtime wasn't, what was it? If you see what I mean. Prehistory? Just a lota myths? > Did Orlanth really kill the Yelm? From my reading of the mythology bit in KoS, the Orlanthi don't seem to believe the Lesser Darkness was entirely sun-free, or at least it's not stated as such. Just an irrelevant (and false?) observation. > Probably not...though perhaps for several years Glorantha fell into > near-synchronous orbit with another planet(oid) and the sun was eclipsed. Planetoids? Orbits?? Another round-earth krank, obviously. Reconcile Glorantha as a planet and the Elder Secrets stuff on the (substantially whacky) Gloranthan sky, and I'll give you a coconut (among other things :->). > "Everything Stafford says is wrong." > If it doesn't illuminate you, at the very least it will pacify your players. Tsk. "Ignorance and fear, fear and ignorance!" Oops, wrong Rolston project. Ghostey: > In my campaign Count Solanthos Ironpike has an identical twin brother who > is in prison in Pavis and is opposed to the PAX Lunar Yay! The Count in the Iron Mask! Quick, where's my Novel Factory? Carl Fink: > One thing that Mike, Oliver, Mike Dawson, and Martin Crim and myself > all agree on: the problem with most RQ3 products has been a startling > lack of playtesting. We don't plan to let that continue. You'll be surprised to hear that I agree. This week's Mammoth RuneQuest Continuity Error: In episode 3 of the Troubled Waters scenario, anyone notice that Gautama actually _talks_ to the player characters? Whoops. And this from the man who follows his cult vows "excessively". (As the Light Keeper, he is only allowed to deal with other Light Priests, if we believe the cult writeup.) More honoured in the breach than in the observance? Or do I misparse the phrase "Non-Light Priests", which could be taken several ways? By the way, no specific credits are given for the scenario. Who do we blame? Greg, since Everything He Says Is Wrong? {\extrabroad :-)} Alex. --------------------- From: mace@lum.asd.sgi.com (Rob Mace) Subject: Re: HIGH FANTASY vs LOW FANTASY in RuneQuest Message-ID: <9302170008.AA20755@lum.asd.sgi.com> Date: 16 Feb 93 08:08:37 GMT csh019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Faust) writes: > > Clay's posting got me thinking about styles of play and wondering on what > level of power most RQ-Gloranthan campaigns are running. How powerful in > terms of the setting are the PCs in your campaign? Are they major figures > in world history e.g. kings, princes, high priests, powerful sorcerors, > mighty warriors; or are they minor figures e.g. common thieves, > mercenaries,merchant-adventurers, apprentice sorcerors, initiates or > priests? Are they the mere footsoldiers in the Hero Wars or are they > leading the armies? The campaign I am in has been running for 12+ years. We started out playing Lay Members and are now playing Rune Levels and Heros. There are currently four acknowledged Hero's in the Campaign. - Julliete, Hero of Yelm. Her followers can call down the fire of Yelm on Yelms enemies. (Character of Ray Turney from RQ2) - Adraen, Lord of the Cleansing Flame, Husband, Champion, and High Priest of the Star of Morning Skys(youngest daughter of Yelm). - Gorbic, Duck Hero of Humakt, Protector of Duck Point. It is said that he can kill people with a glance and that no spell can effect him. - Rolf, Hero of Humakt. Rolf is just amazingly tough. > What kind of impact do the actions of your PCs have on the world -- very > little or a great deal? The biggest impact so far has been in and around Duck Point and the Upland Marsh. Here is a really sketchy outline of the events. - Gorbic returns to Duck Point after first Hero Quest. - He is outlawed and escapes to the Swamp. - Fought war with Lunars from Swamp. - Founding of Humakti Temple. - Took over Death Tower(old Humakti holy place) to get a more secure base of operations. - Succeeded in Hero Quest to uncurse Tower. - Delecti rises and goes on campaign in local area to get more Zombies. - Delecti marches on Tower. - Second Hero Quest begun to break Delecti's Power. - Stalemated on second quest. - Lunars broker a piece deal. Delecti gets back tower. Gorbic made ruler of free Duck Point. It can be very interesting to take a really tough character and force him to deal with arbitrating fishing rights disputes. > Do your PCs struggle to survive against a pack of > hungry wolves or do they effortlessly brush off legions of Lunar hoplites? Lots of people avoid you when you are really tough. > Do broo strike fear into their hearts or do they sigh and wonder when the > Crimson Bat is going to show up so they can have a *real* fight? None of the characters want to get any where near the Crimson Bat. The only one with much of a chance against the Crimson Bat would be Julliete and she would need a 1000 followers to have that chance. In Dragon Pass scale the Heros would range from 1/2 to 2 with some special powers. > And to add some contention: which style of play do you think is superior > and why is it superior? I don't think either style is superior. If something works for you and your group then thats fine. Rob Mace P.S. I went to DunDraCon this weekend. Greg Stafford and Ken Rolston had a seminar about RQ and Glorantha. I also had a couple of discussions with Greg. I will try to write up what I learned when I have a chance. --------------------- From: tsl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Leask) Subject: Re: The Glorathan Question Message-ID: <9302170522.24188@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: 17 Feb 93 21:22:33 GMT Peter, you have entirely missed the point I was trying to make. If you take away Glorantha from Runequest you are left with Chaosiums "Basic Role-playing System" not RQ. you are no longer questing for Runes so why call it Runequest. Questing for Runes is something that comes from the world of Glorantha and thus has no place in the "Rules". > 2) I PLAY RUNEQUEST BECAUSE RUNEQUEST IS THE BEST FANTASY RULE SYSTEM THERE > IS, BETTER THAN GURPS, BETTER THAN AD&D (ICK!), BETTER THAN ROLEMASTER, > BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. Get it? NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR SILLY WORLD SHAPED > LIKE A LOZENGE. (Ok, I DON'T hate Glorantha, just Gloranthan purist twits) You play the "Basic Role-playing System" which I agree is an excellent system which is extremely flexible, so much so that it under pins nearly all of Chaosiums range or RPGs, Hawkmoon, Call of Cthulu, StormBringer. > 3) RQ3 was a failure NOT because it was not so Gloranthan, but because the > new rules were badly playtested (if at all) and REALLY STINK in a large number > of respects. The one good thing is that it is a modular system. If you don't > like a section, you can chuck it out and not break the whole system. That is > what I am doing. RQ3 was a failure for many reasons, one of which was dropping Glorantha. Glorantha made RQ stand out from the multiplicity of generic systems on offer. Runequest was strikingly non-Generic and had no real competition for it's niche the arena of generic systems was however extremley crowded even before RQ3 appeared on the scene. > 4) RQII was all fine and well, but I LIKE THE RULES, and I REALLY DON'T CARE > ABOUT HOW MANY POINTS IT TAKES TO BECOME A RUNELORD, so, stick the Runelord > stuff in the Gloranthan book (well, most people know it already) and stick > the RULES IN THE RULE BOOK. That way, you please everyone (include the > Gloranthan book (a GOOD version) with the RQ box if you want to.) - you are > not destroying Glorantha, but you gain the market of NON GLORANTHAN PLAYERS. So are you saying that all you want is a set of rules, no modules, no background supplements nothing ? If that's the case fine. The Basic Roleplaying System rules are probably still available from Chaosium. If however you want modules and supplements you are out of luck. AH aren't going to waste the time because there are not enough dollars in it. > I happen to like creating new scenarios, maybe you guys like Glorantha. > Just don't try and hi-jack my game system. No-one is hi-jacking your game system. > > > He prefered to spend his time working on Glorathan adventures becuase > > there was more material and more interesting setting provided. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > obvious subjective value judgement So what? Sorry I left off the "in his opinion" > The problem with Viking etc. was not that they were bad, or not RQ, but that > they were published at the expense of Gloranthan stuff. They were published at the expense of Gloranthan which proved to be a mistake and they were not RQ. They were "Basic Role-Playing System" plus mods. The magic system for Vikings was not RQ (only loosely). Ki powers certainly weren't RQ in Land of Ninja > As a non-G DM, I > don't think I need supplements like that: go and look up books in Ye Local > Library, if you want to know about Dark Ages Europe (that's what I did for > Germany). BUT TO STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT RQ, WHEN THEY USE THE RQ RULE > SYSTEM, IS STUPID!!!!!!! The use the Basic Role Playing system which RQ also uses. What has questing for Runes got to do with Land of Ninja or Vikings ? > Rant rant rave rave BLECH! It's a question of semantics and you entirely missed the point. > Anyway, to conclude: RuneQuest is a very good rule system for fantasy gaming > in pretty well any world you want to design > system separated into the 3 types - most worlds can fit that mold). Just > because the standard setting is Glorantha does not mean we all have to use > it. ICE does not force us to use Shadow World or Middle Earth - most Rolemaster > games I've played in use the DMs own world. Come on: Subcreation is half the You might like sub-creation others may not - I rather spend the limited time I have available playing the game not re-inventing the wheel. > fun. Play whatever world you like, just KEEP THE WOLRD OUT OF THE RULE SYSTEM. As someone else pointed out the Rules system must influence the world so you can't KEEP the WORLD OUT OF THE RULE SYSTEM Tim Leask, the bleating,ranting, purist --------------------- From: STEVEG@ARC.UG.EDS.COM (Entropy needs no maintenance) Subject: Orlanth's Secret ID // RQ mechanics "misfeatures" Message-ID: <01GUT7GNZ0RM000D9Y@UG.EDS.COM> Date: 16 Feb 93 17:47:27 GMT >> My personal (God Learneresque) theory is that Orlanth is Argrath. Obvious, I suppose when one stops and thinks about it. = = = = As one who has found that while RQ looks nice in theory but doesn't actually satisfy my playing group in practise (and actually can say the same thing about Glorantha, which is why I prefer theorising about that too... :-) ), I've been giving some thought to the areas that seem to have caused most dissatisfaction. 1) "I keep getting skill ticks, but never make the improvement roll" Perhaps the somewhat sarcastic "negative karma" approach might actually work - any time you make a skill roll and fail (probably excluding fumbles), gain +1% to the skill. Skills > ~100% can be handled in a way dependent on whether you take RQ2 or RQ3 as your guide, but could in principle be stated as checking where in the 95-99% range would qualify as a successful roll for gain, and acting accordingly. This would have the psychologically valuable result that all skill checks apart from fumbles would achieve some benefit. It would also remove the cumbersome "between adventures" bit, which in a continuously live campaign (as opposed to one in which the individual episodes are well separated - e.g. by years as in Pendragon) is often hard to judge. 2) "I'm not fighting that troll - it might kill me!" or "This is it, we're all going to die". **** This discussion contains language that some might find offensive **** **** Those of delicate sensibilities may wish to skip ahead to the **** **** next posting in this issue. >:-) **** Consider a none-too-large troll with his favourite maul. 2D8+2D6 will usually ding harmlessly off a reasonably protected fighter (calling a good roll 6 on each of the D8s and 4 on the D6's, we have 20pts for a good strike - but this could be faced by 12 points of shield, 6 of armour and 4 more of magic). But if you miss your parry, you'll typically be maimed for 10 points, and a critical will ruin your whole day! It'll also ruin the day of the swashbuckler in light leathers who fails his dodge. On the other hand, against the RuneLord in full iron plate(12), Shield IV (8), protection IV (4) and a large iron shield(24), even a maximum crush (40) points will ding. Anything (short of criticals) that worries him will turn the other characters into smush! The only thing short of a lucky critical that ends a duel between two of these guys armed with bastard swords, Bladesharp IV and +D4 (max=19, max slash = 30) damage bonuses is player fatigue (RQ2) or the fatigue rules (RQ3) Meanwhile, the average guy with his D8 sword or weapon will be waiting for specials or criticals, since they're the only thing that will get any damage through even the 10 points standing armour. The brittle nature of characters - anything that will moderately wound a character in moderate armour will need to be doing ~10 points on average (and expect to ding on a parry), but will be sudden death on special hits or those who are lightly armoured - has always served to discourage players who like to leaven their gaming with some cathartic violence to work out their frustrations : and if we're going to do a low-violence campaign, we don't really need a combat system (or much of any system really). And the result is inevitable as soon as it is possible to armour up with more armour points in a location than hit points. Some might argue that this is realistic; but in what is primarily a form of entertainment, perhaps this is a bit too much realism. A definite case of looking good in theory, but washing out in practise. The worst news is that I don't see a fix to it; I beleive it's an inherent property of all absorptive armour systems. Whatever else one might say about D&D style armour class systems, they are capable of setting up threats which may worry the folks in heavy armour (by having a good THAC0), but which don't smear those who prefer not to play human tanks (by only doing damage in the D6-D10 range). Being amongst players who prefer D'Artagnan over Sir Lancelot as their role models, a system which makes the "DEX fighter" concept viable is a boon to me, and I've only found the one system amenable to this. If anyone has managed to find a work-round to this problem, I'm eager to hear it. --------------------- From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden) Subject: New Sorcery system for RuneQuest (Ars Magica based) Message-ID: Date: 17 Feb 93 08:51:09 GMT The following is the new system we are going to use for sorcery. A new magic system for RQ3 This system is intended to replace sorcery. Magic is known as the Art, and is governed by Laws (which we will not go into here). The operations of this Art are discussed below. The Art consists of the Five Techniques (The Five-fold ways), and the 8 greater and 5 lesser forms of being. The Techniques are: Create/Destroy Form/Transform Sense/Mask Summon/Abjure Bind/Unbind The Forms are divided into 2 greater and 1 lesser school. In the school of the Elements: Earth, Air, Fire, Water In the school of Nature: Animal, - The essence of animate motion Plant, - The essence of live Matter, - The essence of being Spirit - The essence of will In the lesser school of the Senses: Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste Each school is named after the field of study that first isolated the school's forms. Thus: For the Elements: Alchemy For Nature: Witchcraft For the Senses: Illusioncraft Note: In our world, based on Earth, the following Laws hold true. (These are a subset of common real world 'laws of magic', found to be common to many cultures. 1) The spell has 3 parts: Thought, Word and Deed. (Mantra, Mudra, Mandala), or the Will and knowledge of the spell, the Word of Power to shape the spell, and the Shape (symbols, diagrams or movements/gestures) to direct the spell. 2) Law of Similarity - "Like produces Like" 3) Law of Contagion - "Once together, always together" 4) Law of Disjunction - "Iron is death" - Good 'ol anti-magickal iron :) A spell may be cast in two ways: Spontaneously, or from a Formula. Spontaneous Magic Spontaneous magic is the caster's use of his knowledge of the Art and the Laws to cast a spell 'off the cuff'. It takes the syntax 'Technique + Form' with the mage's percent skill in the technique being multiplied by his skill in the form to give a base percentile chance of success. To this is added the mage's magical skills bonus, and penalties and bonuses for other factors, ie. conditions, materials, etc. As per Sorcery, the spell's success chance is the lowest of his chance at the spell or any magical skills used. (ie. intensity, range, etc) (Free INT is replaced by the system designed, I think, by Andrew Bell, where each point of magical skill drops the chance in that skill by 5%). Finally, after all this has been calculated, the spell is cast. As per Sorcery, it takes MP cost strike ranks to cast as spell. If the spell fails, the spell misbehaves, with effects up to the DM (a spell failure chart is included). If the spell fumbles, the magic points dissipate. In the case of a success, the caster gets spell gain rolls in the skill which constituted the lowest chance of success in the spell (ie. a spell skill, eg. intensity, or if the lowest chance was the chance to cast the spell, skill gain rolls are made for all techniques and forms used.). If a critical success is rolled, all skills used in casting the spell get a skill gain roll, and the caster can try and make a formula spell from the spell cast. Magic Point cost is up to the DM. Suggested is 1 MP for a moderate effect eg. lighting a fire uses Create and Fire, costing 1 MP. This allows the casting of minor spells using fractional MPs. (Discussed later.) Formal Magic The magic most of the world knows is the elaborate recitation of formulae, from memory or from a magical tome. This is called Formal Magic, and is a more structured and more certain version of magic than Spontaneous Magic. The spell formula tightly defines the limits of a spell, and whilst that spell can still be altered using magical manipulation skills, its form must stay the same. Thus, one could have a spell called Create Fire, and use this to create a Fireball by pumping in lots of intensity, and this is the preferred way of creating Fireballs, or one could do the same using Spontaneous Magic (a rather insane thing to do). However, one cannot use Create Fire (the formula spell) to create a wall of fire, since fire doesn't naturally expand into walls. The system of casting formulaic spells is similar to the current Sorcery system. (And all Sorcery spells are maintained as formulaic spells, at the DM's discretion) The chance to cast is the lowest of the magical skills and the chance to cast the spell (magical skills handled as per spontaneous magic). If the roll fails, the magic points dissipate. If a critical failure is rolled, the spell goes out of control. In the case of success, a spell gain roll for the spell or the magical skill (whichever is lower) is gained. In all cases, the spell gain roll for the skill is rolled as if the skill were at normal player level (since the player will only get to process this knowledge when he is calm and collected, not on the spur of the moment when the skill was lower). Any notes on the skills learnt during casting take 10 minutes per added % to write down. If the notes are not written down within a day or so after the skill was learnt, the experience is lost. If the notes on a particular spell are lost, and the spell is not in the magician's memory, the caster must write down the spell again, as if creating it, and his chance to cast is 1/2 of what it was previously. Not any formulaic spell may be cast, the spell must reside in memory (or be available for easy reference eg. on a scroll or in a book). Each spell that the Magician memorises lowers the chance of casting other formulaic spells by 5%. No more spells than the Magician has INT may be memorized, and it takes 1 hr per minimum MP of spell to memorise a spell. It takes 1 minute per minimum MP of spell to forget the spell. Formula Spell Acquisition and Usage A new and unique spell can be created when a Magician casts a Spontaneous Spell and gets a critical success. This process takes 1 hr per MP used in the minimum casting of the spell. (Some spells cannot be cast below a number of MPs greater than 1) Suitable materials and conditions are also needed. This process must take place immediately after the spell is cast. (So, casting spells for research makes sense.) The resulting spell can be used by the mage, and the resulting base chance of casting is the same as if the spell was cast spontaneously without any magical skills being involved. (Ie. Technique * Form + Magic Skill bonus) Using Other's Formulae A spell formula is not a simple analytical text, such as eg. a chemical formula is. It can best be compared to a poem, or a work of art - something where the meaning is not entirely contained in the symbols on the page, but rather in their application and action. Thus, understanding and using another magician's formula is a difficult task. One can cast another's formulae directly from their spellbook or scroll (or a GOOD copy thereof), but the initial skill is only 1d6% + magical skill bonus. Success doesn't bring increased skill, and while the formula can be copied, it cannot be memorized. Critical success is required to 'understand' the spell, ie. the caster gets a 1d6% chance of casting the spell, can memorise it, and improve it, as if it were his own. An exception to this requirement for critical success is the magical bond between Master and Apprentice. This bond allows the master to convey his understanding of a formulae to the student with a increased chance of success. Indeed, the spell of bonding is a variation of Form Spirit, since the Apprentice's mind is formed into a similar cognitive alignment as the Master's. This explains the close similarity of Magi of any particular school of magic. The teaching requires 1-6 hrs of teaching, and an INT check. The Apprentice gains the 1d6% casting chance, and the chance to memorise and improve the spell. This magical teaching is similar to that undergone when a supernatural being (eg. a spell spirit) 'teaches' the mage a spell - this is why a POW sacrifice is normally needed. Another approach to the use of another's formula is to use it as a guideline in creating your own spontaneous spell. 10 minutes study of a formula, and having it open in front of the caster trying to replicate its effects, will give a +25% bonus to the casting of the spontaneous spell. Of course, critical success is needed for the caster to write his own version of the spell, as usual. Having the original creator of the spell to instruct the caster in creating the new spontaneous spell gives an additional +25% chance. Spontaneous Spells and Visualisation A spontaneous spell is an imposition of the caster's Will upon the World (the process envisioned is rather like Crowley's). Thus, the more specific and clearly focussed the Will, the tighter controlled and more exact the spell effect. In game terms, the player describes to the DM what he is trying to do, and how he visualises this taking effect. The DM estimate the required power, by comparison with other spells, and the describes what actually occurs (of course depending on the rolls). Note that more subtle spells are harder to visualisem and thus more difficult and time consuming. Losing Control Critical failure of formula spells, and normal failure of spontaneous spells, causes a loss of control of the spell. The amount failed by, and the power used in the spell modify the mishap roll. Here is a table of effects [entirely optional]. As always, the DMs word is final. Roll percentile, add MPs used, and subtract caster's magical skill bonus [option: add amount failed by] 01-05 spell delayed 1-6 strike ranks 06-10 spell works but requires 1 more MP 11-20 spell appears to work, but actually just uses the MPs to no effect 21-50 MP's used, nothing happens 51-75 spell takes effect, but the targeting fails. Choose random target 76-90 spell works correctly, but requires double MPs 91-95 spell reverses effect (if possible) 96-98 spell internalised, could be nasty 99 spell behaves bizzarely, DM can be creative.... :) 100+ spell forgotten, or spell text destroyed. MPs used, no effect (if spontaneous spell, see 99) Magical Rituals Most Rituals work by normal RQIII system. Enchantment rituals fall away till we have a useful enchantment system in place. Summoning rituals follow the rule that it is easiest to summon the more concrete things. So, the easiest to summon are the Natural Forms: (Animal, Plant, Matter, Spirit), the next easiests the Elements (Air, Water, Earth, Fire), and everything in DM designated order after that. The exception to the rule are demons. They are easy to summon (they want to come) but difficult to control. Also, note: Magic does not work on iron in our world (-75% modifier), and both gold and lead have -50% modifiers. Silver, on the other hand, is helpful in the working of magic, with a +10% modifier, and copper has a +5% modifier. All other metals are neutral. Of course, this will have no relation to Glorantha. Fractional Magic Points and Minor Magics Magic Points can be broken down into 10ths, for minor magical effects. These small magics (cantrips) are easy to perform, and less prone to uncontrollability. They are often taught to Apprentices to ease their chores and practice their skills. Both formula and spontaneous magics are possible, using from 1/10th to 9/10ths of a MP. The success chance equals the normal success chance of the spell multiplied by 1/(the fractional MP cost). Also note that fractional MPs will be regained rapidly, so such minor magics can be used freely. Useful application include Create Fire to light candles, requiring 2/10ths of a MP to light 1 candle, and Abjure Earth, requiring 1/10th of a MP to remove 1/10 of a SIZ of dirt from clothes, etc. Power increases rapidly, eg. 1MP of Abjure Earth could remove 1 SIZ of stone. Minor magics take 1 strike rank to cast, and only 1 per strike rank can be cast. Magical skills cannot be used in conjunction with such cantrips. Fractional magic points are also used if a mage doesn't have enough power for the spell attempted. A spell will always consume its full number of magic points if the mage has them, but failing that it will 1) attempt to use hits instead (make a POWx5 check, failure means 1HP = 1MP - check seperately for each HP) or, if the initial POW check is successful, fractional MPs will be used, resulting in an unstable spell. Multiply the success chance of the spell by the % of MPs needed available, ie. if 90% of the MPs were available, multiply by 90%. This can be dangerous when forced to cast spontaneous magic at low levels of power. Many a magician has died by overexerting his powers. [Also note that for each MP spent, a Fatigue Point (or Wind Point if you use Paul Heinz's system from the RuneQuest Digest Vol 6 no 4) is spent.] Conclusion Well, that's all folks. The above is a mishmash of a system written by Andrew Sturman (asturman@casper.cs.uct.ac.za) for his Byzantine campaign (which is now going to be run in Ars Magica), which I modified into a magic system I'm going to try using this week for a demo game. I'll report how it worked in practice then. Any comments to me at pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za or to the Daily Digest. I also have available a list of most RQIII sorcery spells converted into this system, email me for a copy. Peter van Heusden