Babyl Options: Append:1 Version:5 Reformat-Headers-P Summary-Window-Format: Use Default  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18916; Wed, 2 Jun 93 10:54:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25567; Wed, 2 Jun 93 11:54:40 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 11:54:42 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: list and time Date: 2 Jun 93 11:52:07 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <72C2607F6E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Two things. First, it seems that the mailing list is back on line. Hurrah! Second, John J Medway wrote: >Has anyone collected any statistics on how long characters of >point value X take to create, under RQ4? Too long. I think it will be better with proper arrangement and formatting, but then RQ3 was not exactly a speedy character generation system, and it didn't even give the players a choice. Anyway, after their first character players were able to make new characters in 30 minutes. Though this isn't great, it's just barely acceptable. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28089; Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:15:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04023; Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:16:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:16:03 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Strike Rank Breakpoints (fwd) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:17:41 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <761DF559A6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This seemed to get lost the last time I sent it, so let's try again now that the list seems to be working. Well, I'll try to start a thread here. As Nick Brooke reminded us in today's (5/19/93) RQ Daily, the current SR system has awkward stat based breakpoints, among other problems. Now, one possible fix for this is the alternate SR system proposed by George Harris on the net last year. In anyone hasn't seen that, I'll include it here. Skip on down for further discussion if you're familiar with it. <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu (George W. Harris) Subject: RQ: Changes to the Strike Rank Calculation Method Date: 13 Aug 92 12:06:26 GMT As most of you probably know, when one attacks with a melee or missile weapon and when a spell takes effect are in a large part determined by one's Dex and Siz strike rank modifiers. The underlying assumtion of this mechanic is that the more dextrous one is the sooner one acts, and the larger one is the quicker one lands a blow in melee. I am not going to contest these assumtions, but rather try and streamline how they are implemented. Characteristic Dex Strike Siz Strike Rank Modifier Rank Modifier 1-5 5 4 6-9 4 3 10-15 3 2 16-19 2 1 20+ 1 0 Ordinarily, when one is using a missile weapon (or casting a spell), one acts on Dex Strike Rank (plus the magic points in the spell), and when one is using a melee weapon, one acts on the sum of Dex Strike Rank and Siz Strike Rank and Weapon Strike Rank. These are the main uses of the Dex/Siz Strike Rank table. However, there are two things that should strike you about this table: One: It is not an even progression. The steps alternate in size between four and six, rather than being a constant five. Two: Siz Strike Rank alone is never used for anything, but is only used in conjunction with Dex Strike Rank. The first item is easy to fix. Just make the intervals 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20+. As for the second, I propose replacing the Siz Strike Rank column with a combined Dex+Siz Strike Rank column to be used for figuring melee strike rank. As the table stands, someone with a Dex 10 and Siz 10 would have a melee strike rank of 5. However, someone with Dex 9 and Siz 11 would have a melee strike rank of 6, as would someone with Dex 11 and Siz 9. Since, the way the system is structured, Siz and Dex are equally important in figuring melee strike rank, this result doesn't seem proper. Therefore, I propose using the following table for figuring melee strike rank: Combined Siz+Dex Melee Strike Rank 2-4 9 5-9 8 10-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40+ 1 The advantages of this table are that it eliminates the standard optimal breakpoints for Siz and Dex, and also regularizes the progression. One could complain that it is undesirable for a table to use the sum of two characteristics, but as the damage bonus table already does this, that objection doesn't stand. Of course, one would still use the Dex Strike Rank table to figure strike ranks for spells and missile weapons. -- "If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like prunes than rhubarb does." -Groucho Marx gharris@jade.tufts.edu George Harris, Tufts Univ. Dept. of Mathematics <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my group and myself have been using this rule for a while now, and it works well with one correction. With the normal human range of SIZ, everything is copacetic, but if you start using this with trolls, giants, and scorpionmen, those with SIZ>>20 pose the following problem. If the creatures DEX SR is less than their SIZ SR in the old system, the new will give them a melee SR less than their DEX SR. In other words, they could hit with a maul before they could throw an axe. This is fixed by just ruling that any SIZ > 20 uses SIZ=20 in the Melee SR table. In this case, their Melee SR would equal their DEX SR, which gives the same result as the current system. With this fix, this system works well, and eliminates the tendancy for all fighters to be at SIZ16, DEX16, or some such. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28715; Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:32:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04788; Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:32:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 15:32:09 EDT From: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: bargain/character sheets Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 21:31:45 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7662EB5047@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have players who love bargaining. But it is not explained how two people bargain versus each other in my copy of the draft 2.0. How do you handle this in your campaign? Perhaps the one with the higher level of success wins the bargain, if the two have the same level, they propose other prices ?... On another subject, I have made RQ4 character sheets and have them available in postscript. I can post them or upload them to soda.berkeley.edu if enough people are interested. There two drawbacks: they are in French and in A4 format. I also use the more detailed armor system inspired by Harnmaster proposed a while ago in the digest that I find adding a flavour to combats without too much complexity. If enough people want, I can translate them in english. o------------------------------------------------------------------o | __ _ | | /__/ . _ _ _ _ /_/ _ / _ /- | | / / /_'/ / /_' /__/ /_/ /_/ / /_'/ pboulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr | | | | (* Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction *) | o------------------------------------------------------------------o  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08418; Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:59:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12783; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:59:34 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:59:37 EDT From: Tim Posney To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4: Time and the Great Compromise Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 08:58:55 +1000 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <79D8660404@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I have started a new group of players and character creation under RQIV took over 1/2 an hour each character. That was with me telling them what to take. I suspect that the condensed form of the rules s part of the problem. In the final version there will be a lot of narrative type text, much as in RQIII. This should make it easier for people to generate. The way the rules are now though, it would be extremely tough for a new character to make sensible choices of skill, and would take an extremely long time.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09468; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:30:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13632; Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:31:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:31:04 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: list and time Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7A5E04613B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hm, on the off chance this will get thru - John, et. al., the next version of previous experience should be much, much faster - a few significant improvements have seen to this - if this message gets through, I'll post a summary of what I think the next version might look like. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09816; Wed, 2 Jun 93 18:44:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14006; Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:44:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 2 Jun 93 19:44:44 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SR, etc. Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <7A991A5228@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, congrats, looks like the list is up and working. I'll try to post an example of the previous experience revision tomorrow. As for SR, I find George (and Maurice's) proposal appealing, other than the problem it has with extremes of SIZ (and DEX). If you use the table he proposes, but with the caveat that SIZ and DEX above 20 doesn't count, the problem goes away. Extremes of DEX have a similar problem - a jelmre with a 30 DEX and 6 SIZ will strike far too quickly in melee without a similar limitation on DEX. In other words: DEX Missile/Spell SR 1-4 5 5-9 4 10-14 3 15-19 2 20+ 1 DEX + SIZ Melee SR (count only the first 20 points of each) 2-4 9 5-9 8 10-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40 1 Let me know what you think. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28091; Thu, 3 Jun 93 10:02:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00725; Thu, 3 Jun 93 11:03:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 3 Jun 93 11:03:03 EDT From: mc@cp.dias.ie To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: bargain/character sheets Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 13:47:37 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <89E6FF6234@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > I have players who love bargaining. But it is not explained how two > people bargain versus each other in my copy of the draft 2.0. How do > you handle this in your campaign? > Perhaps the one with the higher level of success wins the bargain, > if the two have the same level, they propose other prices ?... > > On another subject, I have made RQ4 character sheets and have them available > in postscript. I can post them or upload them to soda.berkeley.edu if > enough people are interested. There two drawbacks: they are in French > and in A4 format. I also use the more detailed armor system inspired by > Harnmaster proposed a while ago in the digest that I find adding a flavour > to combats without too much complexity. If enough people want, I can > translate them in english. > > o------------------------------------------------------------------o > | __ _ | > | /__/ . _ _ _ _ /_/ _ / _ /- | > | / / /_'/ / /_' /__/ /_/ /_/ / /_'/ pboulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr | > | | > | (* Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction *) | > o------------------------------------------------------------------o > Please do, Pierre. A translation would be useful. I presume that you've managed to fit all the new (and somewhat unnecessary) skills onto the sheet. As for the bargaining dilemma, I usually ignore the rolls for such interaction as just go by the role-playing. I play the high Bargain% characters as savvy and shrewd, the low Bargain% ones as ignorant or pigheaded. I suppose that a straight comparison of the two skills involved would be sufficient. The higher skill should come out ahead, perhaps by no more than an amount equal to the difference between the two competing skills. Myles.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20991; Thu, 3 Jun 93 18:12:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19797; Thu, 3 Jun 93 19:11:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 3 Jun 93 19:12:08 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character generation Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 19:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <920D3B33E1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's a very rough sketch of a current idea for previous experience - the basic system, recommended for generating characters quickly or for beginning players. It gives you nearly as much choice as the pointing system, but is much, much faster. Creating An Adventurer a) Pick species (recommend humans to start). b) Roll characteristics (exact details depends on species). c) Pick culture (affects equipment, weapon use, choice of profession, magic and religion). d) Pick profession (determines social status), 1) Basic system - Pick a profession, write down the basic skills for that profession, pick the listed number of optional skills (this number is based on the usefulness, perks, and social status of the profession). If the GM allows, you can trade two optional skill choices for one from another profession. 2) Point system - Point based, similar to draft 2.0 but streamlined. e) Add skill and cultural modifier bonuses to skills to get final skills. f) Pick spells (a certain number based on your level for the basic system). g) Start with equipment and wealth based on profession and culture (i.e. Pelorian soldier - scimitar, shield, etc.). The new templates look something like this (please note that the point costs and base cost are now in a smaller font and italicized, so that they don't stand out as much as they do here): CRAFTER Trained Competent Expert Master BASIC SKILLS Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Craft 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Craft 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 Evaluate 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Attack 30% 1 45% 2 Parry 30% 1 45% 2 BASE COST 5 10 22 44 OPTIONAL SKILLS (8) Base Base Base Base Bargain 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 90% 32 Conceal 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Craft 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Custom 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Devise 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 90% 32 Instruct 45% 4 60% 8 75% 16 75% 16 Human Lore 45% 2 60% 4 75% 8 90% 16 Lore 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Pick Lock 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Set Trap 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 Attack 30% 1 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 Parry 30% 1 30% 1 45% 2 60% 4 Thus, to generate a crafter with the basic (quick) system, one would simply write down the 5 basic skills, then look at the number by optional skills and picks 8 optional skills, then pick a number of spells (say 5 points of Spirit Magic for a Competent crafter), and finally write down equipment and wealth. Hope that gets the idea across - but that's the basic idea. This should be much simpler and much faster, for those that aren't interested in the greater level of detail and control that the pointing system allows. Let me know what you think. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07763; Fri, 4 Jun 93 23:46:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00958; Sat, 5 Jun 93 00:46:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 0:46:48 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: sorcery rules Date: 05 Jun 1993 00:44:12 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Just a short comment, no major discussion starter, but I wonder why people thought it was necessary to restrict the sorcerous manipulations so much. They hadn't caused any problems in my campaign and I liked the ability to cast spells that lasted a long time without making full enchantments. With the new rules for long duration sorcery, there's no reason to cast a long duration sorcery. As long as you're spending your permanent POW you might as well do it right and get a permanent spell, not just one that lasts a while. Just do a binding enchantment with a magic spirit that's ordered to cast its protection/damage resistance spell when the wielder is under attack. It costs a few more points of POW but is *permanent*, compared to a temporary spell that still costs permanent POW. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07837; Fri, 4 Jun 93 23:51:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01006; Sat, 5 Jun 93 00:52:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 0:52:02 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: enchantments in stories Date: 05 Jun 1993 00:49:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: 1. repeating the casting 3 times 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09903; Sat, 5 Jun 93 02:35:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02727; Sat, 5 Jun 93 03:35:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 3:35:13 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 09:18:44 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I think that the rqIII and now it seems rqIV's lack of stackking limits on rune spells ruins playbalance on higher levels at least for certain cults. In my campaign there is for certain players an irresistable urge to powergame and therefore to protect their characters as much as possible. So if they play say an Orlanthi, he would sacrifice all or most of his pow to get as high a level of Shield spell as possible. So he would have iron armor, iron large shield, shield 6 and protection whatsoever and be very, very gross. all theORDINARY, run of the mill opponents would have very hard time against him with his 100% in shield parry. and the firepower that could make things a bit more exciting for him would crush all other members of the party and make paly very dull for them. Of course you can always try to invent new ways of circumventing the advantage of armor but the fact is that these tanks are bad for a game or campaign. The same goes for the current compatiblity of shield with other spells, spells that wre incomaptible with it in the RQ2. If they were incomaptible as earlier on , characters would have to decide which is more dangerous, spirits or physical weapons in a fight where both were present, instead of protecting themselves against both. Again this is problem with gamers starting to reach or exceed the Rune level. But the rules should work there also. I think also that the current classification of physical shields to bucklers to hoplite shields is pretty good, but I disagree that the size of the shield should protect you against damage so severely as the current rules indicate. Say you have a cahracter with 16 or 18 point shield with maybe iron thrown in to protect for half as much again and then the character has 90% or more with shield. The guy is pretty much immortal in ordinary fights. I would rather say that the protection is much less say, on the level with weapons 10 or less points and maybe without the benefit of iron and say that the advantage of bigger shiled lies in the amount of locations it protects or a higher beginning percentage (much higher?) . What do you say. -- hannu (a GM in a Gloranthan campaign starting 1981 and still continuing)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14420; Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:34:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07400; Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:33:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:34:16 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:33:29 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu: Your thougts on excessive rune amgic were very much to the point. I have one idea that I have put into practice in my campaign on this. Whan a person wishes to learn an additional point of rune magic, square the number of points of rune magic sought: the character must then overcome this number with his or her POW in order to receive this new level of the magic from the god. For example, you seek Shield 4: squaring 4, we get 16; you have a POW of 15 (assume that you are an acolyte); you must beat a 16 on a resistance roll with a 15: you need to roll 45 or under to get Shield 4. If this fails, i rule that initiates and acolytes must wait until the next high holy day to try again, priests must wait until the next seasonal holy day. A very harsh GM might rule that the character loses the point of POW! I also allow characters to sacrifice additional points of POW to improve their chances. You can also use this system for spirit magic: bladesharp 6 is rather gross too! This system has the benefit of making it quite hard to go beyond 4 points of stackable rune magic. Thoughts? -- Greg Fried  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22518; Sat, 5 Jun 93 20:45:32 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13426; Sat, 5 Jun 93 21:45:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 21:45:31 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: 05 Jun 1993 21:42:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu (a GM in a Gloranthan campaign starting 1981 and still continuing) writes: | cults. In my campaign there is for certain players an irresistable urge | to powergame and therefore to protect their characters as much as | possible. So if they play say an Orlanthi, he would sacrifice all or What's wrong with playing the character as protective of his life? The rules reflect gloranthan reality. I think this is a good thing, not a problem. The problem you have with game balance is really a campaign issue. It can be taken care of in a number of ways. 1. A character like this is going to get a reputation. People will know what he can do. Enemies will prepare specifically for him. When in war an army faces a superior opponent they use hit and run tactics. Opponents should have a large number of (low skill) folks chucking javelins at the character. Some will get criticals and his armor won't protect against those attacks. After they chuck their javelins they will run away and let him chase them. Some will circle around and retrieve javelins, while others lead him into ambushes. He'll start racking up fatigue. After 20 minutes or so his shield 6 will run out and he'll be without it, bringing his protection down to mortal levels. Some of the javelins will get through and he's going to bite the big one. Other tactics could include a net trap that pulls him way up into the air, either disarming him or forcing him to cut a hole in the trap and fall 8 meters or so. Pit traps will also work wonders, and in one with a covered top he'll get thirsty and hungry after a while, which will weaken him. And he has to sleep sometime. This all assumes he can be separated from the rest of the party, which isn't usually all that hard. It also assumes you want to kill or capture the character, which is up for question. The sable tribes are especially masterful at such tactics. 2. He's great at warfare, so what? The occupying lunar army will use tactics like those above against would-be Orlanthi heroes. Is he any good at more courtly skills? Involve the characters in some non-combat things. Get them lost in the desert. Give him a grant of land, and force him to negotiate with his neighbors, who are all beastmen or some of the orlanthi hill tribesmen who give the group a bad name (think "Deliverance"). Have a beautiful woman fall in love with him. Run him through the Garhound contest and see if he wins. 3. If he isn't a wind lord then he won't be able to cast personal magic in that iron armor. If he is then any earth priestess who invokes the lightbringer's oath can get him to go on a quest for her. This can be a suicide mission or not. Assuming they aren't also lightbringer rune levels, the other characters don't have to come along, especially if it is thought to be too dangerous for them to have a chance to survive. If he refuses to give serious aid (at minimum he could cast all his rune magic into a truestone), he'll get retributive spirits such as impests. 4. He's so powerful he's well on his way to hero status. Let him try to make it all the way. This will be dangerous enough to challenge him, and might call for the skills of everyone else too. Just remember that hero quests require more than a combat monster to succeed, and mastery with sword and shield won't be enough even to win all the combats. | I think also that the current classification of physical shields to | bucklers to hoplite shields is pretty good, but I disagree that the size | of the shield should protect you against damage so severely as the | current rules indicate. I would rather say that the protection is | much less say, on the level with weapons 10 or less points and maybe | without the benefit of iron and say that the advantage of bigger shiled | lies in the amount of locations it protects or a higher beginning | percentage (much higher?) . What do you say. The way I understand it, a buckler is much easier to use than a larger shield is, because you simply punch the incoming attacks with the buckler, while you need to slide a larger shield sideways to intercept attacks. You can't simply punch them because of air resistance and the weight of the shield, never mind the strap that connects some shields to the forearm. That's why I'd prefer to change the defaults so that buckler has a high default, say 25%, and the others have a lower default, like 10%, but can passively protect some number of hit locations. I agree with you that the larger shields shouldn't have all that many more AP than smaller shields. They have more surface area, not more cross-section. You could say that large shields passively protect 8 location values, medium 4, and bucklers 0. Combined with rules like my house rules that allow people to direct blows at subsets of the full hit locations this would add some color (and maybe too much complexity) to combats. Also there is a game balance consideration: Unless you give buckler a high default skill there's no reason for a character to take it. Who would choose a shield that offers less protection AND is harder to use? What do all the other playtesters think of this idea? whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23473; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:19:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14385; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:19:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:19:16 EDT From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:22:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: There is a very good reason to use a bucker despite the fact that it does not have a higher default skill. Buckers are very light. If you are concerned about the effects of encumberence on fatigue, stealth, or dodging. Or if you simply want more loot. Besides, weapons aren't Gurps characters, they don't have to be equally powerful. Mark Sabalauskas  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23544; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:30:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14607; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:30:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:30:56 EDT From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:33:59 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Umm, make that if you simply want to be able to carry more loot. Note that I am not addressing the question of weather or not bucklers are actually easier to use. If they are than the base should be changed, if they aren't then it should not. Other considerations are irrevevant. Mark S  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23556; Sat, 5 Jun 93 22:32:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14649; Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 23:32:44 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: 05 Jun 1993 23:29:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: No shield at all is even lighter than a buckler, and it's about as useful. Guess which I'd use in war if life followed RQ rules? -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA02782; Sun, 6 Jun 93 09:10:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20300; Sun, 6 Jun 93 10:08:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 10:10:27 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 9:10:38 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > That's why I'd prefer to change the defaults so that > buckler has a high default, say 25%, and the others have a lower > default, like 10%, but can passively protect some number of hit > locations. I agree with you that the larger shields shouldn't have all > that many more AP than smaller shields. They have more surface area, not > more cross-section. You could say that large shields passively protect 8 ^^^^^^^^^^ > location values, medium 4, and bucklers 0. Combined with rules like my > house rules that allow people to direct blows at subsets of the full hit > locations this would add some color (and maybe too much complexity) to > combats. > > Also there is a game balance consideration: Unless you give buckler a > high default skill there's no reason for a character to take it. Who > would choose a shield that offers less protection AND is harder to use? > > What do all the other playtesters think of this idea? > > Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu > Higher defaults for smaller shields make sense, as well as higher APs. Currently a buckler gives fewer APs than a shortsword, maybe even a main gauche (I don't have my rules here, so I may be off some). The only reason *anyone* in my campaign uses them is that, inspired by the RQIII box art, I allow weilders of two handed weapons to use a buckler at half skill, strapped to their arm. And since I don't think the APs of polearms and spears are increased if they're iron, the wind lords and storm khans can thus get some advantage from iron bucklers. I think, if I were to start another campaign, I would rescale the shield APs. Probably give all of them the APs medium shields have currently, and use your idea that, even without a parry attempt or with a failed (though not a fumbled) parry, the shield provides passive (i.e. half) armor to a number of locations. Large shields would cover maybe four (eight? what, Loren, all of you and your buddy's butt? ;-), a medium two, and a buclker none, as you said. Also, to offset the advantages of using large shield, I'd probably have an additional encumbrance penalties. I didn't like skill reductions that RQIII had for negative fatigue, and since RQIV no longer has FPs that isn't viable now anyway. I think a better idea is to add one to a character's DEX SR for every multiple of STR of ENC they have; if their ENC <= STR, no change, if STR < ENC <= 2*STR, +1 DEX SR, etc. This seems very realistic to me; when I've been backpacking or just carrying a lot, I react slower than normal. Perhaps also have +1 DSR for each fatigue level lost as well, but that's a different matter. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09096; Sun, 6 Jun 93 17:59:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26364; Sun, 6 Jun 93 18:57:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 18:59:22 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: General Comments Part I Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 11:04:42 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul Reilly here. Some quick comments on the RQIV playtest draft: Generally, it seems a good improvement on most details. I especially like the Spirit rules and have one or two suggestions, will get to those in another post. I would have gone a different direction, towards more Pendragon-like combat rules for example, but there is a lot of value in continuity. I'll address some specific parts of the rules in order, this post will cover the first 40 RQ III pages or so (reckoning pages by the notes in the Draft.) > Conversion: This is a good set of rules, seems much better than the II --> III conversion. > Rolling Methods: We tried these and they all seem good enough. In particular the Deliberate Method is a big improvement as it takes into account stat training limits and the non linear values of stats. Combined Method, same comment. This was our favorite, but with switching allowed if stated in advance: "I want to run a warrior who is really tough: highest stat will be CON." > DAMAGE MODIFIER: This smoother table is better but as long as we are overhauling the system perhaps we could switch over to a Pendragon-style system? Having played both and with much experience chopping and bashing this system seems better to me. Of course Ducks and suchlike may be reduced to using poisoned weapons, but I always suspected them of it anyway. > Page 19: > FIGURING SKILLS CATEGORY MODIFIER, replace in part with: > Agility Skills Modifier > DEX, STR = Primary > SIZ = Negative From my own experiences with riding, boating, jump, Dodge, etc. and talking to real masters of these skills, I'd have to count POW as very important. One climber said to me: "You are in a battle of wills with an ancient mountain," when I asked him what Climbing was like. Thus I'd say: DEX, POW = Primary SIZ = Negative For Parry, I'd discount the SIZ altogether - after years of fighting I find that the extra reach of the larger fighter at least compensates for the "smaller target" effect. I have no trouble Parrying and I am 185 cm & over 100 kg. This would also make larger fighters prefer Parry to Dodge, which in my experience is in fact the case. Climb might go on Parry modifier rather than agility: lighter is better but long limbs are an advantage. The ideal climber looks a bit like a spider. >Knowledge Skills Modifier > INT = Primary > POW = Secondary Great, back to RQ II! After graduate school I'd almost count in CON as well... in any case ability to concentrate and insight should depend somewhat on POW and these are important to Knowledge skills. > Stealth Skills Modifier Great, exactly what we've been using for years. We also play that when you initiate in certain cults (Thief, Hunter) your POW becomes a _positive_ Stealth modifier, modelling the character learning to project "Nobody Here" with his aura instead of "Look at Me!" (the default). Unchanged Modifiers: I also thought these were OK. STRIKE RANKS: No comment >Pages 21 to 32: >PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, replace most of with: After a couple of sample characters this system looks pretty good. It seems slow at this point but when we get used to it I think it may be as fast or faster than RQ III and with a lot more character choice. I'll report back after more testing. >BECOMING AN INITIATE I really liked the old RQ II system where most people started as lay members and it was a big point in the game when you finally became an Initiate. It made for a feeling of "eliteness" and achievement without going all the way to Rune level. Starting as an Initiate in a society where all adults are Initiates takes away some of the _meaning_ of it, although it models many societies pretty well. I suppose that it's important to the _characters_ but the _players_ who start as Initiates attach less significance to it: it's No Big Thing anymore. > POW: to increase POW, the character needs to have used I think that _more_ things need to be modelled as POW tests: tests of will and grit, "staredowns", interpersonal conflicts, etc. If POW is used _only_ to power magic and not for much of anything else (except skill mods and luck tests) then we have no model of what a high-POW person means, unless it is just lucky. We all _know_ what Strength or Dexterity mean because we see it in use every day. I suspect we see POW in use every day also: it measures strength of will and _chi_. Or does it mean something else to you? In any case if we can figure out what else POW is used for we may have an idea where to get POW gains from: perhaps facing down a hostile crowd (or a thesis committee) should count for a POW check. Also, mastering a new skill might give enough self-confidence for a POW gain or check. Other stats: no comment. _________________________" > SKILL TABLES The general comments are good. > EASY, MEDIUM AND HARD SKILLS Great, back to RQ II! Reserving comment on the actual tables until more time has been spent testing them. They look pretty good, tried a few and they were OK. _______________ > Page 34: > SKILL VERSUS SKILL, replace with: For one less die roll, how about comparing the _number_ rolled in the case where both parties get an equal level of success? This is the Pendragon mechanic and we have tried it in RQ with no problems. >Active vs Passive: This is very good, needed to be addressed. Now there is a mechanic for guards being "on alert", etc. >Page 37: >SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS, replace with This stuff is pretty good, have to play through and check the numbers but looks good now. > POW gain rolls use a related system. The GM should assign a POW gain > roll to characters depending on their use of magic and involvement I may be in the minority here, but my model of high mana characters has always included people like Hannibal or George Washington, or Hiawatha, or, on Glorantha, the great knights of Seshnela or Godunya, all of whom seem to use little magic. Maybe belief of other people helps POW gain, (like Pendragon Glory), and "growth experiences" could also help. I have tried many things but don't really have a killer system to offer. If you do, pipe up! > Page 37: > INCREASING SKILLS BY EXPERIENCE, replace with: I like the Easy/Medium/Hard system, it's simple and usable. > Page 37: > SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH, replace most of with: > > The length of time for one training or research session is a > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. I'd say: number of hours equal to the current skill percentage, not counting stat bonuses. Thus a character with a 55% Ride skill, due in part to a 5% Agility bonus, must spend 50 hours training to qualify for a skill increase. For several years now we have played that you count stat bonuses on skills when you use them but use a _base_ skill with no bonus for experience or training. Otherwise the stat bonus just isn't worth more than a few hours of initial training. It seems to us that the intelligent woman will always have an advantage in Animal Lore or Battle. After years of fighting, I'm also convinced that one can't "catch up" to the more dextrous fighters by spending equal time training. Let's compare two characters learning Mathematics, a Hard Knowledge skill. Donald the Dullard, Int 8, POW 6, has a -4% Knowledge modifier and starts at 1%. Greta the Gifted, INT 18, POW 14, has a 10% bonus and starts at 15%. They go throught the same college, spending 1020 hours training. Under my system Greta comes out with a 75% skill and Donald with a 61% skill, as I would think appropriate. Under the standard rules, Donald comes out with a 63% skill and will soon tick over enough hours to get to 65%, and Greta, with more than twice poor Donald's INT and POW, has but a 65% skill and is only one quarter of the way to her next increase. I could have chosen a number of hours which would have wound them up with the _same_ skill after equal hours of training, despite the difference in their abilities. Anyone who has taught a course will tell you that this is not a good model. ________________________ > CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE, replace with: Pretty good, but: > Species maximum is determined by adding the minimum possible roll >to the maximum possible roll for the characteristic. The species maximum By this reckoning Ogres have a species max POW of 26, and STR of 38. Mistress race trolls have a species max POW of 33. Do we want them to have this kind of power gain roll? Agimori get a species max con of 31. I kind of liked (max roll + number of dice) from RQ II, thus greater _variability_ led to higher maximum stats. Or use 6 points = 1 die, this still means variability implies a higher maximum compared to average than fixed points. Training Rules: Good. Good instructors should count for something. > Page 41: > HUMANOID HIT POINTS PER LOCATION TABLE, replace with: Wow! the formula given matches the table! > Page 41: > RESULTS OF DAMAGE, replace with: Good! Especially there is now a zone between "wounded" and "dead". We have been using similar but not identical rules, these are more radically different from RQ III than ours - even better, in my opinion. We've been playing that without First Aid a Healing may heal bad wounds in the wrong shape, necessitating later surgery. Bleeding is good. I also think that there should be NO instant Healing for blood loss or fire damage, except perhaps through major Divine spells or DI. As one of my players said (concerning the multiyear campaign which wound up Rune level) "Wounds didn't bother us but we were SCARED of fire." I also think blood is the "stuff of life" and its loss is fundamental. >Page 43: >NATURAL HEALING, Add: Lethal vs. non lethal is good BUT I think that the healing rate for lethal is too high. I've spent MONTHS recovering from a whiplash, etc. Friends who've been shot or stabbed spent a LONG time recovering. It took me about three months to fully recover from my appendectomy. If Gloranthans heal faster than Earth humans the given rates are OK but it should be made explicit. >Long term general HP damage: Again, healing this stuff _should_ be hard. If all damage can be made to go away instantly there is no way for a fight to be really significant unless someone is killed or maimed. I'd say Heal Wounds is for wounds only, Heal Body might restore _some_ general HP damage, and fix poison damage, and that healing gods and Ernalda should get some sort of Counter Poison spell. We had a shaman find a spirit for Purge Poison, this spirit spell was good and purged its level in Potency of poison, minus one for each round that had gone by since the poison was injected (or minus one per minute for poisons in food.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04840; Sun, 6 Jun 93 12:33:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22578; Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:31:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:33:31 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbala Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 13:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu In this discussion of bucklers, it might be worth remembering that in the real world, almost nobody ever used bucklers, for precisely the reasons given by everyone. I can only think of Renaissance fencers, and they used a very specialized style that left the left hand free and near the body.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05985; Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:09:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23495; Sun, 6 Jun 93 15:07:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 6 Jun 93 15:09:21 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbala Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:07:11 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: 5-Jun-93 16:34:59-GMT,1844;000000000001 Received: from noc4.dccs.upenn.edu by midway.uchicago.edu Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:34:58 CDT Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07400; Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:33:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 5 Jun 93 12:34:16 EDT From: charles gregory fried To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields and playbalance Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 11:33:29 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: hannu: Your thougts on excessive rune amgic were very much to the point. I have one idea that I have put into practice in my campaign on this. Whan a person wishes to learn an additional point of rune magic, square the number of points of rune magic sought: the character must then overcome this number with his or her POW in order to receive this new level of the magic from the god. For example, you seek Shield 4: squaring 4, we get 16; you have a POW of 15 (assume that you are an acolyte); you must beat a 16 on a resistance roll with a 15: you need to roll 45 or under to get Shield 4. If this fails, i rule that initiates and acolytes must wait until the next high holy day to try again, priests must wait until the next seasonal holy day. A very harsh GM might rule that the character loses the point of POW! I also allow characters to sacrifice additional points of POW to improve their chances. You can also use this system for spirit magic: bladesharp 6 is rather gross too! This system has the benefit of making it quite hard to go beyond 4 points of stackable rune magic. Thoughts? -- Greg Fried  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24972; Mon, 7 Jun 93 09:59:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12102; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:59:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:00:04 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:06:54 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul R. here. Single > is Peter van Heusden, > > is Loren: >> 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the >> option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Our home-grown sorcery system does essentially this, I could post a summary if there is interest. >Doesn't divine magic use this? Yes, I like it for that reason. Divine magicians have a certain amount of magic and that's it. I think spirit and sorcery could work like this also. > This has nasty side effects, though. Like: > cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing > the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. You could also do this with a wooden support and a rope. The guards should check for mundane or magical traps before they allow the caravan to cross. I'd say you have to overcome the highest POW of the people on the bridge to pull out the spell, though. There are two models we see in stories: in one the spells must be maintained and the problem is to keep them going. In the other the spell has a life of its own and even the magician who cast it has trouble putting it out (Sorceror's Apprentice). I'd say determine what the power source of the spell is and use that with the first model: if you use a demon to power the spell you had better watch out. >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Yes, I think that this is superior. As I said, will post if people want to see a long post on this.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25375; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:09:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12523; Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:09:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:09:08 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: y! Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 03:16:05 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul R. here. Single > is Peter van Heusden, > > is Loren: >> 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the >> option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Our home-grown sorcery system does essentially this, I could post a summary if there is interest. >Doesn't divine magic use this? Yes, I like it for that reason. Divine magicians have a certain amount of magic and that's it. I think spirit and sorcery could work like this also. > This has nasty side effects, though. Like: > cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing > the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. You could also do this with a wooden support and a rope. The guards should check for mundane or magical traps before they allow the caravan to cross. I'd say you have to overcome the highest POW of the people on the bridge to pull out the spell, though. There are two models we see in stories: in one the spells must be maintained and the problem is to keep them going. In the other the spell has a life of its own and even the magician who cast it has trouble putting it out (Sorceror's Apprentice). I'd say determine what the power source of the spell is and use that with the first model: if you use a demon to power the spell you had better watch out. >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Yes, I think that this is superior. As I said, will post if people want to see a long post on this.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20257; Mon, 7 Jun 93 07:25:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06348; Mon, 7 Jun 93 08:25:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 8:26:01 EDT From: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: experience/fatigue/combat Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:25:39 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Paul Reilly said: > > Page 37: > > SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH, replace most of with: > > > > The length of time for one training or research session is a > > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. > I'd say: > number of hours equal to the current skill percentage, not counting > stat bonuses. Thus a character with a 55% Ride skill, due in part to > a 5% Agility bonus, must spend 50 hours training to qualify for a skill > increase. > > For several years now we have played that you count stat bonuses on > skills when you use them but use a _base_ skill with no bonus for experience > or training. Otherwise the stat bonus just isn't worth more than a few > hours of initial training. It seems to us that the intelligent woman will > always have an advantage in Animal Lore or Battle. After years of fighting, > I'm also convinced that one can't "catch up" to the more dextrous fighters > by spending equal time training. > > Let's compare two characters learning Mathematics, a Hard Knowledge > skill. Donald the Dullard, Int 8, POW 6, has a -4% Knowledge modifier > and starts at 1%. Greta the Gifted, INT 18, POW 14, has a 10% bonus > and starts at 15%. > > They go throught the same college, spending 1020 hours training. Under my > system Greta comes out with a 75% skill and Donald with a 61% skill, as > I would think appropriate. Under the standard rules, Donald comes out with > a 63% skill and will soon tick over enough hours to get to 65%, and > Greta, with more than twice poor Donald's INT and POW, has but a 65% > skill and is only one quarter of the way to her next increase. I could have > chosen a number of hours which would have wound them up with the _same_ > skill after equal hours of training, despite the difference in their > abilities. Anyone who has taught a course will tell you that this is > not a good model. > > ________________________ I like this, and actually play with this rule. > Page 37: > SKILL EXPERIENCE ROLLS, replace with > > > Players keep track of when their characters use their skills. > Once a skill has been used in a situation that is stressful, or otherwise > conducive to learning, the player puts a check beside the skill on the > character sheet. Typical stressful situations include combat, hiding from > enemies, or operating under time pressure. Working with more experienced > characters can be a useful learning experience as well. Trivial use of a skill > (attacking a helpless target, taking an hour to pick a lock, etc.) is > generally not worth a check. When in doubt, consult with the GM. > > At the end of an adventure, the GM allows each player to make a > certain number of experience rolls for his or her character. > We recommend allowing 4 experience rolls for each week of adventuring. how then do you differencies the skills often used and the others, ex: in a week, the PCs have to face 3 or 4 combats, they will have only one check, and identically one if they bargain successfully once in this week. The situation can be inversed... Perhaps, this means that they cannot assimilate quickly too much action. But I think that additionnal checks when critical success of fumble under stress might be adding realism. (perhaps with a first 'critic check' when a PC have already a check replaces it because its effect overcomes the precedent one, the subsequent ones stacking up) What do you think of this? By the way, I have playtested the new fatigue rules, I like them a lot and they work well. For the combat rules, the first time was very long with 4 PCs and an unexperimented GM (me!). I may not have had a good idea to run a combat between 16 opponents to learn the rules... I will send a more detailed (and representative of less complicated combats) comment later. -Pierre PS: for the translation of my character sheets, I don't have the time now, but perhaps next week-end...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21561; Mon, 7 Jun 93 08:36:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08611; Mon, 7 Jun 93 09:36:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 9:36:13 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 15:35:39 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at > fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: > 1. repeating the casting 3 times Sounds like a ritual to me. I think using rituals for long duration spellcasts could be a good idea. > 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion Basically, I thought that was what embedding a spell in an object was about? > 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the > option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Doesn't divine magic use this? This has nasty side effects, though. Like: cast a long duration spell to keep the bridge up, when the caravan is crossing the bridge, pull back the spell. Bye bye caravan. > Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the > schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? > > -- Loren > My problem with using permanent POW is: How often do you guys get POW increases? Doesn't happen often in my campaign. Then: how about con-mp conversion? For Rolemaster, we worked out a system of trading points of constitution for MP's. Very useful in a pinch - sap your strength to increase your magic. Happens a lot in literature. The final action was a "going out with a bang" option. Force soul destruction to get off major effects for one last spell. Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "How fast are you? How dense?" pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za - Rudy Rucker  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27866; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:03:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10673; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:03:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:03:46 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1993 13:45:20 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: In , you write: >> The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: 1. repeating the casting 3 times 2. using the law of sympathy or contagion 3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? -- Loren << 3. You mean like in the One-thumb story in Thieves World #1, where the sorcerer maintains several (let's call them active) spells for certain customers? These spells draw upon his power and reduce it considerably, but not enough that he would be blocked from using instantaneous magic. I would use this concept for long duration spells, but not for enchantments. 1. Casting a spell thrice: How about maintaining a spell in certain intervals, refuelling it in a ritual? This way a sorcerer who wants to maintain long duration spells would have to lock himself in and have little time to do anything else - similar to a priest's cult duties. just 0.02 DM -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08562; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:01:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24924; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:01:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:01:23 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 16:13:08 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: How about /|\ \|/ /|\ for Slavery? It is a combination of Spirit and Mastery. (Plus, it doesn't rely on orientation.) Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26323; Mon, 7 Jun 93 10:27:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13418; Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:27:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:27:41 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:23:52 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Post away, Paul. Oh, and I was bored one night and was playing with your Runic Sorcery rules. As an alternate perception (and formula, if you like): "Impose (a) on (b) to produce (c)" a(b)=c "Impose (a) on (b) via (c) to produce (d)" a(b)>>c=d Easy to read, IMHO. Examples of use: Animate Substance: Mastery(x)>>Magic=Mobility (x rune defined by substance) Apprentice Bonding: Law(Man)>>Infinity=Communication Armoring Enchantment: Hunger(Death)>>Infinity=Harmony NOTE: Harmony as a result means a dampening of harmfull effects. Binding Enchantment Stasis (Spirit) >> Infinity = Slavery NOTE: I thing the "slavery Rune" should be the mastery rune on it's side, like a backwards 'E', rather then upside down. Mastery could be considered to be "Harmony with an underlying control". Slavery has the control being "off to the side" (i.e. not you), and the position of slavery is not harmony. Create Basilisk: Chaos (Fertility) >> Infinity = Beast NOTE: Personally, I think this one worked out nicely. Create Familiar: Mobility (Man) >> Infinity = Man NOTE: i.e. move the elements of "man" to the source Create Vampire: Chaos(Death) >> Infinity = Man Damage Boosting Mastery (Death) >> Magic = Disorder NOTE: Disorder as a result increases the harmfull effects. Fly Mastery(Air) >> Magic = Mobility "Quickfoot" (i.e. equal to the spirit "mobility spell" Mastery (Earth) >> Magic = Mobility "Fishfoot" (The swimming equivalent) Mastery (Water) >> Magic = Mobility Comments?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10677; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:46:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26820; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:46:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:46:14 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 16:58:09 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Godlearners made up the runes? I thought the runes were tied up with specific owning deities. Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00643; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:03:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17492; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:03:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:03:50 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:02:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Replying to: burt@ptltd.com These are quite good, the sort of thing I was thinking of. Once one gets a feel for the Runic "alphabet" a lot of things spring to mind. Different sorcerors organize their Runes differently to produce similar effects. I'll bring in my notes and post the system tomorrow. I have a few hand written corrections to the stuff that's in the system now. Also, I found more of my old hand written notes from a few years ago and will have another long post to do sometime. Tomorrow's post will cover a proposed Sorcery system, without the Runic part, which will go in another post. - Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01876; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:34:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18826; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:34:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:34:09 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:30:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Another function might be "Remove (x) from (y) to produce (z)" Sorry, make that "Remove (x) from (y)" Also, "Remove (x) from (y) using (z)" (x)-(y) >> (z) Less defined in the result. For example: Man - Spirit >> Magic Ye olde "drain MP" spell (otherwise known as "I have more then you, so I'll just clear out your reserves") Man - Man >> Magic Remove what makes a Man from him. Reduces him/her to a brainless animal (game effect: INT considered to be FIXED INT for duration, runs on instinct...hard to guess.) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03740; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:16:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20288; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:15:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:17:03 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:14:48 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >> From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) >> Subject: Re: enchantments in stories >> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 11:23:52 EDT >> >> NOTE: I thing the "slavery Rune" should be the mastery rune on it's side, like >> a backwards 'E', rather then upside down. Mastery could be considered to be >> "Harmony with an underlying control". Slavery has the control being >> "off to the side" (i.e. not you), and the position of slavery is not >> harmony. _ _ Why not | | | ? | | | The "harmony", read "order", is imposed from above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01815; Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:31:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18726; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:31:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:31:49 EDT From: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CON <---> MP Date: Mon, 07 Jun 93 13:32:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: In an issue of Hero magazine (AH) they had a conversion of FP to MP. I think you could expend 5 FP and get one MP oIt worked pretty well in the campaign I ran in Stuttgart. In service, Rich  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04781; Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:43:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21439; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:43:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:43:38 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:42:13 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I tend to agree with John Medway: _____ | | | | | | Order imposed from above. Also, it's obviously an "opposite" to the Mastery Rune. I want to write up a short version of Ompalam for the Pamaltela issue of TotRM, so I'd like to find a "Slavery Rune" that people agree on. This can fit in the RQ 4 discussion also - should Slavery be included as a rune? Owner: Ompalam. It's implicitly used in Cults of Prax: Ompalam's Rune magic must include Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave Collar. - Paul R.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06254; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:14:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22817; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:14:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:14:22 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 12:14:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > > I tend to agree with John Medway: > _____ > | | | > | | | > > Order imposed from above. Also, it's obviously an "opposite" to the > Mastery Rune. > > I want to write up a short version of Ompalam for the Pamaltela issue of > TotRM, so I'd like to find a "Slavery Rune" that people agree on. > > This can fit in the RQ 4 discussion also - should Slavery be included > as a rune? Owner: Ompalam. It's implicitly used in Cults of Prax: Ompalam's > Rune magic must include Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave Collar. > > - Paul R. > Their has to be another way to make slave bracelets and collars though. Ompalam is after all mainly a Pamaltelian god and Prax seems to have quite a few slave collars flaoting about. I also think it would be better to say Slavery is just a twisting of the mastery rune rather than a "true" rune all by itself. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07495; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:37:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23871; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:42 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: 7 Jun 93 15:35:30 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I don't know about this probabilistic style formula stuff for spell descriptions. It seems rather too blatantly mundane for my tastes. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07798; Mon, 7 Jun 93 14:44:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24140; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:44:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:44:28 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 15:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: With respect to Ompalam, et. al., I've seen references to the cult of Idkadz having the ability to craft slave bracelets as well. Also, in Pamaltela, Ompalam is but one of a number of slaving gods, at least in the Fonrit area - others that seem to be locally as powerful or even more powerful include Tentacule and Tondiji. I'm not exactly sure if there would be such a clear distinction between Mastery and Slavery in Glorantha. Orlanth has captured, enslaved and stolen the abilities of a number of other Godtime powers. Certainly the God Learners, who assigned the runes to the cults, would see little difference . Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08794; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:05:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25128; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:05:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:05:59 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runes Date: 7 Jun 93 16:03:48 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes be akin to Godlearner heresy? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08994; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:08:23 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25189; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:20 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:06:49 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > I also think it would be >better to say Slavery is just a twisting of the mastery rune rather than >a "true" rune all by itself. Funny, that's what the Ompalami say about |_|_| : it's overturned the "natural order". :-) I think that you're basically right, but the Ompalami might disagree: Ompalami may call their version the "Mastery Rune" and the other version "reversed" or twisted. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09027; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:09:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25231; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:09:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:09:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:08:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Loren says: >I don't know about this probabilistic style formula stuff for spell >descriptions. It seems rather too blatantly mundane for my tastes. I think that just listing the Runes would be fine. How they are actually used is up to the style of the sorceror or his school. More later, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09663; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:22:58 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25850; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:22:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:00 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick speaks: Date: 07 Jun 93 16:19:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Hi there, everybody! Two things: (i) I agree with Paul: the Slavery Rune (if it exists) would be an inverted Mastery Rune. Why? Well, Ompalam is also the god of bureaucracy, if I remember right, and I guess we're all familiar with those wall-charts used to trace responsibilities in the office: DA BOSS __________|__________ | | | | | | | | | Me You Him That convinced me! I also agree with Curtis, of course: it's not a "proper" Rune, *and*, whatever power or deity we use to create Slave Bracelets etc. in Genertela, *nobody* would call it "Ompalam". (Shades of the "Pelorian Nyanka" from TotRM 6...). The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I mooted (to universal silence) back in March. Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... This suggestion is meant to be provocative, up there with the reduced POW roll for Dara Happan women! But the socio-mythical arguments are all in favour of both these "non-Politically Correct" suggestions! (Now, here's a can of worms... Yum, Yum!). (ii) Seems to me that "general" postings re: RQ4 Draft 2.0 (like that from Paul today) might fit in here on the list. Now, back in September when I first saw RQ4, I took a week of evenings off to write a fairly detailed commentary on that version. Since then, I've not heard of any new drafts incorporating whatever was accepted from my collected wit and wisdom. Like many others I've corresponded with and talked to, I'm worried that my Deep Thoughts will be left at the back of the filing cabinet when Draft 3.0 (or 2.1?) is eventually produced. So, should I post this stuff to the list, or do you Yanks get sent copies of all the interesting feedback anyway (and it's just poor Brits like me & Steve & David that get left out in the cold)? Warning: this stuff is *long*! Cheers, Nick Brooke PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? I'm finding it really awkward finding my way around a mailshot of ten or twenty fragmentary letters every day... and the "slow response time" doesn't seem to limit Henk's Daily at all: probably makes it more thoughtful, if anything. NB  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09667; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:22:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25853; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:00 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:23:03 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:21:40 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: I thought Tondiji was a city god. (If he's the one listed as 'perhaps the most powerful city god in Glorantha') and Ompalam was the god of Slavery. A friend of mine has worked out a pretty good cult of Ikadz. They're nice guys. Really, I'm not kidding - they just have a bad rep. People just don't understand that it's for their own good. Is their any way to get ahold of these sort of references? I've never seen some of this stuff. Is it in-house? - Paul P.S. Thanks for the info.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10115; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:32:39 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26269; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:45 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: 07 Jun 93 16:29:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Loren sez: > Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, Not so sure they did. They had the "RuneQuest Sight", meaning they could *see* the Runes wherever they were. That doesn't mean they *invented* them; more likely they set down the first formal listing of something already common to most of Glorantha... Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10177; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:34:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26382; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:34:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:34:17 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: 7 Jun 93 16:32:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Good points on the Slavery rune, especially re the wall chart. I wonder if Sandy Peterson chose to make Ompalam the god of bureaucracy because he saw the same thing? >Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd >suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a Ooooh! Touchy! I like it, but it probably isn't something you could get away with publishing in the USA. >(ii) Seems to me that "general" postings re: RQ4 Draft 2.0 (like that from >Paul today) might fit in here on the list. That's what I intended the list for, actually. I haven't seen your comments. You haven't seen my comments. None of us, except for the gang of four, have seen anybody's comments. If I can find my comments I'll digestify them and send them off to the list. >PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible >for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? Nope. Sorry. The software I'm running isn't set up to let me do this. I agree, though, that this mailing list is getting a little chatty. Let's try to make our contributions more meaty, folks. Try to keep your postings to a certain minimum content, and maybe one or two postings per day, maximum. I know I haven't followed that today, but I'll hold myself back from now on. And remember, pure gloranthan material without direct game applications, such as rune identity questions, should probably go to the digest. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10247; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:37:01 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26460; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:37:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:37:06 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:35:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made >up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes >be akin to Godlearner heresy? We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff of the Universe. Darkness came first and gave rise to the other Elements, (or Chaos came first and gave rise to Darkness) and the Power Runes had devotees who all claimed that theirs was the First Rune. Each cult had Runic associations, and these were important magically and in Society. There were rules like "No adherents of a Death Rune cult may enter the temple," etc. In RQ III lots of information was cut on cults but the Runic associations were important enough to keep. Most of the artwork uses Runes, including those depicting Western sorcerors spellcasting. We are told in the Player's Book: Genertela, by _Greg_Stafford_ and Sandy Petersen, that Western sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes. Also, cults way down into Pamaltela and ancient non-human cults like Subere or Flamal have runes. These deities are even Rune Owners. And according to the Westerners, the False Gods are sorcerors who got bound up in particular runes. Now Runes are (apparently according to Greg again) not much in use by Western Sorcerors, and were a God Learner innovation. What happened to the overthrow of God Learner philosophy and beliefs if the cults use the Runes? If they don't, shouldn't practically all RQ Sources get rewritten? While we're at it, let's change the name of the game, since _Rune_ Quest is no longer appropriate. Quest is wrong too, quests don't feature too much in the published sources for the game. And should we delete stuff like the Law Rune being on the coat of arms for the Wizards of Seshnela? Anyway, I liked Runes. I thought of them as the True Names of the great powers of the universe. Is this an example of Minarian (sp?) Memory Removal? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10665; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:45:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26797; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:45:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:45:53 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:46:04 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Something Oliver said aroused my interest. Since the Godlearners made > up all these runes anyway, wouldn't any sorcery that used the Runes > be akin to Godlearner heresy? > Did the Godlearners invent the runes? I always assumed the runes existed but that until the god leaners no one had tried to tie the gods to the runes in such a abstract, mundane fashion. Also I seem to recall a reference that the Brithini always have view the runes as abstract concepts and view everyon else as just mistakenly personifingy the runes as gods. So that the death rune is just death, a law of the universe, and they view it the same way we view gravity, and they think Humakt is just a barbarian way of personifing a perfectly natural force. Also since it seems like sorcery originates with the Brithini(who are atheists) and the Mostali(the word machine view) shouldn't the basic sorcery mechanics be a bit mechanical? I think it's spirit magic and rune magic that need to be more flexable and less mechanical. > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu > There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10985; Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27164; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:53:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:53:28 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 13:53:39 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Hi there, everybody! > > Two things: > > (i) I agree with Paul: the Slavery Rune (if it exists) would be an inverted > Mastery Rune. Why? Well, Ompalam is also the god of bureaucracy, if I > remember right, and I guess we're all familiar with those wall-charts used > to trace responsibilities in the office: > > DA BOSS > __________|__________ > | | | > | | | > | | | > Me You Him > > That convinced me! Oh, that's good. It works just too damned well not to be ture. ;) > > I also agree with Curtis, of course: it's not a "proper" Rune, *and*, > whatever power or deity we use to create Slave Bracelets etc. in Genertela, > *nobody* would call it "Ompalam". (Shades of the "Pelorian Nyanka" from > TotRM 6...). The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I > mooted (to universal silence) back in March. > > Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd > suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a > lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A > captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap > a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to > obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a > slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... Unless the slave has been affected by something along the lines of a spell to turn him into a herd man I don't really like this idea. In Glorantha it still seems to require a magical spell/ritual to affect this sort of change. > > Cheers, > > Nick Brooke > > > PS: Loren, I know it's probably a bit late to ask this, but is it possible > for you to "Digestify" this mailing list? I'm finding it really awkward > finding my way around a mailshot of ten or twenty fragmentary letters every > day... and the "slow response time" doesn't seem to limit Henk's Daily at > all: probably makes it more thoughtful, if anything. > NB > > I'll seconf that motion. I'd much rather have a difest than endless bits of mail popping up. The regular RQ digest seems to work quite well as a daily after all. Also can anyone tell me where I can get a copy of this damn RQ IV playtest? ;) -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12728; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28741; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:32:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:32:49 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:32:21 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >> From: JOVANOVIC@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu >> Subject: Character generation >> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 19:13:28 -0400 (EDT) >> >> Here's a very rough sketch of a current idea for >> previous experience - the basic system, recommended >> ... >> >> d) Pick profession (determines social status), >> 1) Basic system - Pick a profession, write down the basic skills >> ... better, but..... What of a character with multiple professions? The characters which I mentioned were of several, complementary professions. One started as a Noble, moved into a priesthood ( Initiate - "Expert" ) since he was a second son, and then became a military officer ( Foot Warrior - "Competant" ). Getting credit back for all of the basic skills for each subsequent profession, when the skills were already at/above the indicated levels was a bit of a pain. Though this system is _far_ better that RQ3, I'd still be more in favor of a system where you buy skills in smaller packages, which you add together. Give a character 5*(age-14) "points" from which to buy packages of the sort: Thug (1 point): Thuggish Weapon +5%, Fist/Kick +5%, Survival(urban) +5%, Culture(urban lowlife) +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 3, _appropriate_ gear = 5 Duelist (1): Noble weapon +10%, Maneuver +5%, Combat Sense +5%, Culture(urban?) +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 5, appropriate gear = 20 Noble (1): Administer Estate +5%, Culture (urban) +5%, Some Art +5%, Sloth +5%, ... Wealth: cash = 10, appropriate gear = 10, property = 50 Wealth points are based on a sliding scale, such as: 1 = d10 bolgs 2 = d10 clacks 3 = d30 clacks ... 10 = d10 lunars ... 50 = d100 lunars ... 100 = d1000 lunars ... As an example: A young (age 18) member of the gentry/nobility decides to split his points between the life of leisure and duelling. Having spent his/her 20 points, we have: Noble weapon (rapier?): 100% split betw. attack and parry Maneuver: 25% Combat Sense: 25% Culture (Pelorian): 25% Culture (Dara Happan): 25% (branching out) Administer Estate: 25% Fresco Appreciation: 25% ... CASH = ( 10 x 5 ) + ( 10 x 10 ) points = 150 points, or about d1200 Lunars GEAR = ( 10 x 20 ) + ( 10 x 10 ) points = 300 points, or about d2500 Lunars PROPERTY = ( 10 x 50 ) points = 500 points, or about d4000 Lunars There should be some flexability here, such as a difference between the skills/benefits in the Soldier category, and that in the Night Watchman category (yet both are Foot Warrior, now). It just seems easier to pile packages together, and sum the total, than to buy each new larger package, and get discounts and rebates. It also would speed NPC generation, as the GM can just think, hmmm. He was a warrior for 5 years, with some thief and scout thrown in. Lessee, thats 5 years x 5 points, or 25 package points, so lets give him 10 points of warrior, 5 points each of thief and scout. the remaining 5 points can go into a mix of more color-oriented skills or packages, maybe buying crafting skills, etc. >> g) Start with equipment and wealth based on profession and culture >> (i.e. Pelorian soldier - scimitar, shield, etc.). We need to develop a list of what gear is appropriate for each culture. (later) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13594; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:48:08 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29249; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:10 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:12 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 4 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:41:10 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Magic Book The Planes I like the extra detail on the Spirit Plane you are providing, though I'm not sure how necessary it is as I've never knowingly been there myself (featureless greyness not being my scene). This stuff on Spirit Sense looks useful to me. A few specific comments: Are you going to write more about all of the Six Worlds in this section (perhaps reprinting the World of Glorantha: Glorantha Book article in its entirety)? How about redoing the cosmic diagram from the Gloranthan Encyclopaedia (showing the world like it really is)? It would make a great illustration for this section. Spirit Scouts How (if at all) can a Spirit Scout sense a magical barrier before crossing it and bringing the house down? If it can't, or must cast Detect Magic vel sim. to do so, you ought to state this explicitly. My guess would be that long-established barriers (all your examples apart from temporary Wardings) probably do "cast a shadow" onto the contiguous Spirit Plane. Spirit Lore Good to point it out. Can we have a bit more, please? Also needed is information on the Spirits of the Dead: like the new Daka Fal concepts relating to the Courts of Silence, the seven-day downward path, and the crossing of the Styx. In which case an article on the Gloranthan Underworld makes eminent sense here. And if you're having that, there's no reason on earth not to do the rest of the Six Worlds... Identifying Spirits The mechanism suggested (not telling CHARACTERS what they can see because the PLAYERS might recognise it) is ugly and ought to have no place in a role-playing game. Would you do this in any other encounter (a Lunar patrol met by new players, for instance?). Do away with it, and have a freer hand in describing what spirits look like. There have been good examples in past RQ products which give little away, and that for role-play purposes. Driving Away Spirits This is very nice. One suggestion, though: it is possible that a "new" or "spontaneous" ward will be effective largely through fear or surprise, and that given the time to probe it a spirit will find out that it's not as tough as it thought. So if the referee rashly decides that loud noises drive away ghosts, he can always change his mind. Improvised wards can and will decrease in effectiveness as spirits gain familiarity with them, and will not work against all spirits of a given class all of the time. This does not apply to tried and tested local remedies, of course (though away from their homeland, spirits may be different). Appeasing Spirits Again, a nice idea. +1% per magic point seems rather low; if this is intended to prevent shamans with oodles of stored MP, make it +5% per PERSONAL magic point, +1% for bound or stored stuff. Remember that the spirit is being made well disposed towards yourself, and the personal touch is all-important. Remember also that we know shamans can do this kind of stuff; don't set up a rule that makes it impossible for anyone else, and difficult for them to boot. Why do shamans get a special bonus as well as the advantage of having more MP on tap than anyone else? Spirit Combat I dislike the current RQ3 system. I also dislike your suggested system in several of its details. Briefly, the Damage table is not very pleasant, and the Fumble table is a disaster: unnecessary and uninteresting for the most part. Just have fumbles make the opponent's action one level better, as in Dodge rolls. Spell Effects Apparent Effects of Magic: Remove the reference to Krarshtkids from the basic rules. We don't know or care how they work; if their senses are so interesting, include a box on them where you write the species up. Most normal folk will hope never to meet them (as with timinits, kukris, naginatas, etc.). I like the Twilight rule. Nice local colour. In the apparent effects table, refer to "Air magic", "Chaos magic" etc. through-out. Remove the phrase "a disturbance in the air", which is often inept or inappropriate and seems to cover a dearth of ideas. Explain why Chaos magic has a cyclical black-and-red glow while Lunar magic is purely red. Also explain, in the light of this, why the First Age Orlanthi wore red. I can, of course, send you an article on this. (For my money, Chaos magic appears with an unearthly, Lovecraftian "colour out of space": a swirling, throbbing greyish pain to look at). Cut the Vormain magics from the basic rules. Note that Lunar magic tends to pulse or throb. Comment on Mostali magic as well (metallic? sparks?), and perhaps add both of those effects to Humakti magic. The phrase, "shamans are the junk collectors of the spirit world", is mighty fine, but perhaps belongs back in the general description of shamans (rather than here where we want not concepts but rules). The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used by idiots; why should we help them? You are trying to show off and going badly wrong when you refer to "Henotheist schools" of sorcery. This is a misleading misuse of terminology, comparable to asking a Muslim his Christian name. What is wrong with saying "from sect to sect"? Spell Spirits You are labouring the point when you say, "Some Lhankor Mhy scholars believe that spell spirits are the byproduct of the use of great power. Their school of thought is the so-called 'Byproduct School'". Cut the second sentence entirely. Besides which, you should be careful not to write "LHankHor Mhy", which is the name used by Holy Country asthmatics. Perception Skills If a shaman's mundane perception skills are halved when he is not dealing with spirits, but he uses his Spirit Sense instead when he is, how does this rule apply? Shamanic Magic Excellent rules section! More, please, with some interesting as well as useful Shamanic special spells. I'd hand out a one-off every five years, and make half of them quirky rather than useful (player's choice whether or not to keep them, but if they didn't I'd mock them!). These "unique rare spells" (a contradiction in terms) shouldn't have "common names" as well, though you could easily give them "other names", "variant names" vel sim. The spell "Banish" is surely meant to be used for driving out possessing spirits. Why is it that it only works on discorporate spirits, not those embodied in a host? Other names for Draw Spirit: Compel, Attract... Spirit Sword: don't use "one's" like that. Say "the user's" or something like. Shamans on the Spirit Plane First, the Spirit Plane Encounter Tables should be moved here from the Gamemaster Book. Second, the rule that "the number of percentiles devoted to the spirit is a guide to its rarity" will be more user-friendly if the spirits have their % chance listed (in parentheses?) after the actual roll required for an encounter. Learning and Using Spells Very good on the sensory perception of learning a new spell. Water cultists "drink (or breathe) the spirit in", to emphasise that the ones that breathe it in are water-breathers. They might also soak it up, of course. Limits to Spell Memorisation (also p.23, Divine Magic) A rule that says players don't know how large their characters' magic spells are is doomed to be ignored by everyone who reads it. Better simply to say that you can't tell objectively how large a spell that isn't yours is without some very sophisticated magical perception. Range of Spirit Magic: A very good change. And why not? Spirit Magic Spells I approve of suggesting extra names for these spells. Your example of the farmer learning Wound as well as Slay Pest doesn't mention the real reason: it's embarrassing to look like a hick in combat. You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a lot more realism and fun in our games. Befuddle: the kind of "clever management" that would be needed now beggars belief. Cut this reference from the spell description: it's hardly plausible any more. Also, as a 2-point spell, Befuddle seems less useful than Demoralize. Ignite: don't call it "Vangono's Breath": wrong continent for the basic rule book! Mobility: also called "Athlete's Foot". Divine Magic I've always preferred to call it "Rune magic", and would be delighted if the Gloranthan-once-more RQ4 rules reverted to this name. ("Battle magic" never really gripped me). I'd like to propose one general sweeping change: "one-use" (initiate-style) Divine magic should be changed to "one use per year", renewed at the High Holy Day ceremony. This makes all the difference in realism and balance when you're working towards the priesthood, and very little difference to character power in an individual scenario or continuing campaign. Consider this: as the rules stand, the most likely man to reach the priesthood is one who never casts his Rune spells but holds onto them against the future. This means he has had less contact with his god on a personal basis than the guy who chucks each point at a foe within a few weeks of sacrificing. Also, it makes players more likely to cast Divine magic regularly without the kind of agonising - is this fight important enough to be worth one point of permanent POW? two? three? - that otherwise goes on. Rune spells that are defined as one-use for a cult are indeed "fire and forget": they still cost permanent POW to cast once (effectively). Have you considered including David Cheng's excellent RunePower system as an optional rule in this section? It makes far more sense than the current system (which still suffers from shades of the D&D cleric), and is easily converted to by experienced players without needing any stat. changes. (If you are unfamiliar with the system, it basically turns the list of Rune spells known by a character into a "pool" from which he can cast any spell available from his god, selecting only at the moment of casting). Uses of Divine Magic in Society Recast the last sentence, which is clumsy: "... it can have great effects" is better. Learning and Using Spells I've often wondered why you don't give a straight 100% cast chance. Why multiply die rolls unnecessarily? Spellteaching Nice idea, but poor execution. Most characters are less interested in how much spirit magic they have than in how easy it will be to learn more, which your (status-based rather than time-based) system does not address at all. The old RQ3 rate of one point per five years was plainly too broad- brush an approach, but at least it gave a feel for what a normal rate of gain might be in society. These guidelines help game-masters set up temple personnel; they do not help them determine what spells are gained during play. While they have a use, they could be improved on quite easily. The list of "Some cults (and favored spells)" is an affront to my eyes. What it says is so obvious as to be unnecessary. Cut it from the rules. Recovering Divine Spells Maybe this could be made faster. After all, priests can get by with just 50% Ceremony, and initiates may have far less. A base time of 4 hours would reward sensible characters who learned how to work with their temple. Something that will have to be considered at some time is the interaction (if any) between Cult Lore and Ceremony skills. As divine cults use Ceremony as a catch-all Temple Manners skill, the arrival of a variant may cause some rethinks. Broadly, I'd guess that Ceremony makes your cult actions acceptable to your god, while Cult Lore allows them to conform to your culture's ritual expectations. But you haven't yet said what you mean by Cult Lore. Temple Sites What's all this "if the ... is not holy to the religion" stuff about? If it's to justify the Rent-a-Temple or Cultists on the Move approach to worship, then you should say so. Who ever held a proper worship ceremony that wasn't in a holy site? Especially with the hundreds or thousands of worshippers you envisage (a Great Temple, on a site that isn't holy, with a priest who can't cast Sanctify?? The mind boggles!). And what does "typically #" mean in the temple descriptions? The number of people resident at the temple? The number normally in attendance at weekly services? The number present on holy days? Or on High Holy Days? I get the feeling you are trying to allow a proliferation of small-but- powerful temples by what you write at the end about "particularly devoted or fanatical worship-pers". This of course devalues everything that you have said before. Why have a system if you allow an opt-out clause like this at the end of it? Note on disembodied spirits would seem to apply to almost all shamanic cults, not just ancestor worship: cf. the Malia "temple" in Snakepipe Hollow, and ask why a Praxian tribe couldn't do the same (with a crowd of Spirits of Law from Waha). Spell Descriptions RQ4 should print the Rune spell listing in two parts: first the common Rune spells available to almost every cult, and then the cult special spells in a separate section. This will greatly aid reference during play or character generation. When listing the deities who can access special spells, don't say: Aldrya, Babeester Gor [as associate of Ernalda], Chalana Arroy, Dendara, Ernalda, Gorgorma [as associate of Dendara], Pamalt [as associate of Chalana Arroy], Triolina, Yelm [as associate of Dendara], Yelmalio [as associate of Aldrya]. Instead, say: Aldrya [Yelmalio], Chalana Arroy [Pamalt], Dendara [Gorgorma, Yelm], Ernalda [Babeester Gor], Triolina. If you can't be bothered to look under your associate's name, you don't deserve his or her spell. Use different typefaces or something, if you want to have primary sources stand out more. This means that Lightning will look like this: Lightning Boy {Orlanth [Mastakos]}. I'm delighted to see Soul Sight and Command (Species) cut down to size. Cloud Call: "microclimate" is techno-babble and has no place in this game. Save it for Cyberpunk or Traveller if you must. Madness: Befuddlement is no longer a severe enough penalty: replace with Demoralize? True (Weapon) Yanafal Tarnils (and through him the Seven Mothers) ought to receive True Scimitar and not Truesword. I am pretty convinced that a Yanafal Tarnils cultist who returns from the dead will be afflicted with Humakt's Swordbreaker curse and find himself unable to use straight-bladed weapons. Also that (in Genertela at least) the scimitar is not a Humakti weapon (maybe it works for the North War Wind with Pentan cavalry sabres, but that's a different matter). The straightness of Humakt's path precludes its use; as an a renegade and apostate, Yanafal has passed the anger of his god onto all his followers, and introduced the (originally Pentan) scimitar as a form of "curved Death" so he could still fight.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13620; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:48:26 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29255; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:48:30 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 3 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:41:55 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Skills You have gone too far away from the "generic" RQ3 "Devise", "Craft", et al. As your introduction states, there are always going to be cases where "the GM has to decide what the character's chances are, which will often depend on the situation, what the character does, how the player roleplays the situation, the character's background, and so on." This being so, why the proliferation of one-off skills like Intimidate, Beg, Pick Lock, Set Trap and the like? I detect envy of Warhammer Roleplay in some of your new skills. Don't get carried away. Lip-reading and the like may look like nice ideas, but unless you get a VERY high level they are no use at all (especially if they're Hard to increase); normal folk like me would learn Mindspeech instead, or any other handy battle magic that duplicated the effect I wanted more effectively than practice and effort could. As for Intimidate/Interrogate/ Beg, these are mechanics used to regulate situations where the gamemaster ought to retain control of the game and of his NPCs' reaction to player character activities. We're better off without them. I don't want to have "Feel 5%, Smell 5%, Taste 5%" on my character sheet. It will leave me feeling like a sensory cripple, and/or wanting to increase them to unnatural levels. Better to note somewhere that humans have these skills at a base 5% (but almost never develop them), and to include rules showing how herd animals, fishes, and the like use them every day. These rules are obsessed with "Training". Stop and think for a moment: does the Lunar Army have Scan classes? Jump classes? Search classes? Intimidate classes, even? Would you be prepared to role-play your characters through a day at such an event? Do you know how these skills would be taught? If not, DON'T make "Training" into such a fundamental part of every character's life. Dance [Culture] Why do you think this skill defaults at half value across almost all cultures? Is there something wrong with your imagination? Bargain "The person selling the item will ALMOST never take a loss"? Why this change to a good and sensible rule? Courtesan Better termed "Seduction", unless this is a females-only skill: if you told the Red Emperor he was a master Courtesan he'd look askance at you - if you were lucky! Sing Can you write a description for this skill which makes sense to normal human beings, and not just computers, Martians, and rules boffins? Battle Rewrite the sentence which begins, "The appalling truth...". The Fumble rule here is vicious, but so were the skewed casualty figures in ancient battles: refer any doubters in this regard to me for facts to back it up (makes Desert Storm look like a fair fight!). Craft Alchemy by the back passage. Out on it! We do not want Blade Venom, Scorpion Antidote, Grampus Gas Balls and the like back in RQ. Get this rubbish out of my favorite rules system. Hawking An art, not a craft. But more importantly, who in Dara Happa apart from the nobles do you think has the leisure to participate in this sport? The slaves? The women?? The skill should be listed as "uncommon, rather than rare, among nobles in Dara Happa", or common if you prefer, but not this ludicrous broad-brush approach. Custom [Culture] As for Dance [Culture], only more so. You betray the callous contempt of the cultural anthropologist in your comment that this vital social skill can "default within very similar cultures". Do you imagine for so much as an instant that a Praxian could survive one minute in a Pentan camp without mortally offending his hosts, or that his rigorous adherence to Praxian mores would make him somehow more acceptable to them? The swell-headed belief that "all primitive cultures are the same" has NO PLACE in RuneQuest, and should go out of the window at once. If we make this mistake in a game-world rich in contrasting cultures, what hope is there for the rest of the world? Also, you need to define the difference between Neighboring and Alien cultures more carefully: there are some which fall into a gap in between the two. For example, if I am a Sartarite, the people of Tarsh are my Neighbours, but the non-Neighboring people of Aggar are not Alien to me (sharing the same pantheon). Give it another try. Lore [Various] See my discussion of the benefits of an INTx1% base chance in all Lore skills, next to the Knowledge Modifier rules above. Also, can you write out a good definition of what you mean by Gloranthan, Magic, and Cult Lore. And get rid of Lock Lore: people who want it will add it to the game anyway without needing your encouragement. Martial Arts You need to emphasise how rare this skill is, remove it from the character sheet, and have a boxed article next to it in the far-removed Exotic Skills section where it ends up, explaining what schools of Martial Arts exist in far Kralorela. Nobody else gets it, of course. Greg now denies that Morocanth teach it (his M.A. Morocanth character was a one-off), and Sandy says Pelorian Martial Arts were a mistake. Terrain Types Define these: explain the difference between Broken and Rough terrain, then work out which one is Hilly and call it that. Where in Glorantha do you find Arctic terrain? (answer: in the Hero Plane/Outer World, where normal RuneQuest rules don't apply). Also, can you tell me how skill at surviving in Plains will help you in the Desert? Split up Woods and Jungle so people who don't know what a Jungle is won't have to keep on reading about one on their character sheet; I'm prepared to believe that the skills required to survive in each are different. And a good gamemaster will pro-rate for similar terrain types well enough. Treat Disease "Victims of mild diseases only need attention one hour per day" (NOT one day per week). Drive [Vehicle] Second paragraph should begin, "Three basic Drive skills exist..." The third paragraph ought to require a roll against Drive skill for every day on the road, just as Ride skill, March skill, and the like demand: failure can cause problems (slow travel, damaged wheels, knackered beasts of burden, and the like). Play [Instrument] I can provide you with the text for a box on elemental associations with musical instruments, if you want a Gloranthan context for this skill. Lip Read Urgh. Do we need this? Smell Mention herd beasts rather than timinits (we don't know what they are: exotica). New Attack Skills Remove these to the Martial Arts ghetto in an Exotic Skills and Weapons supplement to tear out and throw away. Emphasise how rare and exotic they are, then never use them or allow them to be used in sensible gaming. Convincing Asylius I hate this kind of list, which makes a single skill roll into the apparent crux of the adventure. Of course the players will get what they deserve; don't mislead new gamemasters into thinking that this kind of clap-trap is desirable in a scenario write-up. You don't do it; I don't do it; nobody normal does it. Why encourage it? Complementary Skills A nice little mechanic for making people think how they do what they do. I like it. Availability of Skill Training No, not the Thieves Guild! Get rid of this twaddle at once: it does your intelligence no credit. I don't believe there is anything useful in this list except the warning about unusual skills, which would be better delivered by removing them from the main body of the game system to an isolated peninsula. ((Kick Parry??)) The rest is entirely obvious and pathetically simple-minded. In a game which includes a good system for character generation within profession, why do you think this kind of list is necessary? If you want to know who uses a skill, you can go to the front of the book and find out. Languages Long overdue increase in base skill. Don't forget the separate area for Language skills on the character sheet. Also, consider the fact difference between alphabetic and ideographic scripts when deciding how Read/Write should work. There are far fewer scripts than languages in the world; some of them cannot be read unless you can also speak the language somewhat, while others have no correlation between written characters and spoken words. Other languages have no native written form. A boxed article on this would be a great leap forward in Gloranthan studies: mention Yelmic hieroglyphs, Esrolite cuneiform, the cursive New Pelorian hand, and the archetypal Orlanthi runic alphabet and you're in my good books. New Skills Presumably the first paragraph of this was written by a new developer, and not by whoever it was who added all the new and useless skills to RQ4. Skill Decay If a character isn't in use, I don't want to waste time crippling him still further. Neglect is the worst fate I can imagine for him. This rule is useless and should be abandoned.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13788; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:50:58 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29338; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:50:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:02 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 2 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:42:49 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Game System Skill vs Skill In combat, we are prepared to accept that a successful Dodge evades a successful Attack (i.e: that the status quo prevails if both rolls succeed). Why add a third (resistance) roll to force a result in every other case of skill vs skill resulting in a tie? Active vs Passive Example Replace "sneak across a nightingale floor" with "sneak through dry underbrush", or anything else that player characters have some chance of doing in normal life (outside of dungeon bashes). I've never met a nightingale floor in all my years of role-playing, and wouldn't know what to do with one if I did. Why start new players on the wrong track? POW Gain Rolls I hate POW gain rolls. They unbalance every RQ campaign against every other, as no two GMs concur on when to allow them, how frequent they should be, etc. Also, players distort their characters' behaviour in order to earn them: worse than with other "skill checks", as the potential reward is higher. I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in general, and go the Pendragon way. Any active character under age 35 gets a free point per year in any characteristic of his or her choice (other than SIZ after age 21); priests/shamans/ wizards would get an extra point of POW on top of this. Coupled with automatic characteristic losses for major (maiming) wounds [-1 STR if chest, CON if abdomen, SIZ if legs, INT if head, DEX if arms wounded by 2x basic location hit points] this would add fluidity and individual variety to the game. (Note also that if "one-use" Rune magic becomes one use per year, as suggested below, the need for constant POW gains is largely evaporated). Skill Training and Research Remove EVERY option to take a fixed increase instead of a die roll. If we are afraid of being unlucky, why do we role-play with dice at all? These ludicrous opt-outs distend the rules and provide shelter for whining cowards. Be firm: let them grow up, or drop out! Weight Loss Why do you lose current and original CON points for gaining or losing too much weight? This seems odd to me. Is there a reason, or did it just seem like a good idea at the time? (For example, as False SIZ doesn't add to hit points, the fatter you are the less injury you can take. Maybe this is why you needed the armour rules criticised below). Characters should just subtract any positive Weight Modifier from STR for encumbrance purposes, rather than literally "carrying around" the extra flab. This simplifies record-keeping and is essentially similar (as one point of STR can carry 5 ENC); why be pedantic? I dislike immensely your rule giving out +1 AP per four points of False SIZ. This makes Weights of +4, +8, +12 into threshold values. I would prefer to give out no bonus at all: let the fatties suffer! But then I'm a slimline 12.5 stone myself, and biased by it. If fat gives no armour but takes away no hit points, it's pretty nicely balanced. You might even allow weight modifier to increase or decrease hit points by itself, to compensate for the CON loss you want to impose. (In your example, you forget to mention that Fatstaff the Merchant will lose a hit point for his sickening over-indulgence: NOT a trivial point). Results of Damage I think dying of thirst or starvation would be among the last of my worries if I was unconscious with a head wound. This looks intensely silly, and should be changed: bleeding to death or dying from exposure are far more immediate risks. Fatigue In general, this system is greatly preferable to the RQ3 nightmare (did anyone really use it?) A few glitches or needless complexities are discussed below. Mounted Characters Cut the long-winded "half total ENC" method; replace it with the quick and simple "plus one to Fatigue class". What does "exact" mean in these circumstances? Fumbles These become far too common with weary or exhausted characters having 10- 20%+ chances to fumble. I'd suggest adding 1% to the fumble chances of tired, 2% for weary, or 4% for exhausted characters. Still tough, but not so ludicrously dangerous. Sancta Simplicitas "When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate (and any amount moved beyond that) by the appropriate percentage for the terrain... Modifiers are cumulative... Arlia will have to make another fatigue roll every 0.11 kilometers..." I rest my case. Write proper movement rules that you don't need a calculator to use. Exposure, Hunger, Sleeplessness, Thirst, and Other Slow Deaths Tedious and mechanical rules to replace gamemaster fiat. A paragraph saying that the GM can play around with fatigue, hit points, healing rates and so on to suit himself would be more economical. I can't see anything wrong with your methods, but they remind me of the good old underwater brontosaurus tail-lash rules from RQ3: anyone who needed them would be able to work out a system that was better for the one-off occasion when they were needed. And do you really think you could lose 6 HP for going one day without a drink? Your mechanism is trying to kill people after three or four days, not examine how they feel after one or two - which is by far the more common occurrence. 1d3 HP off for one day without. Combat I hate hex grid combat systems. They upset anyone who can role-play without artificial aids: maps, counters, figures and all the other paraphernalia of a misspent youth. I would prefer it greatly if all the references to RQ combat on a hex grid were removed from the body of the rules and collated in an 8-page booklet (like the old Charts & Tables book). Players who use a hex grid will be pleased as they will need to refer to it constantly to sort out trifling arguments that don't bother proper role-players; we, on the other hand, will be able to store it with our Monster Coliseum racetrack maps as another addition to the rare field of RQ forgettabilia, and carry on playing the way we always did. I hate strike ranks, but you've already read about that. 3. Cast Spell Why should an adventurer who backs up a Rune spell with magic points have to delay casting it? His god is taking the power from him as the spell comes through: he is not manipulating it as a spirit magician or blaspheming sorceror might. This looks odd and feels wrong to me. 7. Miscellaneous Action Which perception skills are you including in the category of "most" which can be used in combat at half skill? Taste? Track? Balance? It seems to me that Scan skills (including Earth- or Darksense variants) and Listen are the only ones that could reasonably be used. Zero Action Options Last on the list should read as follows: "Speaking briefly (up to seven words; speaking more would require an action)". Communicating via Mindspeech or Mindlink should of course be listed AFTER this, as it's presumably less commonly done. Counting words is an infantile pastime that takes more time to referee than the actual speaking does: let them speak within reason for one action, rather than insisting on 7/14/21 word sentences. Maneuver Skill Horrible and unnecessary. This should either expand to fill the rules and eventually replace the DEXx5% roll, the DEX characteristic itself, the Strike Rank system, and any similar concepts, or else it should be killed at once. What can this do that a DEXx5% roll can't? Critical Hits Critical hits are too vicious: enhanced special damage, plus some more, through all armour and magic: why not just kill the guy outright? Oh yes, you need these so you can fight Dream Dragons and Crimson Bats, do you? Well, you should go into fights like that relying on something a bit less chancy than a critical hit to bail you out of trouble... Special Hits, Special Options, and Optional Location Effects Wonderful to see slashes and crushes back in play. Maybe you should run the impale/slash/crush rules together with the Special Options (feint/flurry/weave/etc.) as other special options in their own right: as you can't do special damage and use a special option at the same time, it makes no real difference, but does force weapon users to consider their fighting style more closely. The location effects look fine. Specific examples of which Gloranthan cultures prefer which Special Options are a must: perhaps you could list all the most common Dragon Pass weapon and option combinations, and explain where the others come from? Otherwise this is another "generic" rule that will end up dividing campaigns from one another. Is there really no DEX requirement to Feint? A Flurry should depend on STR alone (the Airy characteristic), and not have a wimpish DEX opt-out clause tagged on to encourage weedy emulators of my Orlanthi prowess. Why doesn't Weave have a Maneuver prerequisite? Answer: because Maneuver skill is a mechanic that doesn't fit into the game system! And why has DEX 13 become so important all of a sudden? It's like living in RQ2 again: thresholds, thresholds everywhere! Dodging by Large Creatures In what sense is an attack "directed at" a location of a large creature? If you're trying to say that humans only hit the nearest bits of giants (attacking limbs if attacked), and likewise rubble runners and humans, why not say so? This rule is sensible but unclear. Rewrite it. "High Ground on Horseback" Call the advantage of "high ground" an advantage of height: it's more generally applicable. Weapons List Glad to see your javelins have caught up with mine at last! Remove the naginata, shuriken, kukri et al. from the basic weapon list and rules examples. Where we come from nobody uses them; where they come from the gamemaster has already put enough time and effort into designing a campaign to create his own weapons list as well. Also, call a shortsword a shortsword, a javelin a javelin, and find some non-academic term for "composite bow" - horn bow, back bow, double bow, anything but this horrible technical term that almost kills the game for me each time I see it used. I am a great fan of culturally-specific weapons lists; if the RQ4 table was broken up into Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, Civilized and Exotic weapons I'd be a happy man (and players would produce more reasonably-equipped characters). Overlapping Armour Your new rules (halve the value of what's underneath) look good to me.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13842; Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:51:48 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29370; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:51:50 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Nick's Comments, part 1 Date: 07 Jun 93 17:43:59 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here we go: this is what I had to say about RQ4 last September. Of course, if I'd ever heard anything back, I'd have had some rethinks since then. But that's the way it goes... Och, comments are addressed to the authors, so you guys may find it a little chatty or informal at times. But that's the way I work best. ______________ RuneQuest Four ______________ Comments from Nick Brooke I gained access to a copy of this draft courtesy of Steve Thomas and the Tales of the Reaching Moon crew, and hope my comments will be the kind of thing you're looking for. As requested, there are comments and queries on specific rules, on the general concepts that seem to underlie RQ4 in its present state, and on possible improvements in presentation or contents. These generally follow the order of the draft I have, for your editing convenience. A lot of the suggested changes come from my own "RQ3.5" house rules, which have been more thought about and worked with than playtested, so I can't guarantee what will happen in the hands of other gamemasters. So we're all in the same boat, as far as that goes. On with the show: General Comments Why do you use "1d6" where the RQ3 rules use "1D6"? More to the point, why use "RQIII" where RQ3 uses "RQ3"? You're also sloppy about "statistic" where the rules say "characteristic". This is a contamination from other games, and should be stamped out. You use uncommon and exotic examples in what should be the basic Gloranthan rule book: nightingale floors, Oriental weapons and martial arts, Krarshtkids and timinits, gods from the Southern Continent. If you purge all these references, the game will be more approachable. I feel certain that the appeal of Glorantha derives largely from the published and detailed regions of Dragon Pass and Prax; far less is attributable to the outlandish exotica. Players' Book Damage Modifier Your revised table keeps die rolls for damage modifier, and introduces fiddly "two-sided die" rolls which MOST characters will have to use in combat. I don't like the thought of this. Why not replace these with a straight addition based on STR+SIZ? You could further simplify matters by changing weapon damage to remove the fixed element: where in previous editions of RQ a sword has done 1D8+1 damage, it could now do 1D8 plus an average man's +1 damage modifier. (A complete revised and simplified weapon table follows). The damage modifiers table would look something like this: STR+SIZ Dam.Mod 01-04 -4 05-08 -3 09-12 -2 13-16 -1 17-20 0 21-24 +1 25-28 +2 29-32 +3 33-36 +4 (or +1D6) 37-40 +5 (or +1D6+1) 41-44 +6 (or +1D6+2) 45-48 +7 (or +1D6+3) 49-52 +8 (or +2D6) 53-56 +9 (or +2D6+1) each +6 +1 (etc...) If the sum of STR+SIZ is 57 or more, you can simply divide by six and round halves up to find the bonus: nice and simple. Some random element will probably be needed at the upper end of the scale, (e.g: replacing every +4 with +1D6 instead, as suggested above), but for normal-sized people this should be just fine. New Rules For Movement If we do away with Strike Ranks, as suggested below, there's the possibility of expanding the different movement rates of different characters. Note that I use yards = metres in gaming, and have not changed to metric for this so you can recognise mechanics that alter yours. A character's walking move, in yards per twelve seconds, is equal to his SIZ+DEX. This is the rate commonly used when moving outdoors on familiar ground. When travelling at this speed, perception rolls are allowed only at half chance, and rough ground may cause stumbling. This is also the maximum speed usually possible indoors. Walking move is the base from which the others are calculated, and is reduced by Encumbrance and Fatigue. His alert move is equal to a third of this rate. This is the speed characters use when in combat, or sneaking, or searching an area. Perception rolls are made as needed, and the character is being careful where he puts each foot. Running movement is equal to three times the walking move (four times for quadrupeds). This speed should only be attempted in emergencies, as it is tiring and the character has little chance of noticing events around him, or reacting to the surface he is running over. Running indoors is not normally possible. This rule was written with 12-second melee rounds, but I hope we'll be keeping those in. Conversion of old spell speeds/movement rates: 1 metre/Strike Rank = six yards/round. Skills Category Modifiers Knowledge Skills Modifier This will be more useful if unaffected by POW (which affects too many skills as it is), as if we revert to the RQ3 Knowledge Modifier [INT = Primary; no others], and increase base chance in Lore skills from 5% to 10%, there is no longer any need to list these skills on the character sheet: 10% base + Knowledge Modifier in a Lore skill is equal to an INTx1% roll. The character sheet can have a blank five lines or so in the skill section headed Lores, and the player can write in any that his character develops. (I hate having 0%-base or low-base skills all over my character: if he doesn't care about them, I don't want to see them. Please take Martial Arts and Shiphandling off the RQ4 character sheet; also, shift all Language skills [spoken and written] to a separate region so they're all together: cf. the old Games Workshop RQ2 character sheets for an early example of how to do this). This rules change not only clears up the character sheet; it also helps the gamemaster judge how useful a Lore is: if a player wants his character to know something that you wouldn't hand out on an INTx1% roll, apply a skill penalty. If you'd let anyone normal have it on an INTx3% roll, allow him to roll on Lorex3% if that's better. And so on. (Sorry, but I can't be bothered with politically-correct "he or she" or "they" throughout). Magical Skills Modifier Presumably not affected by STR? But you know that already (I hope). Skills Modifiers: an alternative use We all know that altering every skill on the character sheet every time a character makes a POW gain roll, sacrifices for Rune magic, ages, or gains or loses any other characteristic, is one of the most irritating features of the RQ3 system. What's more, skill modifiers as written don't make that much difference between starting characters most of the time. And all characters' skills begin at the same level if they're in the same profession (per RQ3 at least). You could change all this, by saying that skill modifiers work differently when a character is first generated and when he is played. At character generation, a player can roll 1D6 per point of modifier and add (if a positive modifier) or subtract (negative) the result from any of his skills in the appropriate category. The net effect of this is to reduce the overall blanket effect of skill modifiers: most categories have more than "3.5" skills in them; it does, however, allow a character to begin with a natural aptitude for some skills of his choice. Maybe limit this so none go above 75%, or up more than +25%, or double base chance, or whatever (for game balance). And negative modifiers might have to be spread out over all the skills in a category. Thereafter, skill category modifiers do NOT add to skill percentages, only to experience rolls (which is pretty important anyway in RQ3). Perhaps they also affect initial levels in skills with 0% base chance. Whatever, you don't need to alter your whole character sheet (or play by one of those conventions where you "remember to add the bonus/subtract the penalty every time you make a skill roll" [only forgetting when it's a penalty, of course]). What do you think of that? Strike Ranks One of the most clunky and unreasonable mechanisms in every edition of RuneQuest, strike ranks became more so with the change from RQ2 (12 per round) to RQ3 (only 10, thus less differentiation possible). Can't we do away with them altogether? They are practically the last vestige of "threshold" characteristic values (i.e: DEX 16 is disproportionately better than DEX 15), and this will be more of a problem when you allow players to "buy up" deficient characteristics. Spell casting is in an order determined by power: high-cost to low-cost Rune magic, then low-cost to high-cost Spirit and Sorcery. Magic Points backing Rune spells do not add to the time to cast: why should they? Magic Skills Modifier breaks any ties. If you cast a spell, you attack at half your DEX in the normal sequence. Attacks come in descending order of DEX, halved for the second of two "active" options in a turn (i.e: Attack twice, Spell and Attack, Attack and Spell, etc.). Ties are broken by SIZ, higher going first. The exception is, when two characters become engaged for the first time, a defender with a longer weapon always gets to strike first (or fire/throw a ready missile), however low his DEX may be, if he had declared an intention to attack the character who engaged him. Drawing a weapon? Halve your DEX, or subtract two or three or five or whatever seems appropriate. Missile attacks: with any weapon which used to have a variable ROF of "1/SR", you now shoot/throw one with DEX 1-9, 2 with 10-19, and so on up. Yes, it's a threshold again: sorry about that. Moving is an option (like attack/parry/dodge/spell): an unengaged character can move and then engage an opponent, moving up to his "alert" move distance when his DEX is reached in the sequence/countdown: the attack takes place on contact (with the longer-weapon proviso noted above). An engaged character can disengage: he cannot attack during the round, and may move his "alert" move away after all other characters' actions are taken. An unengaged character can walk or run as long as he doesn't move adjacent to any opponent: this movement will occur when the character's DEX is reached. Height and Weight Height is a basic 4'9" plus SIZ in inches; race or species may modify this basic rule, as may player or GM whim. Weight is (SIZ+"False SIZ") x15 lbs; an Orlanthi "stone" is fifteen pounds, not fourteen, so a man's weight in stone equals his SIZ. For ease, 2 lbs = 1 kg (or 1 ENC under RQ3 rules). You're right: I've taken against up-to-date, metrically- inclined characters (and would convert back to talents and cubits if anyone was following). I was working on a system where you used CON-STR to determine a height modifier: characters who were healthy but unfit were given negative height modifiers (a few inches at most) to make them fatter, while lean wiry types got a plus to their height (so they were taller and thinner). Here are the bare bones: 2D6 BUILD CON - STR Mod. 1- Obese, -3" height -12 or less +4 2-3 Fat, -2" height -8 to -11 +2 4-5 Stocky, -1" height -4 to -7 +1 6-8 Average, no change -3 to +3 0 9-10 Slender, +1" height +4 to +7 -1 11-12 Thin, +2" height +8 to +11 -2 13+ Skinny, +3" height +12 or more -4 Now, of course, you'd turn a positive height modifier into a negative "False SIZ" and vice versa. "False SIZ" should be called "Weight Modifier" for simplicity: as it'll never be listed separately on the character sheet (we'll see "SIZ 15+2", not "SIZ 15, False SIZ +2) this makes no difference and a lot of sense. More on this later. Character Generation Arlia is lucky to have POW 10 and CON 15. This makes her look good when rules which require you to divide POW by 5 or 30 by CON come up. Rurik, with POW 12 and CON 16 would make the rules look more clunky. So will most player characters. Rules examples should be simple, but not deceptively so: showing how the easiest of all possible characters gets through generation will not help those who lack her natural advantages (and will find themselves dealing in 0.05's of a characteristic point). Several "bitty" points here; more will follow when I use the rules for the first time. General Note You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. Magical Background The effect of your "base price for buying Rune spells" (one fifth of current POW in character points) is, of course, that high-POW characters will have the least starting Rune magic. Rules-realistic it may be, in view of POW gain rolls (another mechanic I abhor); world-realistic it isn't, as any fule kno. Also you'll have problems with rules-accountants wanting to spend POW on spells, then buy more spells on the cheap, then spend character points building POW up again. Easier to avoid this by charging a flat one or two character points per point of starting Rune magic (which also keeps 1/5ths of character points out of the system, clashing horribly with the 1/4ths already there in the Spirit Magic system). Characteristic Increases Can anyone explain why INT should not be increasable with time and study, like any other characteristic? And don't use science, IQ studies et al, as Glorantha isn't a scientific world. A common man's perceptions tell him that long studies make you more brainy; if the Gloranthan man believes this, then it's the way the world works. (I don't need to remind you that the world is also flat, and the sun goes round it: is "fixed intelligence" more important to us than either of these?). Sure, make it expensive, but it might as well be possible. Cultural Background Why do Civilized characters get +40 and Nomad characters +80 to their basic skill %ages? A more even-handed approach would avoid having other people ask this question when the game's out. And don't forget, everything is relative. Sorcery Starting spell-casting and skill chances seem very high compared to RQ3, but I'll say no more as I don't know what else you're doing to the system. Cultural Equipment Give specific Genertelan cultures' weapon selections rather than the "generic" lists here at present. Also, rename Bezainted armour as Studded Leather: there is no Byzantium in Glorantha. (Sog City isn't quite the same). And reintroduce some of the "whimsical" items of professional equipment into the profession lists; I was sorry to see them gone. Some Religions (Initiate) The list of "some religions" is annoying; replace it with a real one, broken down by cultures. In its present form it simply will not do. Apart from the above comments, this looks like a sound (though slightly dehumanizing) system. I worry about the sweeping classification of skills (30-45-60-75-90), but probably too much. I dare say this will work better than the rigid or loose RQ3 systems. Well done!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15326; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:34:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01232; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:34:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:34:55 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:34:27 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Regarding my proposed Background Skills/Benefits system: david gadbois writes: >> that it needs is an extra dimension of ability for each category, so >> that you can buy a beginner, skilled, expert, etc, level of competence >> for each profession. That was omitted from my example, but should definitely be there, as should qualifications for buying a package, i.e. must have bought Noble or Soldier before buying Officer, must buy Apprentice Smith 10 times before buying Guildsman, etc. There should be packages such as Levy Militia, Trained Militia, Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, NCO, Officer, ..., Apprentice Smith, Smith, Master Smith, Guildsman, Official, ... With requirements such as: NCO: Soldier(any type) or Battle @ 15% Officer: Noble or NCO or 1000 Lunars to buy commission --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16030; Mon, 7 Jun 93 17:59:53 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01799; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:59:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:59:58 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:56:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The idea of "Smaller Packages" that provide qualifications for later packages seems kinda-sorta like Warhammer. I never played WH, but thumbed through it a while back and liked the concept. So, rather then (how many is it now?) the large packages with zillions of options, each package would be smaller with a set of skills and maybe 1 or two options. You could then go into the Guards for a term or two, then take some time with the night watch to up skills used by them. Then you can leave and become a thug, or a mercenary, since you have the training required. I take it each package would list the professions you may enter next (or add to your list of possibilities) like in WH? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16323; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:11:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02148; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:11:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:11:09 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:07:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Question: Are there any runes NOT mentioned in any RQ3 product that existed in RQ2? Paul mentions the implicit Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave collar for Ompalam, which implies a Slavery rune. What I'm getting at, are there "Missing Runes"? And if so, should we add more? Slavery makes a nice balance to Mastery, Fate balances Luck, etc. The classic "elements" have opposites, so should there not be balances to other runes? I figure Harmony is opposite of disorder (not Law), with Law the opposite of Chaos. Only the truly "Big Guns" runes have no opposites: Infinity, for example. That's why it takes so much effort to master them...look at it as a lever pushed up on the ends by the force of the rune...with nothing to counteract Infinity, you have an "incline". -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16958; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:35:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02715; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:55 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 1 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:33:36 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Following Nick's lead, here is the compilation of my opinions on RQ4. Some are as Ollie originally saw them. Others are edited to reflect my new opinions. PROFESSIONS The profession creation rules are acceptable, though minimal. I hope they'll be easier to use once typeset than they are now. I would like to see a supplemental list of professions, with such character types as: assassin; samurai (noble with high weapon skill); and weapon-artist. By the way, I hope everybody realizes that the present direction of development will transform RQ from a simplistic skill based system with improvement based on skill use to a complex class and skill hybrid system with experience points (with a strong resemblance to RoleMaster), and that this might alienate a LOT of RQ players. I think this could be alleviated in part if the professions weren't so all inclusive. For instance, there's no reason a character with the noble profession needs to have a primary weapon. Especially if he's a simpering plutocratic wimp, he might hire bodyguards to do all the tough work. If he wants to have a primary weapon, then let him also take the honorary officer of the town guard profession (foot or mounted soldier, to be exact). This would also go a long way towards simplifying the problem of buying back skills when you have multiple professions, and it would get rid of a funny problem people noted in RQ3 and RQ4, that expert farmers are expert fighters too. COMMENT, BRING BACK CHARISMA [Quoting James Wadsley, but I agree 100%. --LJM] I think that turning Charisma into Appearance has really removed a useful part of the game from Runequest. I think, also, that most people like to overlook the fact that attractive people do better. For this reason, APP is made secondary. In reality, especially in less informed times, people are judged solely on their looks in many circumstances. For example, when choosing the next Runelord or High Priest ( when places are limited ), I would think that APP ( or more appropriately Charisma ) would be the major factor. Get rid of APP. Get rid of the Charisma component of POW. Power is too important anyway. Bring back Charisma!!! CHARACTERISTIC INCREASE RQ2 limited STR and CON to the maximum of SIZ, STR, and CON. Presumably this was so that you couldn't just raise your STR or CON to 21. But under the new RQ4 rules the maximum scores are 1.5 times the original score. Isn't it time we got rid of the Str/Con/Siz cap and just went with the max at 1.5 original? You would have to train both SIZ and CON up to 21 to get 21 HP, which means both would have to start at 14 or over. Same deal with STR and SIZ for damage bonus. I also agree with Nick that INT increases should be allowed. They were a necessity for the RQ3 sorcery rules. Not having them reduces your flexibility. If you don't want to allow them in your campaign, don't, but don't pretend that nobody will allow INT to increase. Set a viable cost and play the game. COMMENTS ON TYPES OF DAMAGE I was reading over the new rules and noticed the healing section rules changes, which appear to have been inspired by the non- lethal combat rules in Tales of the Reaching Moon #6. They are interesting, but misplaced, and I don't think they go far enough. By the way, your other combat modifications make combat very complex. Not everybody likes to run wargame-style combat. Can you make some of the new rules optional so we can have a simple set of core combat rules? The Natural Healing section said that half the damage inflicted by soft or light blunt weapons is short term damage, and half real damage, short term damage fading away quickly. Also, padded weapons and friendly grappling are only one fourth real damage, the rest being short term. The problem with these rules, which are a really good idea, is they have a *major* effect on the game and are very ill-defined, the referee has too little guidance on how to interpret them. Try the following on for size. Add this as an optional rule in "Results of Combat: Damage" [PB p.49]. 1. most weapons do lethal damage. this is the normal, long-term damage that we're used to in RQ. damage heals at 1D3 points per hit location per week, if you make a health roll. All slashing and impaling weapons, and blunt weapons of 1 Enc or more, cause lethal damage. 2. semi-lethal damage. this is half long-term damage (round down), and half short-term damage (round up) which heals at 1D3 points per hit location per 5 minutes if resting, 1D3-1 if not resting. semi-lethal damage is inflicted by natural attacks like punches, kicks, head butts, grapples, throws (except on rocks), by padded weapons of SR 0 or 1, and by light blunt weapons (less than 1 Enc). 3. non-lethal damage. this is one fourth long-term damage (round down), and three fourths short-term damage (round up). non-lethal damage is inflicted by padded weapons of SR 2 or 3, or when opponents Fight Fair. 4. play. this is all short term damage, and is done by toy weapons like pillows, wet towels, and food. :-) Also describe short-term and long-term (normal) damage in the Healing section. NEW SKILL, FIGHT FAIR: Along the same lines, most non-aggressive people fight fair when they fight at all. They attempt to minimize the permanent damage that their attacks do. Thus, they attempt to hit where it won't break bones or cause long term bleeding. This can be simulated by adding a knowledge skill "Fight Fair" (aka Peaceful Arts, Brawling, Play Fighting, Roughhousing, Sport Fighting), which reduces by one the level of lethality of attacks. For instance, Honorius the Hoplite knows Punch at 64% and Fight Fair at 58%. In a friendly brawl, he attacks Gareth the Gaul and rolls a 24, which turns his attack from a semi-lethal into a non-lethal attack, reducing the proportion of permanent damage to total damage from 1/2 to 1/4. His damage roll is 8 for 8 hit points, of which 6 points are short-term damage and 2 points are long-term damage. The next turn, he rolls a 62, succeeding at Punch but not at Fight Fair. Another damage roll inflicts 6 points of damage, 3 of which are short-term damage and 3 long-term damage. This rule gets rid of one problem I have with the stunning rules as they stand. If you critical hit then you do full damage instead of reduced damage, thus you get the opposite result from what you intended. IMHO, critical hits should be extremely *good* results, meaning that you did what you meant to do very well. Thus, a critical hit when attempting to subdue someone should not accidentally kill them. Accidents should occur on bad rolls, not good ones. If we used a Fight Fair skill instead, situations like this, which change the meaning of a critical hit from good to bad, would not happen. COMMENT, MARTIAL ARTS Also, if we implement this skill, we might as well get rid of Martial Arts at the same time. Martial Arts is a broken skill, imho. It attempts to make martial artists dangerous by making their punches do about as much damage as a light mace, and their kicks compare favorably to bastard swords. But this isn't the way that martial arts work in the real world, at least from my limited experience and that of my friends. Martial Arts training teaches several things. It doesn't simply teach how to break bricks. 1. How to fall. This is Acrobatics skill, or perhaps Dodge. 2. How to fight fair. This is the Fight Fair skill, above. It includes how to pull attacks, how to stop attacks short of full contact, and other ways that keep students and teachers alive. If you attack successfully, and simultaneously succeed with the Fight Fair skill, you reduce the lethality of the attack by one, from lethal to semi-lethal to non- lethal to play. A special success at Fight Fair will reduce the attack two lethality classes. A critical success reduces by three lethality classes (any damage to Play). Society usually expects people to fight fair unless they are at war and will usually punish those who do not. 3. How to punch hard. This is a twist of the wrist that maximizes the force of a punch. Still, boxers learn it, as does everybody who learns how to fight from an instructor, so I don't think it is the obscure knowledge skill known in RQ as Martial Arts. Instead, I suspect that a full strength punch, which strikes its target without being deflected, does about 3 HP plus damage bonus in RQ terms. 4. How to fight dirty (aka street fighting, self-defense). This is the converse of the Fight Fair skill, above. If you attack successfully with a semi-lethal, non-lethal, or play weapon, and simultaneously succeed with a Fight Dirty skill, then you increase the lethality of the weapon by one, from play to non-lethal to semi-lethal to lethal. A special success moves up two lethality classes. A critical success moves up three lethality classes. 5. Where to hit. Martial Arts teach advanced students (black belt or higher) how to target weak points, pressure points. *This* is the semi-magical skill which, imho, the RQ Martial Arts skill was intended to emulate. Let's replace Martial Arts with a Pressure Points skill. The description would say that a martial artist that aims at a specific location and hits it with *any* weapon or hand attack, simultaneously succeeding with Martial Arts, increases the severity of the hit by one, shifting the attack from normal to special, or special to critical, success. Whatever this skill is called, it should be a very hard knowledge skill with a prerequisite of anatomy or First Aid at 60% or more. COMBAT EFFECTS I agree with Nick that Criticals are too severe. Criticals were good enough in RQ2. There they either ignored armor or doubled in effect. RQ3 boosted their power, making them ignore armor and do full damage. I think this is more than you need. It makes criticals instant kills. If you want them to be instant kills, then call them instant kills. But I don't want instant kill rules based on lucky strikes in my game. That's what the damage roll is for. I'll take "nice shot" rules based on luck, though, like those in RQ2. Anyway, the RQ4 rules are way too severe. Also, combine all the special effects of attacks into one list. Then say "If you intend to perform a special action, then declare it before you make your attack roll. If the attack is a special success, then you may apply the special attack. For instance, you could declare ahead of time that you wanted to trip your opponent with your spear. A normal success would just do normal damage, which could be reduced if you were pulling your blow. A special or critical success means you trip your opponent, rather than sticking your spear clean through his chest as under the old RQ rules. If you do not declare beforehand, a special attack with a pointed weapon will impale, a cutting weapon will knockback, and a bashing weapon will knockback." COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS, FATIGUE After using them in a session last night, I have to say I really, really, really, Really *like* the new fatigue rules, both longterm and shortterm. However, the rules aren't as clear as they should be on them, and playing them isn't very easy right now, for a couple of reasons. 1. the rules for traveling and long-term fatigue loss and recovery are separated in the notes from the rules for exposure, lack of water, and lack of food. They should be together. Make one section for Travel, and put the long-term fatigue rules in there, along with all other rules for travel on the daily or weekly scale. There should probably be notes on hunting for provisions, as well. [This was already implemented and added in the Draft 2.0 Rules. That's why the world rules and travel rules got combined, because I tried to use them and couldn't find them. --LJM] 2. the character sheet needs a section for fatigue classes. I think it should also include a summary of the rules, so that a character who is told his fatigue class went down to Exhausted knows the exact game effects. I know we don't yet have an official one-page character sheet for RQIV, but it will need this section. [I have a character sheet for RQ4, fitting my suggestions, that I can send if you all want to see it. It's in PostScript --LJM] -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16970; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:35:58 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02718; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:35:59 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 2 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:35:24 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here's the second bunch of them. EXPERIENCE METHODS i tried using the experience methods given in the new rules and must say i don't particularly like them. i never had a problem with check frenzy, which is the problem that the two experience methods are supposed to fix, so i don't see the need for them. i also don't like experience point systems, which is basically what the new systems are. finally, i don't think it's a good idea to make such a total break from the earlier experience systems in rq 1-3. i would prefer if the new rules used the old experience system, with suggestions on how to avoid skill check frenzy, and perhaps gave one of the new methods as an option. of course, this also would force a change in the easy/medium/hard/very hard skill structure. Perhaps they should simply have extra bonuses or penalties to skill rolls, like steve maurer's idea in maurer heroquest? On reflection, I'd like to see only one difficulty level for skills. Get rid of all the multileveled skills and all the skills that encompass other skills. This is not elegant, guys. This is a mess. This done, you may suggest that when rolling for skill increases you can only roll for 10 skills or so. I think that my objection to a limited number of skill increase rolls sprang from the overly restrictive number and from the "rules weenie feel" I got when this rule was combined with the multiple level of difficulty rule. SKILL CHECK FRENZY Frankly, I don't have a big problem with skill check frenzy. I would prefer if the RQ4 draft rules gave a couple options for GMs so that they could use the old fashioned skill check rules if they wanted or the new ones, with X checks at the end of the adventure, if that's what they wanted. However, I think the number of skill increases recommended in the rules is far too low. A single increase roll for a hard skill (costs 3 experience points) after a short adventure is far too little a reward for some campaigns. In some campaigns you want the characters to advance very quickly, because their beginning threats are dangerous but the ultimate opponents are awesome, so you want them to advance more quickly than the "one skill roll per week" norm. Also, from the GM's POV I hate experience point systems. I want experience to be mechanical. That's one of the primary reasons I run RQ rather than some other game. The others are the POW vs POW table and the SR system, hit locations, and the use of SIZ. MODIFICATION, CONTESTS OF SKILL, THE AGON The rules in the second playtest version are a good start. The problem I see with them is they are statistically almost identical to the following, except they require an extra roll. So why not strike a blow for elegance and cut out the extra roll with the following rules? I can't find the actual rules in the draft right now, so please expand to "officialese" language. Sometimes one character must pit his skill against a skilled opponent who wants to prevent him from succeeding. For instance, Cormac may want to hide from the senator's guards who are searching the villa grounds after a hue and cry alerted them to an assault in the street outside, or Nikolas may want to pick a lock devised by a master locksmith. In all such situations the "contest of skills" is resolved by rolling for success for both sides. If one side succeeds and the other doesn't, or if one side has a better level of success than the other (special versus normal success, critical versus special, etc) then the side with the better level of success (or failure) prevails. If the contestants succeed equally, both succeeding, criticaling, or failing, then the one who succeeds by more, or fails by less, is the winner. Ties go to the active skill, not to the resistive one. In case of special or critical success, count the margin from the chance to attain a level of success, not from the total skill. Example For instance, Cormac is hidden behind a hanging in a chamber when a guard sticks a torch in and peeks into the room. Cormac's Hide skill is 49 and he rolls a 23 for a success with a margin of 26. The guard Scans the room and rolls 1 against his skill of 57---a critical success. A critical success is a higher level of success than a normal success, and so the guard wins the contest of skills. The guard spots Cormac and orders him out. Is this the end for our Celtic friend? Later, after having escaped from the guard, Cormac finds himself in the garden and must hide once again from a team of five guards who are scouring the villa for him. He ducks into some bushes and rolls a 3, which is a special success. The guards search the garden and luckily none of them roll special successes. Cormac breathes in relief as they march out. But then they march back in with a captain at their head. He orders them to search the garden again, and scans for any sign of an intruder. Once again the rank and file fail to find Cormac, but the captain rolls a 11 against his Scan skill of 78, a special success. Now we must check the margins of success. Cormac's chance to roll a special success was 10%, so he had a margin of 7. The captain's chance was 16, giving him a margin of 5. Cormac wins the contest of skills and the guards leave the garden to search for him elsewhere. His nerves shot, Cormac climbs over the wall, cutting his hands on the embedded glass, and runs away. end Example When an active character is trying to overcome a skill that has already been used, the referee should determine the total skill of the person who made the item and roll, or simply decide on the level of success and the margin. For instance a lock may be of Special 7 quality, meaning that the lockpicker must beat a special success with a margin of 7 to pick the lock. This will add lots of non-magical but still exceptional items to the wise referee's campaign. ALTERNATE RULES FOR COMPLEMENTARY SKILLS I also think that RQ needs a way to combine skills, so that if you're good at Scout City and Human Lore then the Human Lore can add to your Scouting skill when you have a chance to combine it. Such a rule has been included, the 1/5th rule. Likewise, we need a way of combining the skills of multiple characters when doing something on which they could cooperate. For instance, when crafting a shoe the master could work on the upper while he instructs his apprentice on how to make the sole. A better example is a ceremony---Nikolas conducts a ceremony with Signy and Cormac helping so that his next enchantment, in which he was planning to spend five Power, doesn't fail. The referee decides that any number of people up to the oratory skill of the leader can assist in a ceremony. Nikolas's Oratory is 38, so he can lead a ceremony with up to 38 participants. The current rules don't have any way of handling the above situations. My suggestion is as follows: Use the 1/5 rule. I originally had a more complex suggestion, but the players seem to like the 1/5 rule. However, encourage people to use it not only with complementary skills, but also with cooperative efforts to do things. Encourage the GM to decide how many people can combine their skills at a task and then determine the task leader. If it succeeds, maybe everybody gets a skill check, and if you keep the experience point rules then it doesn't get abusive either. SUGGESTIONS FOR A CHARACTER SHEET [My version of the RQ4 character sheet does all these things. --LJM] Combination hit location and encumbrance chart. By putting them together you can save space and have a nice visual reference to where your character is stuffing all those extra daggers or whatever. I think this should definitely be in the final sheet. It also allows you to note the strength multiples for encumbrance and fatigue roll determination. Got rid of old style HP and MP charts. With negative HPs possible under the new rules they wouldn't all fit anyway. I'd rather leave a good bit of space for people to write out their wound descriptions than take much more space and fill it with text. Put spaces for important stuff like weapon information, fatigue roll, move, damage bonus, fatigue levels and strike ranks on front sheet. We really need a one page sheet for all the good information. Any game that requires two sheets is too complex, like Chartmaster. Keep it simple. Got rid of a few skills. Note I updated read/write to script as per our discussion on AOL. I also combined throw and catch, I don't see why they should be different. One thing I would like to do is cut back drastically on the number of skills, especially those skills that are included in higher level skills. GMs always have the opportunity to add new skills. We shouldn't force them to use skills like treat poison and treat disease when we can use a more general term like physicker or physician to describe the same activities. Also, the propogation of new skills just adds needless complexity to the game, like the huge piles of new skills added to RoleMaster by every companion. RM is already too complicated, and those skill lists are ridiculous. I hope and pray that the same thing doesn't happen to RQ4. Once again, we need to make sure that the necessary skills can be on a one page character sheet along with everything else that is necessary for the numeric part of the game. JONATHAN TWEET ON SKILLS AND LEVELS OF DIFFICULTY Yes, I hear that the proposed rules complicate skills with different levels of difficulty. I empathize with the desire to make some skill more difficult to learn than others, but RQ needs a clean system to simulate this. Tell me if this system is workable: when rolling for experience, you add your BASE CHANCE to the roll. Like normal, you gain points by rolling over your skill level. This means that you'll be able to increase faster with an easy skill (that has a high base chance, like Jump) and more slowly with a hard skill with a low base chance. And for training, have training time based on the number of points you are above your base chance. Note that I mean the PC's personal base chance, not the base chance for the skill. This system allows one to learn a skill faster if that skill is one you are gifted with (high bonus for that skill category), allows you to progress more quickly with easy skills. Is it worth passing on to the folks behind RQ4? Alternate system: Skills that are particularly easy have a bonus assigned to them, like +5 of +10. This number is added to experience rolls and deducted from your "effective" skill level when determining how long training takes. Hard skills can have -5 or -10. Just write it on the character sheet, and it just slips right in unobtrusively without cluttering up the system. COMMUNICATION SKILLS [These combine my comments with Bryan Maloney's comments on them. --LJM] First, LANGUAGE The Speak Language skills make sense to me. I'd prefer to call them simply "Language" skills, however, and call the read/write skills "Scripts" instead. This clarifies that one allows you to speak and understand the language, and the other allows you to recognise the symbols, read them as words and sentences, and write them so they make sense to others. "Scripts" should apply to the use of a single alphabet, regardless of the languages. This is to reflect the simple fact that standard orthography (spelling) simply did not exist until well after the advent of the printing press. In the hand-written days of writing, one spelled things however one wished (in an alphabetic system). This means that, for example, someone who could write in Latin could also write in German, English, etc. with comparable facility, provided their spoken fluency permitted them to do so. This would mean that one could "write" a language in an inappropriate alphabet if one only spoke it but was not familiar with the correct alphabet--kind of like transliterating Russian or Japanese. For example, I can "write" the following: Ohaio godaimasu. Shto? Ah...Dasvedanya--spasebo. I know what those sentences mean, and I have written them, even though I may know nothing about reading the language in its correct alphabet. The ability to write depends upon the ALPHABETS known and possible associated orthographies rather than upon the languages known. Next, OTHER COMMUNICATION SKILLS My players think, and I agree, that there are too many communication skills right now. I'd like to cut them down to a few, non-overlapping skills. The problem is that all the skills available right now are confusing as the dickens. Not only are they redundant, but it's even hard to remember whether they are communication or knowledge skills (e.g. administrate). Get rid of the morass of communication skills and reduce the basic ones to 3 in number: Oratory, Gossip, and Empathy. Oratory: the leadership ability, ability to lead a crowd of people to do what you want. oration, fast-talking, and other stuff where you let the force of your words and personality overwhelm people to where they acquiesce to your desires (sometimes debate too) Combines Oratory, Fasttalk, and Debate from the current rules. Gossip: the general social ability, ability to get along with people as long as you aren't totally unfamiliar with their culture, no matter what they are doing, drinking, playing troll-ball, etc... conversation, carousing, subtle interrogation, and other situations where you want to be subtle in your means of persuasion, so that people think they thought of your ideas themselves, or where you want to find things out without being obvious. Empathy: the ability to understand the psychology of others. Rurik is in a tavern and an oddball starts getting obnoxious with him. He attempts an Empathy roll to tell if the oddball is just drunk and stupid, or if he's trying to pick a fight for some more sinister reason. Use like the psychology roll in Call of Cthulhu. Also used to detect obvious lies. and then a few specialist ones: Courtesan: self explanatory Bargain: the art of bargaining. Buy low, sell high. Also used, with Empathy, for Bribery. Finally, something to give those people who get several different social abilities an advantage over those who only want to buy Oratory or Intimidate and use it for everything... Contacts. Either modify the area knowledge type skills to include contacts, or allow one contact per point, or something like that. Contacts are core part of the newer, roleplaying intensive point based game systems, and RQ shouldn't ignore a good idea just because somebody else thought of it first. Third, SCRIPTS This is the kind of thing that I would give to my players to explain how scripts worked. I never wrote it for my Stormbringer game, as the implications were fairly apparent to the players. I've also put in the 30/60/90 stuff (levels of mastery) we were talking about. Script: Scripts in use in Genertela include: Western, Pelorian, and Orlanthi. Any lettered person may use any script in order to write any language which they know, so a literate orlanthi could use the Orlanthi script to write Sartar, Tradetalk, Lunar and would be able to read what he had written. In order to read this, another would need to know both the script and the spoken language, the script in order to translate the written symbols into sounds, and the language in order to understand the sounds. Note that before the advent of the printing press spelling and punctuation wasn't standardized, it was up to the individual, so reading will always be more laborious than we moderns might think, and may be extremely difficult when trying to interpret those with especially eccentric ideas on spelling and punctuation. Levels of mastery and abilities (levels of mastery are, apprentice from 30% to 59%, journeyman from 60% to 89%, and master from 90% on up). 30% -- apprentice level script, good enough to work as an apprentice scribe or copyist but may not be able to understand some texts that have eccentric choices in spelling and punctuation. When reading a text the apprentice must read aloud, and often must repeat a passage several times until the correct pronunciation and emphasis becomes obvious. It takes twice the usual time to read a text, and a skill roll is necessary. The apprentice will read long documents slowly. Someone who knows a script at this level cannot read a texts without vocalizing or subvocalizing. 60% -- journeyman level script, good enough to work as a scribe or copyist. can read written text at the usual speed, which would allow reading of a scroll or book slightly slower than it would be spoken aloud. They must read texts aloud, unless they are intended to be very easy to read, but can usually get the meaning of a phrase the first time through. A journeyman scribe may read without speaking the words at half speed if he subvocalizes, or at one tenth speed if he refrains from speaking at all. This may still be useful if the scribe suspects that a curse lies on those who speak the words of a particular text. 90% -- master level script, good enough to work as a supervisor and instructor of scribes and copyists. The master may read written text quickly, more quickly than he may speak it aloud. The master generally subvocalizes whatever he reads, but familiar or especially easy to read texts, especially those in a language with which the master scribe has also mastered, may be read without doing so, and at a vastly increased speed. The master may read a text that he would normally subvocalize at half speed if he consciously refrains from speaking the words, for instance to avert a curse. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17325; Mon, 7 Jun 93 18:45:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02923; Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:45:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 7 Jun 93 19:45:25 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 3 Date: 7 Jun 93 19:43:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Here's the third lot of them, and I think the last one of this gang. PROPOSAL, FIRST AID I'd like to propose a change in the way first aid works, so that you can no longer cure damage with the first aid skill, and so that failed rolls are neither unimportant nor assured death. Here goes. First Aid: The rough and ready art, often practiced by soldiers, of field medicine. This allows one to stop a wound from bleeding, to splint a broken limb, or to fashion a rough sling. A successful roll will stop a wound from bleeding in one round, and splint a broken limb or fashion a sling within five minutes. A failed roll will require four rounds to stop a wound from bleeding, and twenty minutes to splint a broken limb or make a sling, and the patient must make a CONx5 roll or pass out from pain because of rough treatment. A fumbled roll will not stop bleeding, the patient will bleed to death unless helped magically before that time, and will not fashion a useful splint or sling, and the patient must roll CONx3 or less or fall unconcious from incompetent and painful treatment. A Special stops blood loss in 1 rnd, heals 1 pt after 5 min, will stop bleeding as a result of a fumbled First Aid. A Critical success is as a special success, but heals 1d3 HP after 5 minutes. Unless it succeeds specially or critically, First Aid will not restore hit points of damage, prevent infection, or otherwise heal wounds. It will only stop them from getting worse quickly. The reason for the First Aid change is threefold: under RQ2 first aid would not restore hit points lost, though it would stop bleeding. RQ3 changed this, and IMHO it negatively affected the feel of damage, made it not quite as serious. the RQ3 death and dying rules effectively double character hit points. instead of dying at 0 hp characters die at -1xHP. and thirdly, the rules for non-lethal attacks make combat even easier on people who get hurt, as long as the attacker is trying to KO the defender instead of kill it. given these changes I think we can afford to clamp down on first aid. CHANGE TO HEALING SPELL, HEALSHARP Perhaps the healing spells can be modified to become "healsharp" type spells at the same time, which assume the healer is applying magical herbs and add +5% to first aid and +1 HP healing to first aid attempts. Actually, I have adopted this rule in my campaign and it works well. It also gives the healer in the party an incentive to learn First Aid, which wasn't the case before. LOCATION OF CULTURAL SKILLS put the cultural skills first, before the professions FURTHER EXPLANATION OF LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT SKILLS AND THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN TERMINOLOGY Language is the skill you have at speaking your own language, getting your meaning across and understanding the meaning of what others say. Obviously, it's only rolled for in extraordinary situations, most often being used only to indicate how properly a character speaks. Script is the ability to read and write the alphabet that is most common with your language, for instance Latin script would be used with English or French or Spanish or Italian. Since alphabets and spelling weren't standardized until the advent of the printing press Script is a lot harder than we moderns would think. LEVELS OF MASTERY If I can get the authors to agree with me, RQ4 will have mechanisms so that craftsmen with different skills produce different quality work, even if they both succeed. This would be tied to an index of the skill, something like 30%=apprentice, 60%=journeyman, 75%=expert, 90%=master (for the critical part of the scale), so that an apprentice, someone who had passed the apprentice level of the skill, could produce apprentice quality goods with a normal success, journeyman with a special, and expert with a critical. With various levels of failure an apprentice could produce something useless, or even with a fumble something dangerous to the user. I'd like to expand this beyond craft skills, to other macro skills (not combat, which is handled with micro skills), but haven't yet figured out what the mechanism could be. I'm open for suggestions if anybody else likes the idea. VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR SIMPLIFYING THE SKILL DIFFICULTY RULES Since you are revising the system so thoroughly, it's time to simplify the RQ skill system. Currently it's very complicated, with four levels of skill difficulty and skill defaults that bear no relationship to those levels of difficulty. Also, the cultural skills are at many different default levels. Although all this may make the game slightly more realistic than a uniform system, it makes it so much more complicated that I don't think the increased realism is worth the effort, or the corresponding loss in elegance and playability. Here are a few solutions, any one of which would be simpler than the present system. 1. Keep easy, medium, hard, and very hard categories for skills. Defaults for them are as below: Easy 40% or 30% Medium 20% 10% Hard 10% 5% V Hard 5% 0% Cultural skills, which would be determined by culture or cult, are emphasized by the culture and the character would have them at an increased beginning chance. This should be fairly high to encourage players to use and develop cultural skills. Cultural 50% or 40% Leave skill improvement rules as presently written. 2. Keep easy, medium, hard, and very hard categories. Rather than computing skill bonuses by summing the stats-10, compute skill bases for a category of skill (attack, defense, knowledge) by averaging the stats involved. For negative influence, use 21-stat instead of the stat. Easy skill base x 2 Medium x 1 Hard x 0.5 V Hard x 0.25 For skill increases, add the default skill to the roll. This should penalize V Hard skills compared to Easy ones. Since this makes advancement generally easier, compensate somewhere else to make it hard, such as with your experience point system (which I still hate, by the way). Cultural skills are listed as in option one, but instead of using a straight percentage, are also computed from skill base. Cultural skill default = skill base x 3 This also makes the various levels of skill more unique for different characters. Trained level would be SBx3, Standard would be SBx4, Expert would be SBx5, Master would be SBx6, and so on. 3. Get rid of redundant skills (such as bargain=bribe+fasttalk) and difficulty levels. Choose all skills so that they cover an equal amount of game time, using the "campaign utility" model (Hero system) to select them rather than the "effort to learn" (GURPS) model. Every skill should be about as easy to crock as every other skill. This makes the easy-medium-hard-v.hard scale unneccessary, irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. (thanx to Perry Mason :-) You can keep the present default system, or use one of the simplified ones above. Use this skill set as the base RQ skill set and use it in the chapter on how to run RQ in a non-gloranthan setting. Make sure to publish a character sheet with these choices. Then make the changes that need to be made to the game to let it fit in Glorantha, such as splitting up the medical skills and adding mystic skills like sense chaos and sense assassin, and any other skill mods that you have to do to make RQ work with Glorantha. Make the Glorantha version the main character sheet, but do not make the other one less useful or otherwise inferior. You may wish to combine some of these methods. The key is to look for things in the current system that we can simplify without losing the good RQ feel. TRAINING AND RESEARCH, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY Included are some comments from a player. Our last session included a long hiatus, three years of game time, and at the end I handed out 400 hours for training in common skills (cult skills count as common) or research in anything else. Computing progress took up a lot of game time, 30 to 45 minutes. Though I usually dislike tables, when they would reduce work I think they're a good idea. Can we simplify the training and research rules either by tabulating them or by vastly simplifying them? Andy Skinner writes his opinion carefully and clearly. Here it is. > I wonder whether there is a better way to figure up the training. If > you just take the 1 point intead of rolling 1d6-2, the cost to take a > skill at S up N points is: > > S*N + N*(N-1)/2 > > I think in the future I'll just do that--it is too frustrating to spend > those points and watch your skill go down or stay the same several times > in a row. > > When we spend time doing bookkeeping, whether creating or improving > characters, we usually spend a lot of time doing bookkeeping. Book-keeping in RQ4 takes too much time. We have to cut down the complexity and accuracy of it to make it fun. SORCERY [Many of these suggestions have been adopted for the Sorcery draft rules, v 1.0. --LJM] The intensity required for effective use of many sorcery spells must be reduced because under RQ3 rules they require intensities of 15 or higher to be effective, but in the revised rules you would need to have an intensity and spell skill over 150% to cast such a spell. This is far too steep a requirement for a spell such as dominate ghost. Perhaps the sorcery spells should undergo a wholesale revision... For example, venom is an effective spell under either version, especially with the corrected multispell skill use, but palsy, which is a less radical magical effect (imho), requires a high intensity to be effective (6 or 7+ against human size opponents) which means that only sorceror types who begin the game with 60% or higher in the spell will be able to use it. LATER COMMENTS ON SORCERY As two characters out of three in the campaign use sorcery I need to make some preliminary rulings about sorcery use and so came up with the following guidelines on the power of sorcery spells. 10 points of a sorcery spell (requires 100% or higher in spell and takes a round to cast) should be enough to do the following things: kill a tough human without magical protection between 20 and 80% of the time; bind 95% of all encountered ghosts and ancestor spirits; give a 95% chance of an illusion fooling the target; add 50% to a specific skill chance. Lesser expenditure should be proportionately less powerful. In general, each 1 intensity should be equivalent to about 1 tenth of one of the characteristics of a skillful or tough human. One tenth the weight. One tenth the skill. Etc. I applied these off-the-cuff guidelines in the most recent game session as follows: palsy. fine as is, with one change. instead of intensity > location hp being required, it should be intensity >= location hp, because I think that a palsy with intensity 6 and multispell 3 cast by a 17 POW sorceror should be able to paralyze more than the arms of a 14 HP opponent. phantom . if used to conceal a person, phantom sight should have a 10% chance of successfully hiding somebody who is behind it, used just like a hide skill roll that requires mp expenditure. if used to assist hide skill, simply add 5% per intensity to the hide skill of anybody behind it. if they are no good at hiding, they'd do better to stay close behind the phantom. IMHO, there's no good reason for phantom sight to be as restricted as it was in the RQ3 rules anyway. Those were the guidelines I came up with. I'd like to hear your reaction to them. RULES ORGANIZATION One of the nicest things about RQ2 when compared to RQ3 was that you could learn the rules by reading them. RQ3 was nowhere near as well organized as RQ2 was, and rather than follow the organization of RQ3 for RQ4 I'd prefer if the rules followed a new scheme, much as the new CoC rules have reorganized the previous edition's clutter. HARDBACK AND SEWN BINDING I also think RQ4 should be printed in a hardback book with sewn binding that is intended to last a while (like AD&D, the market leader). Of course this assumes that AH doesn't intend a massive second rewrite of the rules in another year. Given the flimsy crap we were sold for $45 in 1984 money in the RQ3 rules box this is probably a touchy subject for most old time RQ players. At that time, for the same money you could get the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual for AD&D and still have some money left for an adventure or two. So the rules sucked, big deal? Sorcery and Fatigue weren't all that useful either. Compare the binding quality of the two products, and what you got for your money, and it is to laugh. We RQ players really got ripped off. Remedy this insulting error, please. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09792; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:13:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22511; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:13:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:13:39 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 11:09:50 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10317D546CE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , Peter van Heusden writes: > I think using rituals for long duration spellcasts > could be a good idea. Agreed. No need to make it an enchantment (like in those Mostali-Spells in Elder Secrets); just let long term effect take long term effort. Loren Miller: >> Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >> schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? Peter: > My problem with using permanent POW is: How often do you guys get POW > increases? Doesn't happen often in my campaign. Same with mine. Maybe the concept of "contests of will" not involving magic leaduing to possible POW gains might help. (I read about it yesterday, but forgot the author. Paul Reilly?) > Then: how about con-mp conversion? For Rolemaster, we worked out a system > of trading points of constitution for MP's. Very useful in a pinch - sap your > strength to increase your magic. Happens a lot in literature. The final > action was a "going out with a bang" option. Force soul destruction to get > off major effects for one last spell. The swedish Drakar och Demoner (a system based on Basic Roleplaying, thus very similar to RuneQuest, and the most popular FRP in Sweden, as far as I know) allows a Soul-destroying last spell, using all temporary POW plus half the value again. An easier way would be to allow the use of permanent POW in addition to magic points, sort of an easier way of DI, but with less powerful effects, too. This Swedish system might be the way to get int the beginners' market segment. It's sold by department stores as well as game stores, it has easy base mechanics, and optional rules which make it almost RuneQuest-like. The magic is a bit gross, if one compares the effect for one magic point with Glorantha, but it works. I'd suggest the dev team ought to try and get a copy (mine is not quite up to date). Of course, there's no English version, but there is a Danish translation, if that helps... -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01378; Tue, 8 Jun 93 07:12:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13584; Tue, 8 Jun 93 08:12:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 8:12:35 EDT From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: The correct usage of POW. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 14:11:58 +0200 (SAT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Re the use of POW for long duration Sorcery: 1) I certainly don't think that POW should become an aid to duration. POW is the kind of stuff you use for binding. Its your bond with the World. Your bond with your God. The spell's bond with the object it is enchanting. Not just some super magic points. 2) Using POW for something as fairly mundane as a long duration spell is a touch overdoing it, since it becomes another case of the POW flow. Too much already relies on channeling POW here there and everywhere. Rather make it a more "roleplaying" penalty... like the no MP back rule. (Although I don't quite like that one... MP are a bit like FP to me... It will do if no one has any other suggestions) Peter ******************************************************************************* Peter van Heusden One man one newsfeed CS3, UCT, Cape Town, RSA "How fast are you? How dense?" pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za - Rudy Rucker  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09962; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:16:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22668; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:16:38 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:16:40 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Nick speaks: Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 12:10:24 -0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10325405812@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , Nick writes: > The Lunar god of Slavery is *probably* Danfive Xaron, as I > mooted (to universal silence) back in March. I happen to be editing Greg Stafford's article on the Red Emperor (Tales 8, Free INT 5), in which it says: "... the Lunar Empire believes that the entire empire is the personal property of the living Emperor." Since empires consist of the ruled inhabitants, this makes him the greatest slave-owner of all. > Oh, we'll need a good set of rules for Slaves and POW some time. I'd > suggest that a born slave gets 1D6 POW, just as a domesticated animal has a > lower POW than its wild counterpart: cf. RQ3 Monsters Book for examples. A > captive-made-slave has his original POW, and is the kind of guy you'd clap > a Slave Collar on. Slave Collars ought to be fairly cheap and easy to > obtain... not so much a "magical" as a "natural" effect. Of course, a > slave who rebels *must* have had POW 3D6 all along... Like Trollkin? This leads to dangerous thinking as Master Races (take a look at the result of this in Solingen, where some Trollkin-POW and -INT people were led to belive they were the Master Race's greatest offspring). Do we want to soften up die rolls for humans? If so, shouldn't Dara Happan nobles get higher APP, Storm Buller's children lower INT (alcohol), Rathori and Basmoli higher STR, ...? And dare we allow natural human magicians with POW 3d6+1, as in RQ3 Land of Ninja? Or even higher, as Melniboneans and Mabden in Stormbringer? > This suggestion is meant to be provocative, up there with the reduced POW > roll for Dara Happan women! But the socio-mythical arguments are all in > favour of both these "non-Politically Correct" suggestions! (Now, here's a > can of worms... Yum, Yum!). Dangerous stuff, in mechanics as well as in reality. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03715; Tue, 8 Jun 93 08:35:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16466; Tue, 8 Jun 93 09:34:51 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 9:35:37 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Admin: Subbing and Unsubbing Date: 8 Jun 93 09:32:41 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <100729A53E8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> For everyone who may wish to signoff from this list or tell someone else how to signon, please follow two rules: 1. don't send mail to the list about it. the list is busy enough with topical discussion, busier than we all expected. it doesn't need administrative stuff too. for that matter, please try to keep RQ4 topics relevant to the playtest. Runic discussions belong, for the most part, on Henk's mailing list. 2. send e-mail to listserv@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu with the appropriate sub or unsub requests. ("sub rq-playtest", "unsub rq-playtest") Thanks for your support. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08271; Tue, 8 Jun 93 10:39:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21340; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:39:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:39:24 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 8:39:37 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <102863B54E5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and > the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: > > a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously > the correct approach. > > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better > tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell > as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating > some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the > second seems pointless. > > c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the > concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The > reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists > accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to > be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied > spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would > prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather > than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. > > As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up > characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using > POW to make the stats is better though. Also I think sorcery rules are very heavily biased towards Malkion sorcerers without much attention to the other users of sorcery such as dwarves, trolls(only a few I know), Brithini(who don't worship the invisible god), and a few other oddballs like the lunar sorcerers. But I think familiars seem out of place for most if not all of these groups. How about just placing the uses of familiars into items? For some reason the Lord of the Rings idea of sorcerers(ok Sauron, Morgoth, and Sauroman) placing bits of themselves into special items seems in line with the western approach to magic. > > > c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play > equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There > isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. Hmm, I'm not so sure these mechanics are a good thing. Most groups I know seem to do all right without training wheels. ;) Besides we could always add alignments if you want. j/k > > A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly > game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points > sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would > take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" > of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that > conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain > spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic > points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: > independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. I like this idea alot as it would help differentiate between Invisible god worshipping sorcerers and other kinds. (Although I don't have a draft of RQ IV so I may be way off base on this, I'm just going by the comments I see) > > How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? > Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you > as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make > Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. > > What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and > still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" > sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and > create a new church of you own... > > I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to > get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a > jiffy! > > Opinions? Sounds good. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet Too lazy to do a 4@3091 WWIVnet "real" .sig file Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC. If you're intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10300; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:21:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22922; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:55 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1033BC804E6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: God Learner Runes Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Nick Brooke <100270.337@compuserve.com> writes: >Loren sez: >> Since the Godlearners made up all these runes anyway, >Not so sure they did. They had the "RuneQuest Sight", meaning they could >*see* the Runes wherever they were. That doesn't mean they *invented* >them; more likely they set down the first formal listing of something >already common to most of Glorantha... >Nick Nick Greg has said that the God Learners invented the runes we're all used to. Various cultures had runes before the GLs, and the Kralori and Pamaltelans still don't use exactly the runes the God Learners liked.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10298; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:21:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22925; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:21:59 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1033C8736F2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: Re: Runes paul@phyast.pitt.edu writes: P> We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff >of the Universe.... [remainder deleted for brevity] I made the same complaint to Chaosium a few years back, and both Greg and Sandy Petersen gave the same explanation: RQII was a very "Orlanthocentric" game. Both RQ2 and most RQ3 Gloranthan material were centered around either Sartar/Prax Orlanthi culture, or quoted God Learner material. All those legends were *local* legends, not worldwide beliefs or absolute Truth. I didn't like it either, but we're apparently stuck with it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11589; Tue, 8 Jun 93 11:59:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24466; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:41 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:59:34 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <103DCE20740@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >P> We keep having reality shifts. In RQ II the Runes were the very stuff >of the Universe.... [remainder deleted for brevity] > I made the same complaint to Chaosium a few years back, and both Greg >and Sandy Petersen gave the same explanation: RQII was a very >"Orlanthocentric" game. Still doesn't explain stuff like "Western sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes" from the Player's Book: Genertela. ^^^^^^^^^^ not "Dragon Pass area" And the God Learners came from Seshnela and Seshnelan colonies. Or is that changed too? I don't mind the new picture, it's pretty consisent, but it is _new_. If they are going to pull a major change in their description of the West it should be published, not just circulated at cons. How are freelancers supposed to write anything? What's next? "The Mostali don't really have guns, that's just a God Learner rumor?"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11858; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:06:09 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24771; Tue, 8 Jun 93 13:06:08 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 13:06:12 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Runes Date: 08 Jun 93 13:02:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <103F9100174@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink refutes my theories, saying: > Greg has said that the God Learners invented the runes we're all > used to. Various cultures had runes before the GLs, and the Kralori > and Pamaltelans still don't use exactly the runes the God Learners liked. What I'm saying is that, before Newton, there was still Gravity. The God Learners recognised that wherever they were looking they saw the influence and effect of the Runes, and were able to formulate lists and pentagrams and periodic tables of them. But that doesn't mean that, before the GLs worked out how the Runes worked, they didn't work that way. And it doesn't mean they created any Runes, any more than Einstein created new laws of Physics. Stick with the Scientist metaphor and the GLs are easier to understand (even if they shouldn't be). Is that any use to you guys? Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this discussion of Runes ought to move to the Daily. I'll not be posting anything else to this list that isn't RQ4-related, and hope you guys will follow suit. If the present volume of mail persists or increases, I'm going to have to un-subscribe myself... Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA17461; Tue, 8 Jun 93 14:24:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01011; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:24:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:24:07 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10644D82B2E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some general comments - The volume has become a bit overwhelming. Might I second Loren's suggestion that people try to limit themselves to one post a day? As a general note - your comments are greatly appreciated. The next draft will be a while yet, but hopefully the changes in it will address most of your points - this is not a trivial task, however, and will take some time. Runes - This discussion more properly belongs in the digest - but to clarify my comment (which may have gotten a bit distorted as it was passed down) - as far as I understand it, the God Learners invented a number of the runes in current use, but obviously adopted some previously extant symbols. More to the point, the God Learners spread and popularized their particular set of runic symbols and their particular assignment of them to the various cults they encountered as they spread across the world to the point that they have been adapted by many cults and cultures that consider the God Learners anathema. Western wizards and sorcerers do indeed use runes, but apparantly more in a literal sense than a magical one - they use them as symbols and signs to represent things. Also, their use came into vogue well after sorcery had been developed and taken on much of its current form. Shields - I've had only a little experience fighting with a shield, but I did speak at length to an ex SCAer that fought extensively with buckler and kite shield. His main comments were that although the buckler could perhaps start with a slightly higher initial percentage, the larger shields were easier to use and parry with, particularly when just starting. However, he felt that the AP ratings for bucklers were far too low compared to the larger shields, since once one blocked a blow, a buckler was quite effective, and frankly, bucklers were typically as thick (or thicker) than the larger shields. He also thought the AP on the larger shields were a bit on the high end. The second RQIV draft uses the following values: Buckler (10 AP) 50L 1.0 Heater/Target (14 AP) 75L 3.5 Hoplite (18 AP) 100L 7.0 Kite (16 AP) 60L 5.0 Round (12 AP) 60L 3.0 Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield types into three categories: Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC (Or maybe even as low as 10/12/14 AP) Any comments? Skill modifiers - I'd like to get a more general opinion on something that has been suggested by a few people. They have pointed out that of all the skills modifiers, Stealth affects the least skills. The two skills that it currently covers, Sneak and Hide, could just as easily be classified as Agility skills (one person suggested putting Sneak under Agility and Hide under Knowledge or Judgement). To replace the Stealth modifier, it was suggested that Knowledge skills be split into two types of skills: Judgement skills, which can be increased by experience, and Knowledge skills, which must be learned, and cannot be increased by experience (Lores). Judgement skills would have a skill modifier based on INT or possibly INT and POW, Knowledge skills might not have a skill modifier at all. It seems that this might be an easier way to keep track of skills that can and cannot be increased by experience than the current box or no box system, and would eliminate an extra set of calculations for a modifier used for only two skills in RQIII. Opinions? Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18558; Tue, 8 Jun 93 14:46:28 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01749; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:46:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:46:31 EDT From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 21:39:50 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <106A4476C41@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver suggests lumping the 5 shield categories to three and making them 10/12/14 AP. This would bring the use of buckler up and reduce the overwhelming protection of large shield. Stealth mod can certainly be removed. Anything which speeds up char creation is good. -- hannu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19952; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:14:30 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02626; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:14:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:14:33 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:10:57 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1071C9B7CB8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver notes: ------------------------------------------------------------ | The volume has become a bit overwhelming. Might I | second Loren's suggestion that people try to limit | themselves to one post a day? One of the things I like about the non-digest is a healthy (and rapid) flow of info. I find myself grumbling 'bout lunch time if the digest is late. Plus, anything I put in there is most likely not going to be responded to for at least 1-2 days...too slow (IMHO). | As a general note - your comments are greatly appreciated. | The next draft will be a while yet. But we will be a'waiting. | Runes - | This discussion more properly belongs in the digest True, now that it has peeled off from the sorcery thread. But the digest is tied to the Stasis rune, I'm sure of it. :) | Shields - | The second RQIV draft uses the following values: | | Buckler (10 AP) 50L 1.0 | Heater/Target (14 AP) 75L 3.5 | Hoplite (18 AP) 100L 7.0 | Kite (16 AP) 60L 5.0 | Round (12 AP) 60L 3.0 I have been typing up a combined equipment list, and have been stumped. Are all these shields supposed to be Metal? I remember a Heros article (can't remember the issue) that assumed they were metal, and came up with wood and hide versions for rural and wild availability. These were cheaper and lighter. | Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield | types into three categories: | | Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC | Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC | Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC I don't think it would hurt. Powers & Perils had something similar (only three types), but then, P&P is sorta dead now. Perhaps this is the time to reduce the weapons to "Effective Weapons", with a list of suggested regional names for each if you want to have game flavor. | Skill modifiers - | | I'd like to get a more general opinion on something that has been | suggested by a few people. Way back when I tried to get a RQ3 game going (and failed...my group does like the RQ4 better, what we have seen so far) I split the height out of SIZ to form HEI. HEI used the same dice as SIZ. Now, I split the Agility skills into "AGILITY" and "LOCOMOTION". Locomotion skills had HEI as a secondary add (taller = longer legs/bigger flippers/etc). I think I envisioned LOCOMOTION as Primary(DEX, STR), Secondary (HEI), Negative(SIZ). I think I also had a specific DEFENSE attribute that was different from AGILITY. With DEFENSE, HEI was a secondary negative. STEALTH used HEI instead of SIZ in it's calculation. | They have pointed out that of all the skills modifiers, Stealth | affects the least skills. The two skills that it currently covers, Sneak | and Hide, could just as easily be classified as Agility skills (one person | suggested putting Sneak under Agility and Hide under Knowledge or | Judgement). If you are going to re-do the skill coverage, you can just as well re-do it all. In my few attempts to make my own skill systems, I've often come to the following settings: Perception, Reflexes, Experience, Knowledge Perception is the noticing of things. pretty well covered by the Perception modifier. Reflexes is reaction to perceptions, or fast motions. This should br broken into REACTION (equal to Agility) and ACTION (equal to manipulation). Not all agility and Manipulation skills will be here. Experience can be thought of as "Half reflex, half Knowledge" or "half perception, half knowledge" Agility, manipulation and communication skills that rely on judgement and knowledge as well as good body control or senses get covered here. Things like Maneuver, speaking languages, bribery (picking up on cues+the knowledge on how to use them, etc) go here. Knowledge is reserved for the pure book learning -- Lores, reading/writing, etc. This would be covered by KNOWLEDGE and MAGIC. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27601; Tue, 8 Jun 93 02:24:50 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10414; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:24:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 3:24:49 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:21:36 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: > > Question: Are there any runes NOT mentioned in any RQ3 product that existed > in RQ2? Paul mentions the implicit Enchant Slave Bracelets and Enchant Slave > collar for Ompalam, which implies a Slavery rune. I can think of only one Rune that has actually been completely removed (rather than just changed). That is ICE, a little filled diamond. This rune was some sort of combination of darkness (the filled bit) and something else, either earth (for the solidity) or water (which would make sense). This has definately been removed, as even Himile (who would almost certainly have it if it still existed, as he has Ice producing spells) does not have it. My guess as to why it was removed was that while the current Runic system includes many sub-element runes (like Light or Heat) it does not have any combination of elements runes. > > What I'm getting at, are there "Missing Runes"? And if so, should we add > more? Slavery makes a nice balance to Mastery, Fate balances Luck, etc. The > classic "elements" have opposites, so should there not be balances to other > runes? I think that it is just dandy as it is, and I think that only the Power runes should have defined opposites. And I don't think that we should add any more. > > I figure Harmony is opposite of disorder (not Law), with Law the opposite > of Chaos. Well, Harmony is definately the opposite of Disorder (RQ2). This is pretty basic to Gloranthan cosmology (Celestial Court, etc. ). I think of Chaos as a form rune (like Plant) and I don't really know where Law goes, but I'd say in the 'miscellaneous' category like Infinity and Mastery and Magic. There are not 'Lawful' creatures in the same way as there are chaotics (so Law aint a form rune, as I see it), and they are probably not even opposites. I think of Law as referring to the natural physical laws of the universe, the physics rune. > > Only the truly "Big Guns" runes have no opposites: Infinity, for example. > That's why it takes so much effort to master them...look at it as a lever > pushed up on the ends by the force of the rune...with nothing to counteract > Infinity, you have an "incline". > -- Burton > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21578; Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:49:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04065; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:49:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:49:16 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 13:24 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <107B10967C2@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Subj: RQIV, etc. >Shields - >Frankly, I'd be tempted to lump these five shield >types into three categories: >Small (Buckler/Small Round) (12 AP) 50L 2.0 ENC >Medium (Heater/Target/Round) (14 AP) 75L 4.0 ENC >Large (Kite/Hoplite) (16 AP) 100L 6.0 ENC >(Or maybe even as low as 10/12/14 AP) >Any comments? I think you need to have a Material modifier to determine AP, rather than size. There is a great difference between a traditional Heroic Greek shield (Seven layers of Bull-hide, strengthened with bronze); a Zulu shield of one ply of leather with a wooden pole/handle; and a Persian woven wicker shield. While they are of similiar size, and would protect the same areas if used against missiles, the protection value should be much greater for the Greek shield. Perhaps something like the following? Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost Material Small Medium Large Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5 Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20 Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75 Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard) Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125 Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150 Iron (Don't have the rules here at work...) The values are off the top of my head, and would need looking at. With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather; Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or Leather; etc.). >To replace the Stealth modifier, it was suggested that Knowledge skills >be split into two types of skills: Judgement skills, which can be >increased by experience, and Knowledge skills, which must be learned, >and cannot be increased by experience (Lores). Judgement skills would >have a skill modifier based on INT or possibly INT and POW, >Knowledge skills might not have a skill modifier at all. >It seems that this might be an easier way to keep track of skills that >can and cannot be increased by experience than the current box or no box >system, and would eliminate an extra set of calculations for a modifier >used for only two skills in RQIII. >Opinions? Hate the "Judgement" name for the category, but the idea is a good one. > Oliver Since I have only been receiving the list since last night, forgive me if this is an old question, but could you elaborate on why there is (was?) no Catch skill? Someone (Loren?) mentioned that they had included Throw/catch as a single skill on a Character sheet. To me, the two are not in the least the same (else a Reciever could be a Quarterback...) How does one get a copy of the latest Sorcery rules? Thanks for your time, Roderick Robertson Robertson@Delphi.Intel.Com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22062; Tue, 8 Jun 93 16:00:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04604; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:00:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:00:44 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Admin: Protocols Date: 08 Jun 1993 16:58:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <107E19A602D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi RQ4 Experts, Before the volume of this list becomes unmanageable, I want to propose a protocol for people to use. Please use consistent subject lines, with keyword information, to identify the topic of your post. Subject lines like the following are helpful because they immediately identify the basic topic of your post. ADMIN: The benefits of digestified mailing lists SKILLS: Redundant skills, Cut it out! SKILLS: Redundant skills, Keep them! SORCERY: RQ3 compatible or not? Most mailers allow you to review the subject lines of messages before you read them, so if you are supremely indifferent to Sorcery then you can ignore all postings with the SORCERY tag in the subject line. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? This is a list of likely subject line keywords. You don't have to stick to them, but when innovating with a new subject keyword think about it twice. Is it something that everybody will understand? The first person to break in a new topic gets to name it. Just make sure you choose the name wisely. ADMIN: Use for all administrative postings. I'll use these postings to inform you of changes in mailing list policy or availability. If you want to suggest more abbreviations then then use this in your subject line. SORCERY: For all discussions of Sorcery rules for RQ4 SKILLS: For all discussion pertaining to skill rules STATS: For all discussion pertaining to characteristics. I know it's a contamination from other RPGs, but it is 5 letters compared to 15 in "characteristics". COMMENTS: For collections of comments along the lines of Nick's and my tomes COMBAT: For all discussion of the combat rules, including maneuver, weapons, armor, and shield rules. EQUIPMENT: For all discussions of equipment, including the equipment list, weapons, and armor. This may overlap with COMBAT. If so, use your best judgement. CHAR GEN: Character generation schemes, worries, and ideas LAYOUT: Artwork, presentation, and layout. BINDING: Worries about hardback vs softback, sewn vs perfect binding, flat vs stapled binding, etc. In addition to using keywords to identify subject matter please take care to keep the subject line relevant to the actual topic of your post. It's disconcerting to read a treatise about runes with a subject that mentions something about "story based enchantment". You are the owners of this list, and I want it to work for your sake as well as my own. But I want you all to know that if it gets too chatty and inane I'm fully capable of pulling the plug on it, forcing us to once again use the digest for this discussion. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25000; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:08:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07457; Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:08:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:08:49 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Equipment Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 15:08 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10904311919@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I can't remember who wrote it today, but I truly liked the suggestion of using material/size matrix for determining the AP-ENC-Cost of a shield. It seemed simple to use as written and added a great differentiation between cultures. I hope it gets added. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25729; Tue, 8 Jun 93 17:24:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08538; Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:24:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:24:57 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV, etc. : SHIELDS EQUIPMENT Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 18:23:45 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <10949503BC6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Response to OJ's posting: Runic sorcery: With OJ's new data I now more or less understand Greg's picture. The Seshnelans used some runes inherited from the Brithini, and sorcery as well. Renegade Sorcerors such as Worlath adn Ehilm may have also used Runes and brought them to central Genertela. The God Learners invented a systematized system of Runes, drawn largely from Seshnelan sources (at first) which were supposed to codify the underlying principles of the universe, rather like F=ma or E = mc^2. They probably used the Runes to categorize many kinds of magical and natural phenomena, _including_ religious cults, traditional Western spells, metals, weather, and time. Is the calendar supposed to be a God Learner innovation as well? What did they use for a calendar in the First Age? Anyway, I still think categorizing spells by Runes might be a good approach, after all the God Learners originally came out of those Western cultures. At least this would give us some kind of building blocks for creating spells that didn`t make it into the list. SHIELDS I've fought a lot (16 years), more against shields than with them. The thing about a big shield is that it's hard to get in a shot and you often have to use a tricky shot, going around the shield, which are not as forceful as straight shots. Thus I think that the PENDRAGON mechanics for shields actually reflect real fighting better than the RQ mechanics. Big shields in this system should be worth more points. Given the basic RQ mechanics, I'd say that a big shield should act to _subtract_ from the opponent's attack, but that a buckler might have more armor points. Maybe a big shield should act as a shield + a few points of _armor_. Also, shields vary greatly in construction, with different shield types optimized for different things. Some shields were made of wicker: huge, light, and one-use. Others of leather stretched over a wooden frame, others of metal. Almost any combination of size and armor points could be found. Note that there are some surprises: Zulu shields (one thickness of bullhide over a wooden frame) could deflect bullets. Shaka Zulu trained the Impi to hold their shields at the angle where this was possible. I'll think about shield mechanics and get back on this one. Actually, I found that PENDRAGON captured the feel of (SCA) combat quite nicely, something I never quite got from the RQ mechanics. I would have guessed the opposite from just looking at them. - Paul PS> Loren's Subject Line post presents a good idea.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27826; Tue, 8 Jun 93 02:59:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10627; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:59:56 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:00:01 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runes Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 15:58:11 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: The Runes as we know them are generally a God-learner invention. However I wouldn't be surprised if the God-learner Runes are descended from Western Script and Western ideas. However the God-learners certainly invented some (like the Pamalt and Dragon runes), and Doraddi and Pamaltalens definately have their own Runic systems. I have most of this directly from Greg and Sandy. dave cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28538; Tue, 8 Jun 93 03:58:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11171; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:58:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 4:58:58 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 18:58:25 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: >In , you write: >>> >The note I just sent reminded me of an old topic for me. When you look at >fantasy and fairy stories typically a mage casts a permanent enchantment by: ... >3. allocating a large portion of magical power to spell maintenance, with the > option to pull it back if it is needed in a pinch (this can be restricted). >Would it be possible to allow long-term manipulations somehow following the >schemes of our source material, as above? What do you all think? > >-- Loren ><< > >3. You mean like in the One-thumb story in Thieves World #1, where the >sorcerer maintains several (let's call them active) spells for certain >customers? These spells draw upon his power and reduce it considerably, >but not enough that he would be blocked from using instantaneous magic. > >I would use this concept for long duration spells, but not for >enchantments. This is exactly why I (and a couple of others) proposed the idea of making the magic points behind spell unregenerable while the spell is still in force: that specific example from TW #1 was the inspirition. (This was in the digest a few days ago) MP are a sorcerer's expendable magical resource in RQIII. Not allowing them to be used while his long duration spell is in force is, I believe, a fairly simple yet flexible way of limiting his total power. As another pointed out in the digest, in the current sorcery system the best place to store active is in long duration spells. Having recently been sent the RQIV draft 1.0 sorcery I agree with a post a few months back saying it was like cutting off a sorcerer's arms at birth (more comments in a later post). As an example: a sorcerer wants to maintain damage resistance 4 enhance con 4, and spirit resistance 4 on himself continuously. In RQ III free int of 16 and 2 POW 8 power spirits would allow him to cast those spells in 3 days out of every month. In the RQIV draft rules he would (with 75% skills) have to burn 3 POW every season to keep these spell going, or spend a season to cast a spell that lasts a season, or (and I think this was the designers aim) not cast them. The last option makes sorcery into a system which, while it is a lot more flexible than spirit magic and rune magic, is a whole lot less efficient in effect per magic point. So much less effective that I doubt I would see many players having much of an interest in playing them, given the amount of effort it takes to play a sorcerer. In the system I propose, where the MP's equal to the intensity of a cast spell are unregenerable while it is still in force,but the duration table is the same as RQIII, the sorcerer above would need to dedicate 12 POW to keeping those 3 spells going (3x Intensity 4 spells).If he wants the MP back, he terminates the spells (which I suppose hecould do just by switching off the MP supporting the spells),waits the time needed for the POW spirits to get the MP back, and starts casting. >-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29104; Tue, 8 Jun 93 04:42:44 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11556; Tue, 8 Jun 93 05:42:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 8 Jun 93 5:42:47 EDT From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 19:42:33 -0600 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously the correct approach. b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the second seems pointless. c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using POW to make the stats is better though. c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and create a new church of you own... I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a jiffy! Opinions? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11277; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:41:02 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04893; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:40:48 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:41:04 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The correct usage of POW. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 09:43:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1158DA10C55@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Peter writes: >>> Re the use of POW for long duration Sorcery: 1) I certainly don't think that POW should become an aid to duration. POW is the kind of stuff you use for binding. Its your bond with the World. Your bond with your God. The spell's bond with the object it is enchanting. Not just some super magic points. 2) Using POW for something as fairly mundane as a long duration spell is a touch overdoing it, since it becomes another case of the POW flow. Too much already relies on channeling POW here there and everywhere. Rather make it a more "roleplaying" penalty... like the no MP back rule. (Although I don't quite like that one... MP are a bit like FP to me... It will do if no one has any other suggestions) <<< While I fully and heartily support that feeling in the case of human sorcerers, I don't for Mostali sorcerers. To them linking their souls' essence to mundane effects is divine service, since all mundane effects are the fragments of the broken world machine. Since everybody is talking about cultural integration of the sorcery rules, I'd suggest we create a generic minimalist base system with the common rules for all varieties of sorcery, and then plant on the culturally biased special rules. The common, minimalist parts should be: - a skill-based chance of success, not one general skill, but several skills for different effects (may be different spells, or different runes) - manipulation of the effects again skill-based, few manipulation skills or runes - normal spell effects to be paid with magic points - a possibility for longer duration or range, exact mechanism varies with culture (e.g. the henotheist sorcerers could be expected to use Extension...) - a single system for magical interaction with other the magic systems Comments? -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11299; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:42:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04897; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:42:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:42:37 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: enchantments in stories Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 10:14:40 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11594B63342@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme writes: > MP are a sorcerer's expendable magical resource in RQIII. Not > allowing them to be used while his long duration spell is in force > is, I believe, a fairly simple yet flexible way of limiting his > total power. As another pointed out in the digest, in the current > sorcery system the best place to store active is in long duration > spells. Having recently been sent the RQIV draft 1.0 sorcery I > agree with a post a few months back saying it was like cutting > off a sorcerer's arms at birth (more comments in a later post). > As an example: a sorcerer wants to maintain damage resistance 4 > enhance con 4, and spirit resistance 4 on himself continuously. > In RQ III free int of 16 and 2 POW 8 power spirits would allow > him to cast those spells in 3 days out of every month. In the While I'd allow one or two POW-spirits to sorcerers, I acknowledge they don't _feel_ right. My foremost PC sorcerer says he's getting sick of keeping track of several regenerating POW sources, and would greatly prefer to have one single source. (Right now he's got a desert cat and a hellion as familiars, and uses two MP-matrices. He tries to keep some damage resistance on himself and his cat, and sometimes he sells damage-boosted swords in return for services rendered. His cultural background is comparable to Fonrit or Umathela, currently he's joined some barbarian raiders.) I tend to agree that the book-keeping doesn't further the magical feeling. Neither does our fascination for Form/Set-spells, which are so damn useful. Both of us despise tapping. Why not allow the sorcerer to build up a pool of "false POW" which is used for long term spells? BTW, the longest duration he did by now was less 2 years, for a sword with Damage Boosting 2. That was all his considerable Free INT of 16 gave... > RQIV draft rules he would (with 75% skills) have to burn 3 POW > every season to keep these spell going, or spend a season to > cast a spell that lasts a season, or (and I think this was the > designers aim) not cast them. The old RQ2 theistic bias. I suppose. I haven't seen those yet, but I dislike strongly what I heard so far. > The last option makes sorcery into > a system which, while it is a lot more flexible than spirit > magic and rune magic, is a whole lot less efficient in effect > per magic point. So much less effective that I doubt I would > see many players having much of an interest in playing them, > given the amount of effort it takes to play a sorcerer. > In the system I propose, where the MP's equal to the intensity > of a cast spell are unregenerable while it is still in force,but > the duration table is the same as RQIII, the sorcerer above would > need to dedicate 12 POW to keeping those 3 spells going (3x > Intensity 4 spells).If he wants the MP back, he terminates the spells > (which I suppose hecould do just by switching off the MP supporting > the spells),waits the time needed for the POW spirits to get the > MP back, and starts casting. The false POW pool I suggested above would fit fine with Ischade's reply to Molin Torchholder (not lliterally) "You think, you are better than we, just because you sell your soul wholesale to your god, while we (she and Enas Yorl) sell it piecemeal?". These are parts of the soul sold off to gain some mundane effect, reusable in part, still creating magic points to be used for powering spells when not pawned to uphold them, but not counting as personal magic points for purposes of overcoming an opponents MP, not counting for POW-skill modifiers, etc. It might be used to create enchantments, too. This way the sorcerer still is less powerful than the corresponding shaman... -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11305; Wed, 9 Jun 93 05:43:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04906; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:43:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 6:43:15 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Some comments on the RQIV sorcery Rules Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1993 10:51:16 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11596E26724@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In , you write: > Having recently received the RQIV draft rules via a kind heart and > the magic of e-mail, I have a few comments: > > a) The skills as a manipulation limit instead of free int: obviously > the correct approach. This mmakes powerful wizards real gross, doesn't it? > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the better > tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long to cast a spell > as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have always seen POW creating > some permanent effect (One-Use Divine Magic an exception), and the > second seems pointless. I haven't seen those tables yet, but I think it's a good idea to have several scales - casting a spell out of your head can't have the same results as casting it in a rather long ritual (not ceremony!). If, as was widely proposed, divine magic becomes generally, if slowly, reusable, to impose one-use of permanent POW on sorerers makes them an unnecessary ballast to the game. Either leave this rule in, and all of it out of the basic rules (as some queer optional rule, along with illumination and troll rebirth rites), or make sorcery powerful enough to be of interest, and throw out this overly gross POW waste! > c) Familiars are kept as a requirement for adepthood. I dislike the > concept and execution of the RQIII familiar rules intensely. The > reason for the first is Gloranthan: I can't see any of the Malkionists > accepting that one needs a bound animal/spirit to show yourself to > be a good priest. RQ already provides enough familiars with allied > spirits and shaman's fetches. I believe that a Malkionist would > prefer to rely on himself, his faith and his flock (see below) rather > than an animal or some pagan spirit bound into a ring. I agree for the more idealistic Malkionists (at least Hrestoli) as well as for Eastern sorcerers (I'd give those Ninja-style Mandalas), but the rest of them would take a free run at them. Henotheists probably have familiars similar to allied spirits of their respective cults, maybe even drawn from that pool. > As for the rules, I just don't like the way sorcerers have to give up > characteristics permanently to form a familiar. The new way of just using > POW to make the stats is better though. There I agree. If we want sorcerers to have animal familiars, we have to throw that INT-transfer overboard. Even after we dropped INT as the ultimate limit, no sane charakter would voluntarily lower their INT, as long as it remains non-raisable. I'd back up Nicks proposal to change that, though. > c) I still don't see any mechanisms to make good cultural play > equivalent to good game play (like Pendragon's Glory system). There > isn't any reason for a sorcerer to _want_ to be a pious priest. > A suggestion to replace Create familiar and to help with priestly > game play: allow a priest to have access to some of the magic points > sacrificed to the Invisible God in the priest's church. This would > take the form of a spirit that occupies the church, with a "POW" > of (say) 1 per regular (weekly) worshipper. The sorcerer/wizard that > conducts regular ceremonies can use this POW to cast and maintain > spells. This would probably be the main exterior source of magic > points to a Rokari or Hrestoli wizard. The Brithini need to Tap: > independant sorcerers would use bound spirits or maybe familiars. > How do you get to be the wizard of your local church, then? > Easy, wait till the old one dies/retires, the Lord selects you > as his replacement, and reconsecrate the church with "Make > Church of the Invisible God", a n enchantment requireing 2 POW. > What's that? Old priest Wexen is so pious that he's over 150 and > still runs 5 leagues every morning before his "fire and brimstone" > sermon? Well, you had better go out and convert some heathen, and > create a new church of you own... > > I think this would get those PC wizards acting pious (and plotting to > get the new curateship that Lord Owen has promised to create) in a > jiffy! > Opinions? My foremost opinion is: Don't include experience points of any form into the game which has done very well without this mechanistic crutch! Experience points are gygaxic, they represent all that is wrong about roleplaying! I, for one, would rather forget about the whole system, than introduce experience/glory/piety points which have no rational explanation from the character's point of view! By which I mean that any point system is wrong, and feels wrong, unless a point is quantified in game reality, such as a prayer for divine help (=Rune spell). I liked the concept of several magic systems with comman basic rules (such as spell resistance) in RQ3, and wouldn't like to see this reduced in RQ4. I run a world based on this idea, and I'd hate to throw it away, so I'd rather throw away the new system, if it doesn't fit into this concept. The world I run is not Glorantha, but contains some "alternate Glorantha". I think that most RQ GMs play in their own worlds, which reflect certain aspects of Glorantha as well as other literary or historical influences. I run functioning cultures, and if the players characters choose to leave their cultures, thats fine with me. Most NPCs (i.e.99.9%) won't, and the PCs will experience the flavour of different cultures, be they members of one or not. Enough rambling. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12053; Wed, 9 Jun 93 06:56:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07012; Wed, 9 Jun 93 07:55:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 7:56:02 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's comments on RQ4, part 1 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:56:13 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <116CE70298E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Dear Loren, > [I have a character sheet for RQ4, fitting my suggestions, that I can > send if you all want to see it. It's in PostScript --LJM] I would like to see it myself, if not posted. Please? BTW, did you write the PostScript yourself or is there a source file in TeX or something? -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) P.S. I would also like to see the RQ4 draft if that is possible at this stage...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19079; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:08:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20968; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:39 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:54 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:08:37 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B048174D9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> SORCERY NOTES (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday 1993 Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. We've experimented with several ideas about how sorcery could work. Our method has been to first look at how we want magicians to function in the society and then to reverse engineer from there. We also like the idea that there are laws of nature in Glorantha and that the different magic systems (Divine, Spirit, Sorcery) have some underlying similarities that reflect these laws. We also saw that the description of Western people and culture was not in agreement with the sorcery system. We tried to take the descriptions as canonical when building a new system. Apparently this was misleading, for example on the question of Runic Sorcery: Basically sorcerors could dedicate themselves to a small number of Runes, increasing say their fire powers at the cost of their magic in general. Note that we developed this system while RQ III was in force and we thought that some basic things would have to be kept. Thus we kept spell descriptions unchanged and we didn't plan to change Range, just Duration, which was the worst problem. I can easily rebalance this to go with your system instead of the RQ III system. Also, we thought that AH would demand that sorcerors could do basically the same kinds of things, including maintaining several spells. Our system also has a good reason why the shamans and priests are against sorcery: it's not just a primitive prejudice. Well, here's the system: (for the Introductory section of the Magic Book) WHAT THE SHAMAN SAYS Sorcerors are men who might have been shamans had they been born in a natural society instead of among the Termite people who live in dead cities of stone. Without the guidance of nature spirits they live in an unnatural way and when their fetch awakens to help them they poison it instead of listening and leave it a crippled and blinded slave. By doing so they have killed the best part of themselves and are doomed to a fruitless and grey existence. Instead of treating spirits with respect they condemn them to heartless slavery and are deaf and blind to the suffering they inflict. Having killed the feeling part of themselves they are callous to the feelings of all beings, whether man, spirit, animal, plant, or stone. A sorceror at some point awakens his fetch. As all know, those who would walk the spirit worlds must prove their worth by facing the Guardian (= Bad Man) but instead of doing so and thus gaining the freedom of the spirit world the cowardly sorceror avoids this confrontation by willingly crippling his fetch. This evil deed scars the wizard for life, and perhaps beyond. WHAT THE SORCEROR SAYS Shamans are unfortunates born into primitive societies who have not learned to control their own impulses. When their magic awakens, usually around the age of adulthood but sometimes earlier or later, they have not the training to control it with their conscious minds. Instead the subconscious impulses of the shaman have free rein and the shaman, unable to control his magic, attributes it to an external being, the "fetch". This is often visualized as an animal because it represents the untamed brute impulses of the shaman. In the Trial, we master our magic rather than being mastered by it. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES (Introductory section within Sorcery section) (What the sorceror says in a quick lecture to Lords) Magic is performed by manipulating mana [= Magic Points] on the Astral Plane. Such a manipulation is called a spell. One manipulates mana with Power. Beings with Power tend to collect all the mana that they can hold over the course of their natural cycle, which is for humans a day. The largest spell that can be shaped is limited by one's total Power, and also by one's skill. All spells must be maintained with Power or the mana loses its form and the spell ends. Thus ordinary folk and Apprentices can usually maintain but one spell. Trained sorcerors learn to maintain some of their Power as a Presence on the Astral Plane. With this Presence they can maintain a certain number of spells indefinitely; with more Presence the number and power of such spells may increase. Presence also may aid in spellcasting. If your Wizards uses his Presence to maintain spells he will not be at his full magical strength. This is an important decision that you should make in consultation with your court Wizard. To use one's Presence properly one needs to develop one's magical skills as well. Those with much power but inadequate training will be able to maintain many spells but unable to use their full potential to accomplish the greater magics. Thus as the Wizards in fealty to you grow in power it behooves you to allow them time for further training and research. In this way they will serve you better in the long term. The sorceror may also invest his Presence in an object or being. In Seshnela this is typically a staff, in Safelster a staff or wand. (Although splinter groups may use more exotic objects.) Kralorelans use a Mandala. In Fronela a staff is most often used but the Grand Knights (Wizard-Knights) of Loskalm may use a sword, shield or even armor. East Isles sorcerors often use an animal, as do the Wizards of Maniria. The choice of Focus often reflects the nature of the sorceror or his school. A quick description of the basic system: Apprentices are trained in their magical skills and in the self-discipline necessary to survive the Trial and gain Presence on the Astral Plane. During their early apprenticeship they must learn to kill their base animal impulses or these will surface during the Trial, which can drive the would-be Wizard into various forms of insanity. This is analogous Short term spells fall into two categories: Instant and Active. Active spells must be maintained by a being (may include any creature or spirit with unfixed INT). Long term spells are Maintained by a sorceror's Presence. This is the part of a sorceror's consciousness that he has learned to split off and assign to specific tasks (such as maintaining spells.) Those without Presence are thus limited to short-term spells. This includes Serfs, Knights, and Lords as well as Apprentices before the Trial. Once a sorceror has learned sufficient Self-Discipline and Ceremony he goes through the Trial. If successful he will now have Astral Presence. Presence (PRE) is increased through sacrificing Power in the same manner as a shaman increases the Power of his fetch. Presence has several uses: 1. Presence can hold Magic Points equal to itself. (Depending on game balance we may also allow it to regenerate MPs, acting as a second POW like a fetch.) 2. Presence may be used to shape mana into spells with total points (intensity + range) equal to the available Presence. 3. One point of Presence can be left on a spell to stabilize it. This Presence is still connected to the magician and he may Recall it, thus ending the spell. Presence can be left on spells such as Sense Projection which require conscious attention to use; in this case the spell remains dormant until the sorceror returns his attention to the spell. The point of Presence used to maintain a spell is not available to the sorceror for other uses such as shaping spells. [ NOTE: Balanced against RQ III shamans and priests. In your recalibrated system we might want to say that 1 point of Presence can maintain 1 Point of Intensity. This is a very simple system.] Note: All spells are thus magically connected to their casters and as such may be used to target sympathetic magic back at the caster. Low Magic This includes magic designed for Serfs (or Peasants), Knights, and Lords as well as beginner Wizard magic. Instant or Active magic: These descriptions work just as they do in RQ III (Or in RQ IV). There is no Duration skill: Active spells last until they are released. They may cost additional MPs to use in certain ways, as in the Lance effect from Form/Set. They may also cost additional magic points to maintain for long periods. Task-Specific Magic (Semi-Active? This is a horrible name, think of something better!) MusPeasant, Knight and Lord magic is designed to be task-specific and while the task is being performed normally requires no additional concentration. That is, the spell may automatically be maintained while the task is being successfully performed: it is designed to go with the task. Plow Prayer, for example, can be maintained while plowing, Sheep Song while herding, etc. No concentration roll is needed unless the workman is distracted or interrupted. A knight can fight while maintaining a Knight spell and only needs to make a concentration roll if hit or otherwise surprised. (Like the old Fireblade spell from RQ II.) Lord magic goes with Lordly tasks such as making speeches, etc. Peasant magics typically cost one MP per hour per point of Intensity to maintain. Wizards can also maintain certain spells in the same way. MANIPULATING SPELLS Instant and Active Spells Without Presence a sorceror may actively maintain spells with his conscious attention. Casting an additional spell would require a concentration roll. Additionally, multiple spells could be maintained through use of the Multispell skill. His manipulation is also limited by his Power + Available Presence. Instant and Active spells are limited by the minimum of a skill limit and the magic points held by the sorceror's POW and PRE: Skill Limit: [Note that this is with RQ III Intensity and we toned down certain spells such as Neutralize Magic and Damage Boost that were out of balance with the others.] Skill limit on total manipulation = Spell % / 5 (Special Chance) + Related Skill DIV 25* Skill limit on individual manipulation (Range, etc.) = Skill / 5% Power limit on total manipulation = Sorceror's MP's + MP's held in PRE. Of course the sorceror must also have enough MP's available to cast the spell. Further spells can be added but additional castings require a Concentration roll. Of course a sorceror with Multispell could cast and maintain several active spells at once, e.g. Illusions. * Related Skill Bonus: [ This could be eliminated if it is too complicated.] We use a bonus for appropriate Lore or other skills: Best Appropritate Skill DIV 25. (i.e 01-24% = no bonus, 25 - 49 = +1, etc.) Appropriate skill for a spell would be included in the spell description. This is not too complicated (we think) and reflects that with a better abstract understanding of what you're manipulating you can craft a better spell. Examples of Appropriate Skills: Elemental Spells use Elemental Speech (Storm Speech, etc.) Beast Spells use Animal Lore, etc. Illusion spells could use Sleight. Maintained Magic (Using Presence) When casting a long duration spell the situation is different. The skill limits are the same but the power limit is just the magic points held in the sorceror's PRE. When he casts the spell he must dedicate one point of PRE to maintaining the spell, making it unavailable for other purposes (such as holding magic points) as long as the spell is maintained. Example: Let's say we have a sorceror with POW 10, PRE 6 and 60% in his Intensity and favorite spells. When casting an Instant or Active spell he is limited by his skill to a manipulation of 12. If his personal MPs + PRE MPs is less than 12 then this is his limit. Now he wants to cast some long duration spells. At first none of his Presence dedicated to any spells. Then the first spell he casts with Presence can have six points of Intensity. He must dedicate 1 point of PRE to maintaining that spell. Now he has 5 points left, and if he has the magic points he can start up another spell with 5 points of intensity. Thus he can maintain a total of 6 spells, with his best spell at 6, his second at 5, and so on down to 1. Note that if he is maintaining all 6 long duration spells then his maximum for Instant and Active spells will be his own magic points. If the sorceror in this example a Dormali at sea he might want to maintain Skin of Life on himself and the captain. This would use up two of his "always-on" spells and cut into his abilities. Or he might decide that it's more important to be able to throw better spells and only put up Skin of Life if needed. Were the sorceror in this example to build up his Presence to more than 12 without gaining more skill then the best long duration spells would be limited by skill rather than Presence. Thus a magician has a strategic decision to make. His best spells will be those cast first. If he is maintaining spells his magical strength goes down. This aspect of the system was a lot of fun in playtest. ************************************************8 The main advantages of this system as I see it: Sorcerors get to make a strategic decision as to whether they should let their magic be 'out' in running spells or kept in a reserve. An example would be afforded by Sauron vs. Gandalf in _The Lord of the Rings_. Sauron has most of his magic 'out' in running spells while Gandalf has few running spells but instead keeps a strategic reserve. The system has a lot less bookkeeping than RQ III. Instead of tracking the duration of dozens of spells you know the size of your Presence and apportion it accordingly. For Active spells you maintain a spell as long as you need it, feeding it extra magic points as necessary. Melee rounds never get counted, you just look at whether or not a spell is being maintained. The main (IMO) important variable of how many spells you can keep running concurrently is transparent in our system. This was a (very important) hidden variable in the RQ III system. [ In your system there would be very few of these long duration spells anyway, so yours also has less paperwork.] We playtested this type of system in a Pendragon campaign, with a weak magician as one of the PCs, and a few medium NPC magicians. (No really strong magicians in this post-Merlin era.) The player enjoyed the feel of marshalling his magical resources in the same way that one might marshal an army, making the decision of whether to commit his magic "in the field" or keep a reserve instead. We haven't tested it extensively yet in a specifically Gloranthan setting but the Western culture seemed similar enough to the Pendragon milieu that I got a feel for the social consequences of such a system in a feudal society. It worked well for the court magicians, who jealously hoarded their powers or enhanced the King and his champions, and for the PC, who alternated between small enhancements on his knightly friends and himself or "gathering" all his magic if they thought they might face a real magical foe. In this campaign we used a system where {One point of Presence = One point of Intensity} instead of the 5-4-3-2-1 system described above. This might also be the way to go if we were to use Presence in your system. I've gone through several iteration of the actual mechanics, with my feeling being that a power level like that of your system was appropriate. This seemed so far removed from the RQ III system that I was trying to compromise on the power level but am now recalibrating in line with the RQ IV draft. In our system sorcerors have time for ecclesiastical duties, politics and plotting, research and training, etc. Power in our system goes into the personal development of the sorceror, not into making a bunch of gadgets. (Or one-use spells) I feel that Glorantha really seems to be a world where excellence lies more within individual than in the collection of gadgets that an institution can come up with. In the current system the best thing for sorcerors to do with Power is to enchant a big matrix, which should get handed on to their descendants, potentially a balance problems against the other two systems (where Power goes into Rune Magic or Fetches rather than all into Enchantments.) I think that it is better to have magic based on the person rather than a tool, in the latter case we are getting back to the situation in our world. People are also reluctant to throw permanent power into one-time effects. I've seen this in my campaigns. If I were running a sorceror in this system I would definitely build one big matrix and then it would be worthwhile spending POW to throw long duration spells. This is a winning strategy because duration is still exponential. In my system one big matrix is less of a win and sorcerors will try to build up their Presence instead. In a social context, the one-big-matrix approach has a strong drawback: court sorcerors and schools should have 15-point matrices lying around. Temples certainly do have big enchantments in published RQ material, cathedrals should be the same. With one of these matrices available it's now worthwhile to use POW to cast powerful long duration spells, and they start to accumulate again. I prefer my system where the limit is on the number of spells running rather than duration. Oh, and I think that people enjoy the feeling that their characters are undergoing a sort of steady personal development. And in our experience people would rather have weak magic that they can reapportion as needed than commit everything to one big spell. Also, in our system sorcerors seem to be using the same underlying laws of nature as shamans and cultists. To me, this makes Glorantha seem more like a unified world rather than a couple of different worlds stuck together. However, it now appears that the latter is more in line with Greg's current views. Anyway, that's the basic idea. I have skill (Recall Presence, Self-Discipline) and spell descriptions written up and there was also a substantial Runic component where sorcerors could dedicate portions of their Presence to different Runes. Each Spell had two or three Runes and you could only use dedicated Presence on a spell with that Rune. This was based on comments such as: "Western Wizards and sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes." - p. 21, Player's Book: Genertela, authors Greg Stafford & Sandy Petersen. I've deleted the Runic component of this system in this description since I've heard that Greg is now (perplexingly) of the opinion that Western magic is not Runic. However, I'm writing it up a variant for FREE INT, das RuneQuest-Magazin. . - Paul ps. As I said this is just a rough outline of the system and if you want polished prose or more details feel free to ask. I have to get back to the physics mines so I shouldn't really take the time to edit it into a better form (unless it looks like parts of it might get accepted.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19631; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:22:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21978; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:22:06 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:21:52 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B3CD3366D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly again. This message _should_ follow a long post about sorcery. If you get this one first, it will only make sense when you get the long post. In light of Oliver's response when I sent the system to him, let me try to clarify a point that perhaps was not well developed in the description. Long lasting spells have no fixed Duration, instead they are maintained by a Sorceror's Presence until he Recalls that Presence. Thus the sorceror has a certain amount of magic, which he can have "out in the field" in long duration spells, or can "keep in reserve" as Presence. Recall Presence is a new magic skill. One still must spend Magic Points to cast the spells, thus there is a cost associated with switching one's magic. We have changed the details of the system a number of times and have not settled on a definitive system. We were torn on the issue of how to balance the system: against RQ III Sorcery (ugh!) or against the other two systems, i.e., shamanism and divine magic. We have tried to choose the latter. After some email from Oliver I want to make a few changes in the system, some of his ideas are clear improvements. - Paul PS: concerning not recovering MP's for spells that are still on. (Joerg) We tried another variant that was a bit of fun: spells act as MP parasites, they need their intensity/day in MP's to function. They draw this from the person the spell is on or from the casting sorceror. Typically this comes from the MP recovery rate of a willing subject. Thus the warrior with a 3 enhancement to strength and dexterity and 2 points of Spell Resistance will have 8 points cut from his daily MP recovery rate. This limits the amount of magic on a person (to his POW) and also accounts for the hostility of shamans (who see the spells as little spirit parasites) and priests (who think that MPs should be used for worship if possible) to sorcery, and why people from other cultures don't even want it cast on them. This system preserves the basic feel of RQ III Sorcery while imposing some limits and a cost to the person using it, and discourages spirit magic users from getting sorcery cast on them as well. (If your MP recovery rate is cut to 2 points a day, you don't really want to cast Heal 6 and Bladesharp 4).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20719; Wed, 9 Jun 93 11:44:41 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23580; Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:44:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:44:44 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 9:44:44 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11B9D382D4E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? To me it's always seemed a discordany note in the magic systems. While I was never impressed with Sorcery when 3rd edition came out it never really irritated me, and divine magic works well enough(and I can't see a much better way to do it). But spirit magic bothers me. I've never liked the idea that someone who knows protection 4 and bladesharp 4 would think along the lines of, "Well I only want to spend 4 MP for this combat. The people we'll be fighting don't have much armor so I'll go with Protection 3 and Bladesharp 1" It sounds too much like "I'll put 3 charges into my forcefield and 1 charge into my weapon" What I'd like is something like Bladesong a spell you learn like a normal skill, you can get +5% for each round spent chanting/singing up to +50% and when you roll for each 10% you make it by you can the equivalent of 1 level of bladesharp. This way a warrior would have a reason to spend lots of time reciting a charm over his sword rather than a quick muttered prayer to cast Protection 3 and another one for Bladesharp 1. You never know how well the spirits will respond but the better/longer the prayer the better the magic you'll get. Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to ignore me. :) -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25749; Wed, 9 Jun 93 13:53:37 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB01088; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:53:26 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:53:34 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS -- general replies on Sorcery, Shields and Subjects Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:49:53 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11DC3592147@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Roderick Robertson (on shields) ------------------------------------------------------------ | Armor Points/Encumbrance/Cost | Material Small Medium Large | | Leather (1 Ply) 3/0.5/1 4/1.0/3 5/1.5/5 | Wicker 5/1.0/5 7/2.0/10 9/3.0/20 | Wood 8/1.5/25 10/3.0/50 13/4.5/75 | Wood/Leather 12/2.0/50 14/4.0/75 16/6.0/100 (standard) | Reinf. W/L 15/2.5/60 17/4.5/90 20/6.5/125 | Bronze 15/2.0/110 17/4.0/140 20/7.0/150 Shouldn't this be 6.0, to continue the pattern? ^^^ | With such a system, more Cultural differences could be introduced | (Sartar Orlanthi use Wood, Wood/Leather, or Reinforced Wood/Leather; | Sun Domers use Reinforced Wood/Leather or Bronze; Ducks use Wicker or | Leather; etc.). I like it, though. :) Iron would be equal to Bronze, unless enchanted where it gets x1.5 the listed AP. Is there any value in getting small shields? I mean, once players get the cash, they will just upgrade to large ones unless there is some disadvantage to having them. | Since I have only been receiving the list since last night, forgive | me if this is an old question, but could you elaborate on why there is | (was?) no Catch skill? Someone (Loren?) mentioned that they had | included Throw/catch as a single skill on a Character sheet. To me, |the two are not in the least the same (else a Reciever could be a | Quarterback...) I think Throw and Catch should be part of the same skill, much like I feel that punch, kick and headbutt should be rolled into "Brawling" and Grapple, Hold, Escape rolled into "Wrestling". Loren J. Miller suggests: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Before the volume of this list becomes unmanageable, I want to propose a | protocol for people to use. Please use consistent subject lines, with | keyword information, to identify the topic of your post. Subject lines | like the following are helpful because they immediately identify the | basic topic of your post. | | ADMIN: The benefits of digestified mailing lists | SKILLS: Redundant skills, Cut it out! | SKILLS: Redundant skills, Keep them! | SORCERY: RQ3 compatible or not? A general good idea, I suppose. I like lots of traffic, but others might not. What about general messages where you reply on several subjects in one swoop (like this message)? | This is a list of likely subject line keywords. Well, I don't know if a "cast in stone" list is needed. Just choose a good, 1 or 2 word tag for your subject (in upper case) that fits. | You are the owners of this list, and I want it to work for your sake as | well as my own. But I want you all to know that if it gets too chatty | and inane I'm fully capable of pulling the plug on it, forcing us to | once again use the digest for this discussion. I hope not. Like I have stated, I like the volume/turnaround of the list for this stuff. But I'll try to do more "combined messages" like this one. Paul Reilly and his Sorcery stuff: ------------------------------------------------------------ | Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the | version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the | light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it | so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. I'm not too fond of adding another attribute, PRE. But then, I was not happy with Steve M.'s WIL in his heroquest rules. I personally find the "parasite spell" idea a much better idea. Serfs, Knights and Lords (and apprentices) pay the magic cost of the spell each hour. Sorcerers are those who have mastered the Infinity rune, and pay once per day. This only applies to temporal spells, of course. So, Joe peasant could cast the "Plowing Song", and basically has enough mana to last a day. If it were really tough soil, he might need a 2 intensity casting, which would drain him in 5 hours, wasting the rest of the day. But there might be a Serf-combine object that hold mana that he can hold while he plows, draining it as well. His children can then pray to the Invisible god after the days work to refill it for the next day. Such "Aid" objects, may be loaned to the serfs by their lords, or rented out at a fee. Perhaps the use of such objects require 1 extra MP (which goes to the Invisible god as "his due" or is rationalized as energy loss/inefficiency by us pagan science types :) per POW of enchantment. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA27594; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:29:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03609; Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:29:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:29:58 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 12:30:21 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11E5F873097@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > > SORCERY NOTES (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday 1993 > > Here's a short description of our system, slightly changed from the > version I sent to Oliver Jovanovic. It seems apropos to post it in the > light of the current discussion. I lack the time to polish it > so it may be rough in spots. Let me know what you think. > Overall I have to say I really like it. Somehow sorcers seem like they would "feel" right using this system. I'm pretty sure the basic premise is sound. And other details can be polished later. That's what playtesting is for after all. :) > > We've experimented with several ideas about how sorcery > could work. Our method has been to first look at how we want magicians > to function in the society and then to reverse engineer from there. > We also like the idea that there are laws of nature in Glorantha and > that the different magic systems (Divine, Spirit, Sorcery) have some > underlying similarities that reflect these laws. I really like this idea. One problem I think all three magic systems in RQ have is that their are really countless magic systems in Glorantha. And there is really no way to fix this. Writing up a seperate magic system just for Godunya worshippers doesn't make sense. So the next best thing is to base it off of sorcery. But by emphasing the ways the three magic systems are similar I think later variations(like Godunya or even Lunar magic) will be easier to develop. The similarities will hopefully help people customize later magic systems for different parts of a Glorantha campaign. After all I don't think Mostali magic should be _exactly like Malkioni sorcery, just very similar. > > We also saw that the description of Western people and culture was > not in agreement with the sorcery system. We tried to take the > descriptions as canonical when building a new system. Apparently this was > misleading, for example on the question of Runic Sorcery: > Basically sorcerors could dedicate themselves to a small number of Runes, > increasing say their fire powers at the cost of their magic in general. Sounds good to me. > > [very interesting background on what the Shaman's and Sorceror's worldviews are deleted] I really like the parellel here. It always seemed to me that if the shaman could develop part of himself into a fetch other cultures and worldviews would be able to do soemthing similar. In fact given the nature of Glorantha I'd be shocked if no one else developed something like this. I also like the conecpt of Presense. I once tried to develop something along the same lines myself( I was using lounar magic for sorcery and just ignoring the RQIII sorcery system) and was basing the was basically a substitute familiar and the wizard was really at a only fixes many problems with the current sorcery system it will be a more interesting system to characters in. The mindset of sorcerors under the presence system will be more in line with what I think of when I think of a wizard. > ************************************************8 > The main advantages of this system as I see it: > > Sorcerors get to make a strategic > decision as to whether they should let their magic be 'out' in running > spells or kept in a reserve. An example would be afforded by Sauron vs. > Gandalf in _The Lord of the Rings_. Sauron has most of his magic 'out' > in running spells while Gandalf has few running spells but instead keeps > a strategic reserve. I think this will be quite an interesting addition to Glorantha. Wizards will have lots of options for making developing their own unique style and tactics without making them all powerfull. > > Anyway, that's the basic idea. I have skill (Recall Presence, Self-Discipline) > and spell descriptions written up and there was also a substantial Runic > component where sorcerors could dedicate portions of their Presence to different > Runes. Each Spell had two or three Runes and you could only use dedicated > Presence on a spell with that Rune. This was based on comments such as: > > > "Western Wizards and sorcerors love to use the standard Gloranthan Runes." > - p. 21, Player's Book: Genertela, authors Greg Stafford & Sandy Petersen. > > I've deleted the Runic component of this system in this description > since I've heard that Greg is now (perplexingly) of the opinion that > Western magic is not Runic. However, I'm writing it up a variant for > FREE INT, das RuneQuest-Magazin. That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. Any chance you'll post this sytem to the regular RQ digest? > . > > - Paul -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28577; Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:54:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05144; Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:54:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 15:54:23 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 14:56:20 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <11EC63E6441@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Curtis Shenton: > I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear > with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? < much deleted> > Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too > reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to > ignore me. :) Not beaten to death here, but I posted thoughts much to the same effect to the RQ Daily last week (in response to comments by you and Paul Snow; I guess *we're* all in agreement, anyway). Did you see Nick Brooke's excellent reply (which I threatened to post here anyway)? If so, skip down past the *****, but I'll repeat it here for those who missed it. ********************************************************* Nick Brooke wrote: > Boris Mikey: > > Magic, even in a magic rich world such as Glorantha, > > should be mysterious and uncertain. > > Agree with the sentiment and the approach. This looks like a good moment > to chuck in my ha'penn'orth (mechanics, I'm afraid). Something we tested > last Sunday was a Spirit Magic casting die-roll of 1D20 against POW (rather > than the old POWx5 +- Magic Bonus - ENC on 1D100). Similar to some > Pendragon mechanics. My original idea was this: > > Success (roll < POW) meant you could cast up to the number of points of > spell you had rolled on the die. So if you wanted to cast Bladesharp 6 but > rolled a "2", you could only put up two points. If you were trying for a > hefty fixed-cost spell (Lightwall at four points), you'd need to roll > between 4 and your POW to succeed. > > Critical success (roll = POW) meant you could cast as many points of the > spell as you owned, for one Magic Point only. > > Failure (roll > POW) was no trouble. > > Fumble (roll = 20) meant you wasted a Magic Point. > > This could be trimmed to fit your own conceptions: Failure might cost 1 MP > and Fumble the full number you were meaning to cast, if you like penalising > people for screwing up. > > Chuck in the new Magic skill of "Focus" (gives +1 to effective POW per 5% > of skill for the purposes of spirit spell casting only), and you can tell > the professional spirit magicians from the amateurs. Get a high enough > skill at Focussing, and you can cruise through magical engagements under > your own Power (all those critical rolls). ********************************************************* Now, for those who don't want to give up their 1d00 rolls, the following is mostly equivalent. Instead of a straight POWx5% or less roll, roll (POW - magic points in spell) x5% + Focusing skill If it's a variable spell, rolling over this will get a smaller version of the spell. If you don't like a focus spell (or even if you do) you could include your idea of taking extra time, but that's already covered by the ceremony rules (albeit in a bloodless manner, but a good GM and hopefully RQ4 will give lots of examples of the types of ceremonies done). For those who want even more unpredictable magic, Nick also gave the idea of adding the total points of spells you have running to the points of spell you are casting. To adapt it to 1d100, you would roll (POW - MPs in spell - MPs in spells running) x5% + Focusing skill If you roll between this and the previous figure, then you can cast a the spell, but only if you drop some of your running magic. BTW, I'd like to chime in now and express my hope that, whatever form Spirit Magic takes in RQ4, they will drop the silly POWx5% on 1d100 and just roll POW on a d20. Functionally identical, and simpler. And it's not as the game doesn't use d20's already. vvvvvvvvvvv Paul Reilly: Loved your sorcery system. I'd recommend using the rule of one point of PRE per point intensity of spell maintained. Though the other would be more useful to beginning sorceror characters. A hybrid approach would rule would be to require at least one PRE to maintain each long duration spell, but that any such spell can be dispelled as if it's intensity were one. More PRE can be used to back it, up to it's intensity, to increase the power require to dispel it. -- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| It's an ill wind that was healed by Chalana Arroy. Lightbringer saying. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03533; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:03:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12056; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:02:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:03:02 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RULES -- comments on 2.0 draft Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:59:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <120EC535658@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, after Nick's chewing up of the 2.0 draft, I might as well go into mine. I made some comments on the regular list, which may get cursory note, but I will try to stick to new items. ===============================================================================RQIV PLAYERS BOOK CHARACTERISTICS: Why not tweak a little towards realism and have slight differences in attributes for male/female humans as well? It's done for the other races. Now, the differences might not be much. Probably +1 to SIZ and STR for male, +1 to CON and perhaps DEX for female. Not much, but better reflects things I think. DAMAGE MODIFIER: I agree with Nick -- replace the extra die with a simple +/- bonus to the base weapon damage. Nick had a table that looked good to me. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: As I noted (and someone else as well), chuck the fractions. Multiply all values by 4. 1 BP now equals 25 hours of training (1/2 week). I wonder, seriously, how many games will start off with novice level. I run my starting players at Expert, since they want to get right into the thick of things without being overclassed most of the time. If it is decided to go to smaller, but more well defined occupation packs (Soldier, Sergeant, Night Watchman, Honor Guard, etc), perhaps a leaner way is to assign each class a specific number of "Pack points", each of which is used to enter a career (perhaps some real hairy occupations require 2 instead of 1), and a set of "general points" which are used to get the extras now handled by BP. CHARACTER GENERATION: I agree with Nick -- Yank the rolled culture/career stuff. That or place it all in a "Book O' Tables" pamphlet will all this random, but sometimes useful stuff in it. MAGICAL BACKGROUND: Should not be chosen as a parallel effort, but be a reward or result of the proper career choice. At present it's kinda Bass-ackwards, where you choose divine magic background, then must take Initiate to justify it. BECOMING AN INITIATE: Folded in, just like the other careers. But is usually the first or second pack taken, if you become an initiate at such early ages. OPTIONAL SKILLS AND TRAINING: It's background, it's abstract anyways. Just present a list of skills, likely source of training (Criminal, Military, Civilian, Mercantile, etc) and cost in points. Spend points as desired to up levels in those skills. Perhaps some skills cost more for really opposite backgrounds (i.e. street thug skills for high-born nobles). So the process is: spend Profession slots, use your extra points to round out the rough edges from the careers. An optional conversion from Occupation slots to Extra points (and vice versa) should be provided, but limited to 10% of either (to prevent total conversion to Extra points and buying skills as they will). BUYING OPTIONAL SKILLS WITHIN ONE'S PROFESSION: With the above system, upping a skill provided by the occupation slot using extra points may get a reduced price, perhaps 25% to 50% off. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES Handled with extra points, to round off the character. Existing means looks okay. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE TABLES As above, yank out the "offline" random tables (i.e. those not needed when running the game but useful before or after the session) and put them in an extra pamphlet. CULTURAL EQUIPMENT This section should probably be included in the section of the RQ4 book that deals with gear, perhaps broken as listed into "bundles". Keep gear with equipment, and the skills descriptions WAY in front with the character generation and career lists. PROFESSIONS Like I noted before, I think I'm favoring narrower but more numerous occupation packs. As an example, Crafter might be split into the following: Craft Apprentice (x2) entry: any basic: Primary Craft 45, Secondary Craft 30, Craft Custom 45 other: +15 to any 5 of the following: (list of skills that Joe Apprentice could get, not including the above 3) Craft Senior Apprentice entry: Craft Apprentice basic: none other: +15 to any 5 of the following: (list of skills that Fred senior App. could learn or increase in) Craft Journeyman entry: Craft Senior Apprentice etc... Craft Master entry: Craft Journeyman (POWx3 roll) etc... The POW roll simulates that you might have to wait for an opening before you can get the rank of master. The Apprentice slot costs double since it includes a host of baseline skills that you need to be trained in. You get the skills listed in "Basic" up to that level...if you are already better then that you get no improvement (you already know more then what they are teaching you). The other training is added to existing skills, or to learn new skills. only those listed may be affected. There might be some other Craft subgroups that I have not listed. Subgroups could easily fit within the subgroups already presented for some occupations. The above career system is kinda influenced by that used by 2300ad. BASIC CULTURAL SKILLS This would be part of a "Youth slot". Street Ruffian, country kid, noble child, etc. You get one "childhood pack" to fit your culture, and this should limit what careers you can go into (i.e. Low Noble may require: "Noble Child", "Foot Soldier and POWx1 roll", "Sergeant and POWx1 roll", "Low Officer and POWx2", "High Officer and POWx3", etc. So, you can be born into it, or get a title through career actions. SKILL VERSUS SKILL Needing yet another roll if both get the same level of success is too clunky. Looking at the difference probably works as well, but I wonder how just using the "High Roller" would work: Example: Arman tries to sneak (skill 56%) past a guard (Scan 45%). Arman rolls a 22, the guard a 34. Both are simple successes, but the guard has "the high roll" and the slight advantage, and spots Arman. Now, while on a "difference from value required" basis, Arman has the better roll. But when it comes to speed, one can just look at the rolled values without needing to figure out math stuff. Hell, you don't even need to tell the players what the guard has as a skill. "You both succeed, but it looks like he has high-roll...you lose, sucker!" :) When listing a target to overcome (like a lock, for instance), the maker's Roll is pre-figured and noted: "The lock on this door is Rated at Succ/23" Thus, the guy picking the lock needs to get a special or better, or succeed with a roll over 23. INCREASING SKILLS BY EXPERIENCE I think Very Hard skills should increase by 1d3-1, not just 1. Like Nick said, toss the fixed gain (my players haven't used it, and they don't seem to mind. However, I have not told them that they can take a fixed amount...:) SKILL TRAINING AND RESEARCH >>The length of time for one training or research session is a >>number of hours equal to the current skill percentage. Yuck. I hated this. I get nit-picky about "Well, I have 50 hours, so I'll train my 15% skill, my 20% skill and my 13% skill". Too fine a resolution. I'm going to try the following: 0-25% = 1/2 week 26-50% = 1 week 51-75% = 1-1/2 week 76-100% = 2 weeks etc. Lot easier to break it up. Prevents the "while we are here for a few days I trin in this skill...what's that, 16 hours? Just enough" stuff I had BEFORE I went to a "5 training points per week, Skills need 1 point per 10% of skill" way, which works pretty good as well. But I'm gonna try the 25% threshold way in the next game, see how it looks. >>For a training session to succeed, the teacher must succeed in an >>Instruct roll. I think it should be standardized as Instruct + 1/5 the skill being taught. This works for bargain, might as well make it a system-wide mechanic and keep things standard. It should be noted that the teacher MUST be better skilled then the student. I'm not sure if this note is in there. >>With the GM's permission, players may use the previous experience >>tables to give an estimate of training gains. Each background point >>roughly equals 100 hours of training time. This gives players >>and GMs a quick way to handle long periods of training or >>research. It is especially helpful for NPCs. Axe this. Background generation is an abstraction used to get a handle on 16-30 years of non-played time. It has no place once the character is "up to date". HUMANOID HIT POINTS PER LOCATION TABLE Should be up with the rest of character generation, not so far down. RESULTS OF DAMAGE Should be down with the rest of the combat stuff. SKILLS Comments on the skills, as previously promised (threatened? :) In general, the split/merge strangeness is kind of hard to fully take in. I think names should be "primitivized" in some cases. Acrobatics a wide-ranging skill that tries to do it all. I suggest limiting it to general leaping and rolling, with Breakfall included. Narrow the definition. Bargain Rename to "Haggle", perhaps? Battle I think this skill is unneeded. This function can be provided just as well by abstracting to (Primary Attack) + (Primary Defense) + (Scout ) divided by 3. Beg I see three types of common speaking: Orate, Debate, and Fast Talk. The first is where you try to persuade by overcoming the emotions of the target, the second where you try to overcome the knowledge of the target, the third where you try to overcome the intelligence of the target (in trying to confuse or obsucate). Begging is an act that uses Orate (a more generic term is needed) combined with Street Custom. I fail to see the need for this skill on it's own. Breakfall Roll it into Acrobatics. Courtesan Perhaps this should be renamed to seduction. May be used as an add with certain interactive skills at 1/5th level. Thus, one may up one's Persuasion of a noble using orate, using a bit of sex appeal to up the ante. (should be decided by the referee if this is allowed in this case). Craft I think of "Craft" as "Work this substance to alter it's form". Craft gold, Craft wood, Craft stone, etc. "Craft Butchery" sounds real clunky, even though it technically is a "reduction of form" rather then an "enhancement of form" like the others. Don't list "Brew Venom" as one of the options -- it just tempts players to go for it. Reserve it for specific occupation slots or cults. Dance Why per culture? Why not just say you may always add 1/5th your Custom to this skill when dancing for members of that culture. Dance is Dance is dance...the variations are cultural. Devise I like it as listed in RQ3 book 1 -- a skill in assembling and disassembling devices and traps. Disarm Traps Pitch it. Have a Trap Lore which you use to figure out the device, then use devise to disarm. Alternately, Use Devise +1/5 Trap Lore to disarm and Devise +1/5 Trap Lore to set. Escape Roll this into a "Wrestling Defense" skill. Intrigue Better to make this another Custom (Court Custom) Lip Read Note that the lower of this skill or the language skill required is used. Maneuver I personally like this skill. Martial Arts I feel that, to maintain the dangerous feel of a martial artist, that this skill is best used as an add to the proper skill. The style is decided when you learn the skill, and this style affects one area. Areas include "Holds" "Strikes" and "Weapons". The area covered adds the MA skill to the base skill. Areas not covered may add 1/5th the MA skill. For example, Kwanjoe the fast has Martial Arts (Holds) 55%. His Wrestling Attack skill is 70% and his Wrestling Defense skill is 60%. When grappling someone, he has an effective skill of 55+70, or 125% when considering specials, criticals, etc. When using his Katana with his 2H-Sword skill of 65%, he has an effective skill of 65+11, or 76%. He must learn Martial arts in another style to get the "full add" in that style. Fully trained MA masters are rare, and very dangerous. Martial Hold Martial Throw No longer needed if the above MA tweak is used. Memorize Chuck it. Use INTx5 if you need this. Mimic I would say this is a varient of Act. Is there really a need? Pick Locks Now folds under Devise, with Lock Lore. Read/Write [Lang] I like the comment by someone about making this "Script" Run I think this should have at least 40% base for us monkey boys, like climb has. Ducks have better swimming then we have running. Sail I think Boat can cover this well enough. Set Traps Fold into device, with Trap Lore. Torture This is probably better as a knowledge of how to break someone, rather then a fine steady hand at it. Treat Disease Treat Poison Combine under the skill of "Healer" or something. SKILL DECAY Who cares. This is DEFINITELY more bother then the worth gained. >> Example: A character with 90% Broadsword Attack and Parry is unable to >> practice the skill for 90 minutes in a month's time, due to a serious >> illness. His Braodsword Attack and Parry drop to 89%. You expect me to worry about 90 minutes per MONTH times god knows how many skills? Get real. If this has to be in the rules, put it in a grey-shaded optional box or sidebar or something. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03573; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:05:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12170; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:05:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:05:04 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:04:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <120F4D91976@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. Curtis writes a lot of nice comments about my post and ask: >That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. >Any chance you'll post this sytem to the regular RQ digest? I will try to polish it up a bit this weekend and drop it off at the list. I have a number of things to work on, but since (at least a few) people have commented favorably on this I'll add it to the list. Don't want to overload it with too much Sorcery at once, though...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04612; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:44:49 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14473; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:49 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:51 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1219E8A7E8C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Spirit Magic: A couple of variants we have played with: 1. Range = POW x 5 meters instead of 50. No more staying 51 meters away while shooting with a bow! The RQ4 draft also has this mod, I bet half the people on this list have made it also. In all cases we adopt this rule. The rest of these are options, not necessarily intended to be used together: 2. Go back to RQ3 for Focussed on self, Unfocussed on others. Add in things like "Unfocussed on weapon in hand" for Bladesharp. Now invent a Focussing skill to cast magic. This is a standard Magic skill and can improve through experience. This works great in low-magic campaigns. Interpret things like Fanaticism as just willing yourself to fight fanatically: spend a point of willpower (MP) and hack away! Strength is berserk strength, Coordination is paying extra attention (at the cost of willpower = MP) to what you're doing, etc. Spells like Bladesharp can be interpreted as "extra effort": you can only do it for a while and then you get mentally tired - fighting really does work like this! (Spending mental effort for peak ability in the most important fight of the day.) ___________ 3. When RQ3 first added spell spirits we thought they were a dopey mechanic. After reading THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN and some other such books, I don't think they went far enough. Primitive peoples pick up "helper spirits" all the time. So another model is instead of saying "I beat up the spirit and force it to teach me its spell that it can't even cast itself," say instead: "I acquire a new spirit buddy who'll do his trick for me." Thus you get a Bladesharp spirit - it doesn't cast a spell, it IS the spell. It can sit on a sword and help it fight. You have to feed it some mana, of course, or it won't do it's trick. You can acquire several spirits of the same type. If you acquire spirits of opposing types (Fireblade and Darkwall) you may have to break up catfights once in a while and one or both of them may run off and sulk. The shaman makes you a little house for the spirit (Focus, like an oppossum rib cage) or you find it on a visionquest. I'd probably use this model in a Hsunchen campaign, it fits much better with an animistic view of the world. 4. Another model is to say that you don't cast spells: instead you've learned to talk to a certain type of spirit. In this case your culture says practically everything has a spirit. If you've learned how to talk to sword spirits you can bribe your sword (with mana) to fight a bit harder for you (Bladesharp). You could also figure out how to bribe an enemy's sword into not trying very hard when he hits you. (Dullblade). You could use the same old mechanics for spells but change the interpretation, and the whole concept of learning spells might change. Thus someone who learned how to talk to Fire spirits could logically learn how to wake them up (Ignite) or lull them back to sleep (Extinguish). These spells, considered 'opposite' in many cultures, would go together in the animistic culture I've outlined. 5. This applies to shamans only. Shamans may release a spirit held by their fetch to perform a single task, but what are the time limits? Also, how is a mindless spirit (Law, disease, elemental, etc.) supposed to be able to know to keep its deal with the shaman? We play that the fetch must divert part of its attention to supervising the spirit, setting aside one magic point (or one magic point per ten points of the spirit's POW) for that purpose. Thus the fetch doesn't recover the magic point until the task is done. This puts a nice limit on how long a task the shaman may demand, but allows the shaman to give an offensive spirit an order like "Go into the Wastes and approach not the habitations of men" to permanently get rid of it if he is willing to effectively sacrifice a point of POW to do so. Also, when combined with rule #3 above this can let the shaman make a medicine bundle, good for one spell. The shaman, using his Enchant skill, makes a medicine bundle (costing MP but no POW) that the spirit can recognize and follow. (Without Second Sight it needs something special as a marker.) The shaman pays off the spell spirit in advance (maybe with double the usual MPs) and its task is to stay with the medicine bundle until a condition is met, e.g. the bundle is thrown at someone. Then the spirit does its thing, and goes free. Note the shamans' fetch doesn't get it's MP back until the bundle is used, thus the shaman can only make a limited number and every one that he has 'out' reduces his fetch's possible MP by one. Oh, you could also make these for healing spirits,etc. These make a good GM tool if you want the PC's to have a spirit spell or spirit for one use without giving it to them permanently. _____________________ I may send this to the RQ Daily as well, now that I've written it. But first I'll give y'all a chance to stop me by telling me that it's a waste of bandwidth!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04968; Wed, 9 Jun 93 17:54:37 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14882; Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:54:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:54:36 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY: Paul Reilly's system Date: 09 Jun 93 18:45:57 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <121C81A51EB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'll comment on the ideas in Paul Reilly's proposed Sorcery rules system first; I'll test the mechanics before responding on those. I am *delighted* by Paul's suggestion that Wizards create an "artificial Fetch" made up of suppressed desires, self-denial and the like. It opens up a new moral dimension in the sorcery system, as we now have the groundwork for a mechanism for penalising characters who act against the rigid moral tenets of their religion (whatever those may be) -- their "Presence" would start to diminish (as well it might!). Old Wizard Marlet would be delighted! Likewise, the idea that sorcery spells "parasitise" their users is nicely thought out, and builds up into a game mechanic that nicely reproduces an existing Gloranthan prejudice. The Wizard's Staff (etc.) is a suitably dignified replacement for the overly-Familiar menagerie carried around by sorcerers in RQ3. The dilemma Wizards will now face - "Keep Magic In or Let It Out" - looks like an enjoyable one for players to wrestle with and balance. The mathematics seem largely to have disappeared, which can only be a good thing. This whole system looks plausible at first sight, and I shall be paying it close attention for the next few days, hoping to weasel out any flaws buried in it. Simply by noticing that most people in a sorcery-using society are not Adepts or Apprentices, then attending to their needs (rather than creating new kinds of Fireball), Paul has taken a great leap beyond most discussion on this topic. I am happily impressed. Three quibbles: The version of the rules I downloaded seemed to have a hiatus in the middle, about where the Presence-creating ritual "Trial" would probably have been detailed. Is this just my machine playing up, or wasn't it written yet? I'm not sure that we need to call the "anti-Fetch's" POW characteristic by any special name (after all, Shamans get by with "Fetch POW"): what we need is a name for this Spiritual Thing that Wizards have but the rest of us don't. "Presence" doesn't ring any bells for me. Nor do the obvious "spiritual" things -- "Genius", "Daimon", "Guardian Angel", etc. Ideas, anyone? Also, "Astral" doesn't work for me as a rules term, though certainly the West is big enough that some Wizards [including our lecturer] might think their magic came from the stars -- after all, they wear plenty of them on their robes! Apart from those, I have no conceptual problems with this (yet?), which is more than can be said for any other proposed Sorcery system I have seen. It has flavour! It has a social dimension!! It might even work!!! Thanks, Paul. Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07142; Wed, 9 Jun 93 19:18:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17293; Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:17:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:18:57 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Paul Reilly's system Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:17:28 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1232A0361A7@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a short note in response to Nick's note: There are some glitches in what I posted: this fall into typos, thinkos, and possible real problems. I apologize for any typos or thinkos and will try to clean it up this weekend and repost since there have been some favorable reactions. Credit where credit is due: this is (C) Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday. Just because he's not on the net doesn't mean that he doesn't exist! I'll be posting some stuff for him soon about Spirit Cult Regiments as well. (Or is it Regimental Spirit Cults?) Also, note that I sent substantially the same system to Oliver Jovanovic a week or two ago. He came back with some insightful comments and Gloranthan information (such as who uses staffs, Kralorelan mandalas, etc.) which has led to substantial improvements over what I sent him. The heart of the system, that I hope makes it into RQ4, is the parallelism between shamans and sorcerors, and the idea of sorcerors having a certain amount of magic that can be kept in reserve or out running in spells, instead of counting Duration on spells. Beyond this the mechanics are up for debate. I like Nick's ideas on tying the Presence to maintenance of vows and morals - I saw this the other way around, that the sorceror's libido had been 'killed' so that they no longer could break their restrictions. But it's possible that the Wizard could become corrupted, or, as the Lunars would say, begin to be Healed. All this leads back to the question of how one should build up one's personal _orenda_ in various cultures - the POW gain as it exists now seems wrong to me. Oh, and if anyone else manages to "weasel out any flaws buried in it" please email me so I can get to work on them! - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09441; Wed, 9 Jun 93 21:03:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19300; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:03:32 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:03:40 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Reply to COMMENTS Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 22:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <124EE41507D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> People have requested that replies be limited to one per day, therefore this will be quite massive. Sorry. First, a response to some of Nick Brooke's comments of Tuesday: >Why do you use "1d6" where the RQ3 rules use "1D6"? More to the >point, why use "RQIII" where RQ3 uses "RQ3"? You're also sloppy >about "statistic" where the rules say "characteristic". This is >a contamination from other games, and should be stamped out. Because we haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing yet. We're still more interested in content than form right now. >You use uncommon and exotic examples in what should be the basic >Gloranthan rule book: nightingale floors, Oriental weapons and >martial arts, Krarshtkids and timinits.... True, and a very good point. >Knowledge Skills Modifier >This will be more useful if unaffected by POW (which affects too many skills as it is).... ...let's see, Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many? >Character Generation > >Arlia is lucky to have POW 10 and CON 15. This makes her look >good when rules which require you to divide POW by 5 or 30 by >CON come up. Rurik, with POW 12 and CON 16 would make the rules >look more clunky. So will most player characters. Rules examples >should be simple, but not deceptively so: showing how the >easiest of all possible characters gets through generation will >not help those who lack her natural advantages (and will find >themselves dealing in 0.05's of a characteristic point). Another good point. >General Note > >You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial >culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use >these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer >my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. Nick, you seem to be using "nobody sane" a bit loosely. I know lots of people who like to roll randomly and generate characters based on the rolls - it's a challenge. That's why we have several ways to do it, so people don't have to use methods they don't like. Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use in the book bother you that much? >Can anyone explain why INT should not be increasable with time >and study, like any other characteristic? And don't use science, >IQ studies et al, as Glorantha isn't a scientific world. A >common man's perceptions tell him that long studies make you >more brainy; if the Gloranthan man believes this, then it's the >way the world works. (I don't need to remind you that the world >is also flat, and the sun goes round it: is "fixed intelligence" >more important to us than either of these?). Sure, make it >expensive, but it might as well be possible. > I agree. Now convince Oliver. >Cultural Equipment > >Give specific Genertelan cultures' weapon selections rather than >the "generic" lists here at present. Good point, and a good idea. > Also, rename Bezainted armour as Studded Leather: there is no >Byzantium in Glorantha. (Sog City isn't quite the same). And >reintroduce some of the "whimsical" items of professional >equipment into the profession lists; I was sorry to see them >gone. I favor removing Bezainted based solely on the fact that no two gamers I know pronounce it quite the same way, :-) >I hate POW gain rolls. They unbalance every RQ campaign against >every other, as no two GMs concur on when to allow them, how >frequent they should be, etc. Also, players distort their >characters' behaviour in order to earn them: worse than with >other "skill checks", as the potential reward is higher. >I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in >general, and go the Pendragon way.... We're trying to maintain continuity with RQ-past and -present, which would make us very reluctant to simply discard POW gain rolls. What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style characteristic increases? (If you "stress" any stat, you roll 2D6. On a 7, the stat increases, on a 2, it decreases.) This would apply *mainly* to POW, but if someone, say, has to tightrope walk across a gorge full of Midget Slashers while juggling daggers blindfolded, they might get a DEX increase roll. The Pendragon system doesn't "feel" Gloranthan to me. Note also that Pendragon assumes a total of one adventure per game year, while Glorantha is much more active. > >Skill Training and Research > >Remove EVERY option to take a fixed increase instead of a die >roll. If we are afraid of being unlucky, why do we role-play >with dice at all? These ludicrous opt-outs distend the rules and >provide shelter for whining cowards. Be firm: let them grow up, >or drop out! Same as above - if this really bothers you, abolish fixed increases in your game (I am). Why enforce your taste on everyone? >Results of Damage > >I think dying of thirst or starvation would be among the last of >my worries if I was unconscious with a head wound. This looks >intensely silly, and should be changed: bleeding to death or >dying from exposure are far more immediate risks. > There was a case in today's newspaper - a man got beaten up badly at a party, and lay unconscious in an occupied apartment's living room for two days before anyone realized he wasn't just asleep! He died of thirst. >Fumbles > >These become far too common with weary or exhausted characters >having 10-20%+ chances to fumble. I'd suggest adding 1% to the >fumble chances of tired, 2% for weary, or 4% for exhausted >characters. Still tough, but not so ludicrously dangerous. Disagree - if someone tries to fight hand to hand while exhausted, they're going to be swinging long, heavy weapons while barely able to move, staggering, etc. I think lots of fumbles is (as software designers say) a feature, not a bug. >Sancta Simplicitas > >"When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above >distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate (and any >amount moved beyond that) by the appropriate percentage for the >terrain... Modifiers are cumulative... Arlia will have to make >another fatigue roll every 0.11 kilometers..." > >I rest my case. Write proper movement rules that you don't need >a calculator to use. Good point, we'll try. >Why should an adventurer who backs up a Rune spell with magic >points have to delay casting it? His god is taking the power >from him as the spell comes through: he is not manipulating it >as a spirit magician or blaspheming sorceror might. This looks >odd and feels wrong to me. Because the god isn't involved in casting divine magic. Gods grant mortals the power to cast spells, they don't intervene every time you cast Fly. They *can't*, the Compromise forbids it. Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting Bladesharp. >Maneuver Skill > >Horrible and unnecessary. This should either expand to fill the >rules and eventually replace the DEXx5% roll, the DEX >characteristic itself, the Strike Rank system, and any similar >concepts, or else it should be killed at once. What can this do >that a DEXx5% roll can't? > Change with experience. Do you really think a recruit and a ten year veteran have the same skill at "ranging" opponents? As an ex-fencer, I can tell you that a few years of experience *matters* in this. >Wonderful to see slashes and crushes back in play. Maybe you >should run the impale/slash/crush rules together with the >Special Options (feint/flurry/weave/etc.) as other special >options in their own right: as you can't do special damage and >use a special option at the same time, it makes no real >difference, but does force weapon users to consider their >fighting style more closely. I thought we did. Most untrained people use impale/slash/crush, but one can be trained to use something else. >Is there really no DEX requirement to Feint? A Flurry should >depend on STR alone (the Airy characteristic), and not have a >wimpish DEX opt-out clause tagged on to encourage weedy emulators of my Orlanthi prowess... Okay, find a STR 20, DEX 8 person and have him flurry with a Morningstar. But not in the same room as me, please.... >Why doesn't Weave have a Maneuver prerequisite? Answer: because >...Maneuver skill is a mechanic that doesn't fit into the game >system! Because we didn't use skill prerequisites. Anyway, I personally never liked Weave. >And why has DEX 13 become so important all of a sudden? >It's >like living in RQ2 again: thresholds, thresholds everywhere! Half the people want more RQ2, half complain that it's too much like RQ2.... >Remove the naginata, shuriken, kukri et al. from the basic >weapon list and rules examples. Where we come from nobody uses >them; where they come from the gamemaster has already put enough >time and effort into designing a campaign to create his own >weapons list as well. Also, call a shortsword a shortsword, a >javelin a javelin, and find some non-academic term for >"composite bow" - horn bow, back bow, double bow, anything but >this horrible technical term that almost kills the game for me >each time I see it used. This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take them out of the game." If you don't want to use them, don't. If their presence bothers you, white them out. I for one run in the East Isles, and there's a Kralori character or three in other local games, so we need these weapons. >I am a great fan of culturally-specific weapons lists; if the >RQ4 table was broken up into Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian, >Civilized and Exotic weapons I'd be a happy man (and players >would produce more reasonably-equipped characters). This makes a lot of sense. >Are you going to write more about all of the Six Worlds in this >section (perhaps reprinting the World of Glorantha: Glorantha >Book article in its entirety)? Not a bad idea at all. Ken? >Good to point it out. Can we have a bit more, please? Also >needed is information on the Spirits of the Dead: like the new >Daka Fal concepts relating to the Courts of Silence, the seven- >day downward path, and the crossing of the Styx. In which case >an article on the Gloranthan Underworld makes eminent sense >here. And if you're having that, there's no reason on earth not >to do the rest of the Six Worlds... Good idea in principle, but you forget that there is no "Gloranthan Underworld". Each culture has specific views and knowledge. An article on the Orlanthi ideas about the Underworld, if we had space, might go here. >Appeasing Spirits >...Remember also that we know shamans can do this kind of stuff; >don't set up a rule that makes it impossible for anyone else, >and difficult for them to boot. Why do shamans get a special >bonus as well as the advantage of having more MP on tap than >anyone else? Because that's what shamans do, what they're for. That's like asking why priests get so much divine magic. >Apparent Effects of Magic: > >Remove the reference to Krarshtkids from the basic rules. We >don't know or care how they work; if their senses are so >interesting, include a box on them where you write the species >up. Most normal folk will hope never to meet them (as with >timinits, kukris, naginatas, etc.). Another good point, except the last three words. :-) >...The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used >by idiots; why should we help them? Because we want their money. >A rule that says players don't know how large their characters' >magic spells are is doomed to be ignored by everyone who reads >it. Better simply to say that you can't tell objectively how >large a spell that isn't yours is without some very >sophisticated magical perception. Right. I thought we said that the *characters* don't know numbers for the size of their spells. In any case, that's what we *should* say, you are quite correct. >...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the >names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. >Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it >isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct >spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a >lot more realism and fun in our games. I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? >Befuddle: the kind of "clever management" that would be needed >now beggars belief. Cut this reference from the spell >description: it's hardly plausible any more. Also, as a 2-point >spell, Befuddle seems less useful than Demoralize. Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the victim completely helpless, where Demoralize let's him keep fighting, or flee, or cast Fanaticism. >Mobility: also called "Athlete's Foot". Bwahahaha! >Have you considered including David Cheng's excellent RunePower >system as an optional rule in this section? It makes far more >sense than the current system (which still suffers from shades >of the D&D cleric), and is easily converted to by experienced >players without needing any stat. changes. (If you are >unfamiliar with the system, it basically turns the list of Rune >spells known by a character into a "pool" from which he can cast >any spell available from his god, selecting only at the moment >of casting). Nothing personal, David - NOT EVEN OVER MY DEAD BODY! Rune magic is spells, individual spells. It has nothing in common with a Champions Power Pool at all. Godunya magic does this, and only Godunya magic. >Learning and Using Spells > >I've often wondered why you don't give a straight 100% cast >chance. Why multiply die rolls unnecessarily? Greg said no. That's the only reason. >Madness: Befuddlement is no longer a severe enough penalty: >replace with Demoralize? I still say Befuddlement is *worse* than being demoralized. >Yanafal Tarnils (and through him the Seven Mothers) ought to >receive True Scimitar and not Truesword. I am pretty convinced >that a Yanafal Tarnils cultist who returns from the dead will be >afflicted with Humakt's Swordbreaker curse and find himself >unable to use straight-bladed weapons. Also that (in Genertela >at least) the scimitar is not a Humakti weapon (maybe it works >for the North War Wind with Pentan cavalry sabres, but that's a >different matter). The straightness of Humakt's path precludes >its use; as an a renegade and apostate, Yanafal has passed the >anger of his god onto all his followers, and introduced the >(originally Pentan) scimitar as a form of "curved Death" so he >could still fight. Nonsense. Sorry, but I *am* a Yanafals cultist who has returned from the dead, and this isn't how it works. Okay, seriously, this is not a rules question per se, it's a Glorantha point that should really be referred to Greg. >I detect envy of Warhammer Roleplay in some of your new skills. As far as I know I'm the only one in the group who has ever run Warhammer Fantasy, and I had minimal input into the skill system. It owes more to GURPS, I think. >These rules are obsessed with "Training". Stop and think for a >moment: does the Lunar Army have Scan classes? Jump classes? >Search classes? Intimidate classes, even? Would you be prepared >to role-play your characters through aday at such an event? Do >you know how these skills would be taught? If not, DON'T make >"Training" into such a fundamental part of every character's >life. I thought this was explained better. No, there are no Jump or Scan classes...but there are obstacle courses, and there are Scouting classes for future scouts. Oliver's example is a person who takes a Judo class four hours a week. After fifty weeks, he's got fifty hours of DEX training, fifty hours of Fist Attack training, fifty hours of Dodge training, and fifty hours of Martial Arts training under his belt. Yet he never attended a DEX class. >Bargain > >"The person selling the item will ALMOST never take a loss"? Why >this change to a good and sensible rule? To allow for con men. >Courtesan > >Better termed "Seduction", unless this is a females-only skill: >if you told the Red Emperor he was a master Courtesan he'd look >askance at you - if you were lucky! But it isn't "Seduction" - that's the art of making someone agree to sex, not the art of making them enjoy it. It should really be called "Swiving", but that's obscure. >Terrain Types >...Where in Glorantha do you find Arctic terrain? (answer: in >the Hero Plane/Outer World, where normal RuneQuest rules don't >apply). ...or on tops of mountains, or on Valind's Glacier, or ... ============================================================ And for those who've actually read this far, Loren. Loren, I hate Charisma. If it ends up in the game, I'm going to insist that it be labelled USE THIS NUMBER INSTEAD OF ROLEPLAYING. The whole purpose of Charisma is to let the players not have to be charming when they want their character to be charming. I am no martial artist, but I agree that the current rules don't simulate real karate/judo/savate/whatever too well. OTOH, all the suggestions we've seen for improving this add even *more* complexity to combat. Your "four flavors of damage" system, for instance, would probably slow some fights down by 50%. If included at all it would need to be an optional rule. > There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny Hey, my company's been implementing Crosby-style TQM for a while. Does this mean I should take the CEO hostage? >i tried using the experience methods given in the new rules and >must say i don't particularly like them. i never had a problem >with check frenzy, which is the problem that the two experience >methods are supposed to fix, so i don't see the need for them. i >also don't like experience point systems, which is basically >what the new systems are. finally, i don't think it's a good >idea to make such a total break from the earlier experience >systems in rq 1-3. i would prefer if the new rules used the old >experience system, with suggestions on how to avoid skill check >frenzy, and perhaps gave one of the new methods as an option. of >course, this also would force a change in the >easy/medium/hard/very hard skill structure. Perhaps they should >simply have extra bonuses or penalties to skill rolls, like >steve maurer's idea in maurer heroquest? I included this whole thing because I agree. I represent a minority opinion that hates the "limited number of rolls" system, and I also had no problem with check frenzy. Okay, one problem, but I squelched it fairly quickly. >On reflection, I'd like to see only one difficulty level for >skills. Get rid of all the multileveled skills and all the >skills that encompass other skills. This is not elegant, guys. >This is a mess. This done, you may suggest that when rolling >for skill increases you can only roll for 10 skills or so. I >think that my objection to a limited number of skill increase >rolls sprang from the overly restrictive number and from the >"rules weenie feel" I got when this rule was combined with the >multiple level of difficulty rule. OTOH, some skills are just plain harder than others. How about this: when you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill, you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10, and Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work? >Tell me if this system is workable: when rolling for >experience, you add your BASE CHANCE to the roll. Like normal, >you gain points by rolling over your skill level. This means >that you'll be able to increase faster with an easy skill (that >has a high base chance, like Jump) and more slowly with a hard >skill with a low base chance. > >And for training, have training time based on the number of >points you are above your base chance. I think this is good. Actually, I always ran this way under RQ3. I won't repeat Loren's whole language and script section, I'll just say that I agree with all of it. ============================================================== Graeme Lindsell > b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the >better tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long >to cast a spell as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have >always seen POW creating some permanent effect (One-Use Divine >Magic an exception), and the second seems pointless. Well, the point of both was simply a game-balance thing: to cut down on the amount of magic a sorceror can keep up at a given time. Either he's lowering his power, or he spends all his time chanting and doesn't have time to keep very many spells up. As for POW always producing permanent effects: Divine Intervention. The Saints' Blessings. If you made it this far, I'm very impressed. Thanks to all of you for your suggestions and criticisms. -- Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CFINK (NVN)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11211; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:13:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20406; Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:13:27 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:13:31 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 20:13:45 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12619415FBA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I've been thinking about the idea of Presence and the idea that it's somehow a sacrifice of the libido. Well I'm not too thrilled with that, I think it would tend to stereotype sorcerors too much I do think it's a step in the right direction. Here's my suggestions for how to manage Presence. First of all when a sorceror sacrifices POW for Presence he has to make a choice of how it will be maintained. He has to choose one of these three options each time, but he doesn't have to choose the same option each time. Option 1)Meditation/chanting/some other ceremony that takes half an hour per point of presence. Option 2)Bind the Presence with a geas. Some geasa can maintain more presence than others. For example "Don't cast healing magics on yourslef" might maintain 2pts, while "Don't cast magic during Dark Season" maintains 10. Option 3)Permanently bind the presence in an item or animal. This would help define the different dwarven types for instance, each group having a different set of geasa maybe? Would allow for those repressed sorcerors mentioned before, and even other options like, "Never cross running water"2pts "Magic doesn't work in sunlight"8pts... I'm not sure how to handle things like what happens if the sorceror doesn't do his meditation or breaks a geas. Are those points of presence just gone for a day? Maybe he has to undergo a ceremony to use them again, or maybe they are gone for good. Does anyone like this idea for restricting Presence? -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13084; Thu, 10 Jun 93 00:00:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22103; Thu, 10 Jun 93 01:00:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 1:01:01 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments so far Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:57:59 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <127E3DB5341@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is a reply to a few things that other people have said, all rolled into one to cut down number of posts. My comments on the draft will be posted shortly. Nick Brooke makes a few good points, but I strongly disagree about his insistence on removing stuff like fixed skill increases and the random culture tables. I don't use either myself, but I can see the possibility of using both in some situations, and most importantly think that they shouldn't be removed because some of us don't like it, if someone does. The same goes for removing exotic weapons - except this one is even more obviously campaign dependent. And even naginatas are found in Dragon Pass, albeit called sword sticks (used by Wind Children). The same goes for removing references to using the taining point mechanic after character creation - I have run campaigns were I would hve used it - short campaigns were seasons, or even years, might pass between adventures. I kind of like the classification of weapons by culture, though. I kind of agree with renaming bezainted armour - in my case because a friend of mine, Paul Kidd, an Australian professional game designer, always makes fun of RQ3 by pointing out that bezainted armour was very rare historically, but incredibly common in RQ3 :-) RQ4d2.0 has stopped that mostly, but even so I'd like to shut him up. I think that the Battle skill is a reasonable idea, but I dislike the fact that weapon skill has no bearing on sucess. Either use some sort of composite roll, or a more complex system. I kind of like the Pendragon system, where you fight 'token' opponents. I have used this in my games, and it worked quite well (the only real problem is that whereas the Pendragon system is 'timeless', each turn of battle being an arbitrary amount from a seconds (in an initial charge) to hours (in battles in silly terrain, with lots of skirmishing), time is very important in RQ battles because of the duration of spirit magic. Still, someone might at least want to look at it (the most recent edition is the relevent one). I thought Battle was a silly skill in the skill only version - but not in the Pendragon system, where mighty fighters with low battle skills fight a lot, but usually survive, and skilled soldiers fight fairly little, and also survive, but those not to good at either get themselves into bad situations (surrounded by enemy) and can't fight their way out. My comments on the draft will come soon. I have yet to read the Paul Reilly system of sorcery, but I like what I've heard. It needs to maintain a measure a backwards compatibility, but not slavishly. I also have intersting ideas on sorcery, and I will post them as soon as my exam is over - or send them to Oliver for comment, then post them. Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01178; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:01:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09457; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:01:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:02:02 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC, SKILLS Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 10:01 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <133E8F26C9F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi all, I don't yet have a copy of the RQ4 rules, but I wanted to send a few comments on things I've read on this list. Sorcery: I absolutely love Paul and Mike's suggested sorcery system! This is light-years ahead of the RQ3 model. It has a wonderful feel to it, and it actually looks like it would work! :) I think the conquered/destroyed libido bit is a bit too restrictive for good roleplay, but it's a minor gripe and I'm sure something could be worked-out. But, on the whole, Bravo Paul and Mike! Spirit magic: I don't share Curtis's problems with the mechanical nature of spirit magic. I think the system works fine as is, allowing for the possibility of disastrous failure. As for the lack of color to the spells, any good roleplayer can add flavor to a bladesharp spell simply by saying something colorful rather than shouting "Bladesharp 3 -- I need less than a 65!" The system is fine as it is. Skills: I'm with Loren on this one. RQ has a good mechanic for resolving tests by applying a multiplier to a stat, with the degree of difficulty reflected by lowering the multiplier. The more we can avoid hair-splitting or limited-use skills and the more we can rely on stat checks, the better. (I'm a firm believer that simplicity and elegance in games) -Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA28174; Thu, 10 Jun 93 11:10:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07423; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:10:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:10:30 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS: sorcery, spirit magic, and the case for charisma (!) Date: 10 Jun 1993 12:06:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1330AA674E5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Here are various comments on comments by other people. PAUL'S SORCERY SYSTEM I also like this a lot. It allows for the longterm enchantments that exist in stories, has a very nice parallel to the shaman's fetch, and gets rid of that awful "INT vampire" familiar rule. It also gives adept sorcerors (who should actually be called "magus," and those who are now "magus" should be called "adept," but I quibble) an advantage over apprentices. It's much better. The ordeal portion is missing though. I may offer more comments on the system later, first for comments on comments. They're shorter and easier to respond to. Nick said that we don't need another name for the sorceror's extra POW that is used for holding spells. I agree. Nick asked what the sorceror's other half should be called, and suggested guardian angel, daimon, genius, etc. Daimon is probably out, given the religious right. Genius is confused with smart people. I like guardian angel, it is what Crowley and the Golden Dawn folks called the personal spirit that a wizard should cultivate. You could also call it the shadow, or the twin. You could combine them into shadow twin, but I think that should be reserved for evil wizards. Actually, now that I think of it, I vote for twin. It has the right generic feel. Now as to the twin being fortified by self-repression and damaged by licentious behavior, I don't know if that's a good idea. I can't see it in a Galvosti "evil" wizard. I can't see it in Zzabur if he had a child of a nymph. I would rather see something where the more POW the twin accumulated, the wizard would appear to be more strange and frightening. Pick an effect for each 5 POW in the twin: dogs howl; cats bristle; horses shy away; horrible countenance that only infants can see, spreading to children, to idiots, to teens, to adults, to elders, etc.; glowing eyes; gauntness; body odor; smell of brimstone; etc etc etc. You get the idea. I think I even have a list of these somewhere. I'll try to dredge it up. This would have the desired effect for wizards to hide away in their libraries. Wizards in cultures where they are required to lead congregations would have a different set of effects that didn't isolate them so completely. On to the astral plane, it is the plane on which the stars vibrate and live. It permeates the world. You didn't think the western wizards believed in all that sky captains malarky, did you? The stars are living beings in a plane that is contiguous with our own, and their reflections are what we see in the sky. That aside, it could easily be called phlogiston or ether, or alternate reality which is the culturalist's generic word for it. SPIRIT MAGIC COMMENTS I don't agree with those who want to make it any more chancy. It's already the least powerful magic on Glorantha. I'd rather return to RQ2 where you had a 100% chance of getting spirit magic off. Why play balance it to death? Are you the same people who cut sorcery to uselessness and fragmented shaman powers into a zillion pieces for the RQ4 draft? No thanks. Note that the RQ3 rule change, to cast chance=POWx5, was one of the rules that changed POW into the most important characteristic. RQ4 SORCERY DRAFT The duration wasn't changed to another table per se, each point of duration manipulation merely added a x1 multiplier to the duration. Thus a 6 duration spell lasts 6 times as long as a 1 duration spell. This makes it completely impossible to cast long duration spells. IMHO, the fix is worse than the original problem. THE CASE FOR CHARISMA Carl makes the point that Charisma is an anti-roleplaying stat. While I understand his concern, RQ4 has already proposed an enormous proliferation of communication skills which have exactly the same effect as CHA rolls. There are more of them than CHA. Adding more mechanisms for something in a roleplaying game increases emphasis on it. Thus the communication skills emphasize rollplaying of interactions much more than CHA does. CHA would increase roleplaying, not decrease it, because less time would be spent on mechanically driven interactions with NPCs. While we're on this topic it's a darn good reason to cut down on the number of combat skills. We don't want RQ to be a combat simulation game. We want to roleplay the cultural and religious interactions. That's what made RQ great in the first place. Reverse the trends that are de-emphasizing RQ's strengths and turning it into a Rolemaster clone. But this is a tangent. Back to CHA. Let's ground the debate about CHA in examples. (1) BARGAIN: Why not get rid of the Bargain skill and return to the RQ2 method of getting a discount based on CHA? It's much easier. If you don't roleplay out purchases, and nobody in their right mind is going to roleplay every little purchase that travelers in a market for a day will make, then it's faster than determining the bargain skill of the merchant and making opposed bargain rolls, then computing the adjusted price. Just compute CHA adjustments to price directly. No dice rolls needed. (2) ETIQUETTE: Same for other skills, like those horrible etiquette skills. I could see etiquette skills as lore skills, but they're silly as communication skills. Just use CHAx5 (or 4 or 3) with the appropriate lore skill as a helping skill and roll against it. (3) INTIMIDATE: Get rid of the intimidate skill and roll STRx5 or some similar skill. Maybe STR+SIZ+CHA would be another way to do it. There shouldn't be a skill for intimidate. Nobody takes "intimidate" classes. Nick is right. The RQ4 draft rules are obsessed with training. Oops. I'm on another tangent... You see where I'm headed. Make all the communication skills (except languages, which will split into their own group anyway) special instances of CHA rolls. Even if you use the standard excuse for not doing something reasonable to the RQ rules, that Greg says "no", I think that CHA ought to replace APP. Why? APP is a useless and sexist stat. 1. Sexist? Yes. For male characters APP tends to be unimportant. For female characters it is all-important. It objectifies women (!). If you wonder why more women don't play RQ, look no further. Just look in the adventures that people write. Adventures don't pay attention to male APPs, because they are unimportant, but they do pay attention to female APPs. When my players meet a female character, they ask how good looking she is because they know there's an APP stat. Do they ask the same about male characters? Are the RQ4 rules going to give fem PCs a bonus on the APP roll? 2. Useless? There are no official uses for APP in the rules. The only reason to increase APP is to get a pitiful bonus on communication skills. You all agree, and people routinely buy down their APPs because of this tacit agreement. The point system even counts APP at half value, and even at that value players are reluctant to spend points on it. whoah, +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse --1M Monkeys  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01507; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:09:35 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09683; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:31 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PR & MH SORCERY + Spirit Magic Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:09:32 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13408AD4A19@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Good points from Graeme A Lindsell. Of course I am pleased by the list of "pluses" Graeme gives. Thanks also for the "minuses", this is what I need to refine the system. To address the "minuses": > i) This makes it even more difficult to become a sorcerer: now you have That's more or less right. Being a sorceror should be a bit harder than being a priest, though, requiring POW and fairly high skills. A sorceror has to _understand_ his magic. As I understand it, a Divine spell is a sort of "power complex" imprinted on the priestess by her goddess. She doesn't _need_ to understand it any more than a computer needs to _understand_ a program in order to run it. Note that the deity isn't "doing the spell" _for_ the priestess (except in the case of DI and maybe one-use spells like Earthpower) but instead is trading the pattern for a complex of magical energies (the Runespell) for a piece of the priest's soul. The Wizard is doing his magic _himself_, and the prerequisites are higher. > ii)The current system may become unbalanced when sorcerers get a lot of POW. >Check out an adept with POW 16, PRE 20 and 80% in his skills >and spells: he can permanently maintain Enhance Strength 16 (80/5), >Enhance Con 16, Enhance Dex 16, Damage Resistance 16 without reducing >his PRE manipulation at all We are still working on the mechanics. Remember that we wrote this system while RQ3 was in force - we thought that if we were taking away most of the sorceror's ability to maintain jillions of spells, we'd have to give them something to compensate. Ours is actually _alot_ less powerful than RQ3. Compare Graeme's example of a sorceror in our system against an RQ3 sorceror with 80% skills and 15 points of enchantments (assume 75% efficiency for Enchant + Ceremony). The RQ3 sorceror could maintain _hundreds_ of high Intensity spells. (POW Spirits (ugh!) + INT Spirits (ugh!) + say a matrix for Damage Boost 8. One idea we had was that sorcerors might have to maintain _range_ as well as intensity and if you go out of their range the spell fails. This would give both a good reason for court sorcerors tied to their Lord's castle or city, and for "adventuring" sorcerors - who need to be close to the people they enhance. Commercial sorcerors would sell spells good only while you are in their home city. This has a lot of appeal but might be too hard to run. I like the idea of someone with an offensive spell Maintained on them being able to break it by going outside the range. We will try to rebalance with RQIV. The people working on the system seem to be willing to throw out most of the RQ3 rules in the quest for something that works. Our original idea with Presence was actually one point of Presence to maintain one point of Intensity, with sorcerors able to increase their effective Presence by specializing (in a Rune). This was how we playtested it first, years ago, and it seemed to work. People liked the idea of having a certain amount of magic and switching it around (at a cost in magic points) as needed. This may be the way to go with RQ4. We are working on the system and will send up another trial balloon in a few weeks. We always try to reverse engineer rules to fit Gloranthan society, and we now have more information available to us than when we first designed the system (through TotRM, and through generous people like O. Jovanovic who are giving us some help on the Gloranthan front.) > A few comments & questions: > i) Can sorcerers use magic crystals/POW spirits to fuel their spells >with the MP they need, or do the MP's have to come form the POW + PRE >pool? Good question. You do manipulation _with_ your own personal mana (includes your MPs+ MPs held in your Presence) but you can do it _on_ mana, or MPs, from other sources. As long as you have "fuel" you can shape more spells, but if you spend from your own personal force you will get too tired (low MPs) to shape spells. Think of your personal mana as active and mana from other sources as passive, and you can only shape as much passive mana as you have active mana. This also make things like Attack Soul devastating: if you can reduce your enemy's personal mana, you limit the amount of magic he or she can do. This wouldn't apply to mana used to fuel Rune magic: you don't have to shape the mana yourself, instead you are fitting it into a mold given you by your god. (I think.) Spirit magic would depend on which model you are using: is the caster doing it _herself_, in which case a person with 2 MPs left should be too tired to cast Lightwall, or does she have a helper spirit that's doing it (see my post from yesterday on Spirit Magic) for her? In the latter case the spirit just wants its "bribe" to do its "trick" and doesn't care if it comes from you or somewhere else. (Although that personal touch does make for a better relationship with your spirits.) ii) I don't think the formation of PRE should destroy the libido: we It's not exactly the _formation_ of it. The sequence goes like this for most Westerners: Presence "forms" or is extruded from them (like a fetch) They "kill" its personality and bind it in a dead, straight, linear, masculine object (Staff for most, Sword for Grand Knights of Loskalm) It stays "dead", affecting the sorceror's personality and (as mentioned in "What My Father Told Me" for Rokari) binding them to a cold, sexless, rational existence. "Shrill" was used to describe them - maybe they actually have low testosterone? Snodal could have not had access to High Magic (no Presence- remember this was before the Ban and the Hrestoli Reformation. Lords might not have been Wizards back then.) Or he might have done the ritual differently - some groups might use a living Staff and retain more libido. Or the Altinae could have "healed" him of his psychic wounds! I think the child was of an Altinae mother, after all. This last seems good for story purposes. Oh, they don't so much lose their libido as use it as fuel for their magic. Note that Kralorelans with their balanced male-female Mandalas may be using Tantric magic instead of denial. This would have to get decided by Greg, I suppose. > iii) Do they have to bind the PRE into an object/animal. Not necessarily. >Suggestion: they don't have to, but get advantages if they do. This is exactly right. I thought I posted something about this but may have just typed in into a file. The default is not to bind it - dwarves for example don't have a Power object (I think), they ARE their own power object. Sorcery is natural to them and their magic fits in with their jobs. They don't have a distinct point at which they learn to harness or control or suppress their feminine, _shakti_ nature - because they have no such nature. A sorceror with no power object (familiar, staff, etc.) will have Presence sort of 'sitting there' on him. This could be interpreted as chi energy (by Kralorelans) or a sort of Holy Guardian Angel (by Malkioni). (Suggestions for these interpretations from Oliver J.) Shamans would see these guys as closest to 'real' shamans, with a Fetch that is crippled but not bound. This type of sorceror would need to switch his attention completely to the magical plane to use his Presence. (Like a shaman, he is vulnerable because his attention is on the Otherworld.) The power object creates a "bridge" between the physical and magical planes. This makes the sorceror's Presence much more accessible (simply grasp the Staff) without shutting out the physical world. Much better for the combat sorceror. May also give certain other advantages - see below. BUT the Vessel (Staff, etc.) can be taken, crippling the sorceror! (As seen in Lord of the Rings - take Saruman's staff and deny him access to the High Magic) >If it is destroyed, can they recover the PRE? Yes, but it might be "scattered to the four winds". I'd say that Recall Presence is a High Magic skill, and they might have to sacrifice _more_ POW for Presence before they could get back the rest. They might have to wait until Sacred Time or even their birthday (anyone else read the _Liavek_ books?) before getting it back as well. > Spirit Magic: in another posting you suggested that spirit magic >may be more along the lines of knowing friendly spirits who give >you a hand when you gift them with mana. I once thought the same, >but concluded that there would be a major discrepancy with the >current system: if you have (say) a Protection 4 spirit (Armourall) >that did the actual protecting by inhabiting the armour of the person >it was cast on, then you should only be able to have one Protection >running at once. To cast it on someone else, you'd have to tell the >sprirt to leave it's current host and go to another. I can't see >any reson for the INT limit on Spirit magic with this system. Exactly. It's a system change to fit a certain model. Why have spell spirits anyway if they aren't doing the magic? It seems feeble to me to say there is a Source of Bladesharp Spirits sending out a stream of guys with no real will of their own whose only function is to get their spell knowledge ripped from them in Spirit Combat. The limit on spells would be more "How many spirits can you cajole and keep happy at once?" This could be skill based or cost mana or some combination thereof. Incompatible spirits would be hard to keep together, e.g. Extinguishers and Igniters - like a pack of unruly children. What did people think of the animistic world model? This is the one where everything has a spirit and you can bribe them to perform. E.g. Bladesharp is feeding the spirit of the sword a little mana so that it will put in extra effort. [Stuff about Greg's talk Down Under] > When I asked how the runes are used in the > game, he said he was de-emphasizing runes in general. They are > God-Learner constructs, which I think is Gregese for "Once I liked > the idea, but not anymore" A plausible translation. Of course I _like_ the God Learners, they seemed to be trying hard to find or _make_ a rational universe. "The Quest for the Square-Cube Law", anyone? (We actually had a Storm Bull, INT 9, who was an idiot savant Lightning Calculator. He couldn't understand how giant insects, etc. should be able to fly, and was unable to express his objections in an articulate way. Giant things just made him angry. We had a joke that he might quest for the Square Cube, a small cube of Truestone that would locally impose the Square Cube Law. He would have used it to fight giant chaos monsters, which would collapse under their own weight when the cube was brought near...) Anyway, thanks to Graeme for the response! - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01769; Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:15:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09900; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:15:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:15:47 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY what to call a sorceror's fetch Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 10:16:04 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1342377772A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I do agree that we don't need to come up with a new stat for sorceror's. A shaman has a fetch with POW and that works fine. But I do think we need a name for this that doesn't sound to biased towards any one world view. I don't think guardian angel would work too well for dwarven sorceror's for instance. So why not just call it the sorceror's Presence and list how much POW the Presence has? I like the word Presence and we could explain that different cultures call it different things. The Malkioni call their Presence thei Guardian Angel, the Mostali call their Presence their SubEtheric Self Charging Essence Accumulator, the Trolls call their Presence their higher shadow, etc, etc, etc. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet 4@3091 WWIVnet Currently working on something, I'm not sure what, for WotC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10068; Wed, 9 Jun 93 21:30:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19699; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:30:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:30:25 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PR & MH SORCERY + Spirit Magic Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:29:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12560F86B4C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: the new sorcery system by Paul Reilly and Mike Holliday I like the Presence concept a lot! This was the idea I was trying towards when I proposed the non-recoverable magic points idea,but this has much more flavour. The pluses as I see them: i) Adepts now are given the real power: in RQIII there is no real difference in range/duration abilities between them and their apprentices. ii) Sorcerers now have a "magical" quality, rather than just having skills. iii) They have just as much use for POW gains as the other magicians. In the old system a sorcerer would use POW for enchantment. Some minuses: i) This makes it even more difficult to become a sorcerer: now you have to create a presence as well as learning a whole lot of skills that the other magicians don't need to bother with. This may be justified by the ability to cast long duration spells. ii) The current system may become unbalanced when sorcerers get a lot of POW. Check out an adept with POW 16, PRE 20 and 80% in his skills and spells: he can permanently maintain Enhance Strength 16 (80/5), Enhance Con 16, Enhance Dex 16, Damage Resistance 16 without reducing his PRE manipulation at all. The draft RQIV system, with skill/10 as the manipulation limit may be needed (Note to OJ: how does Ceremony, which increases effective skill, effect the skill based manipulation limit?) This is just a question of mechanics, which as you say are still up in the air. I had thought of removing duration as part of the unrecoverable MP system, and just using the MP as the limit of long duration spells. I didn't propose it since I was worried that a lot of sorcerers might just cast some spells once and just leave them on. I don't think this is as much of problem with the PRE system. A few comments & questions: i) Can sorcerers use magic crystals/POW spirits to fuel their spells with the MP they need, or do the MP's have to come form the POW + PRE pool? ii) I don't think the formation of PRE should destroy the libido: we know that Price Snodal (who as a Hrestoli lord would be an adept) had an illegimate child... It makes things more interesting if the wizards still have extra-curricular interests. :-) iii) Do they have to bind the PRE into an object/animal. If it is destroyed, can the recover the PRE? Suggestion: they don't have to, but get advantages if they do. Spirit Magic: in another posting you suggested that spirit magic may be more along the lines of knowing friendly spirits who give you a hand when you gift them with mana. I once thought the same, but concluded that there would be a major discrepancy with the current system: if you have (say) a Protection 4 spirit (Armourall) that did the actual protecting by inhabiting the armour of the person it was cast on, then you should only be able to have one Protection running at once. To cast it on someone else, you'd have to tell the sprirt to leave it's current host and go to another. I can't see any reson for the INT limit on Spirit magic with this system. However, the "little allied spirit" system is in other ways superior: it explains why cults don't like to give away to much spirit magic, as they only have a limited supply. It is IMO much more evocative of "real" magic than the current system. Re: Greg and the lesser emphasis on Runes: when he was in Oz last year he was telling us about the "Glorantha: the Game" system that Chaosium are working on. When I asked how the runes are used in the game, he said he was de-emphasizing runes in general. They are God-Learner constructs, which I think is Gregese for "Once I liked the idea, but not anymore" Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04641; Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:27:52 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS: sorcery, spirit magic, and the case for charisma (!) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:27:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13556CD58F6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In response to Loren: Thanks for the feedback! Individual points: >PAUL'S SORCERY SYSTEM Change to PAUL & MIKE'S system (& now incorporating feedback from other people as well, like Oliver) [Favorable comments] Thanks. >The ordeal portion is missing though. I'll try to write this up. May vary by culture, I need more info on what goes on behind closed doors at the Malkioni Rectory! Could base somewhat on Catholic Ordination... but would have to add strange twists. (Oh, Malkioni may _call_ the Ordeal "Ordination"!) Guardian angel is good for Malkioni. Familiar for animal users (it's 'familiar' because it's part of you!). Somehow I see the Dormali sorcerors who accompany ships using animals like monkeys, cats, etc., perhaps because on Earth sailors often picked up strange pets in foreign ports. Ship's cat is an old tradition as well. Darkness sorcerors (Subere initiates, Arkat Kingtroll) may just use Shadow. We think that they may even use their _physical_ shadow as a Vessel. Oh, Vessel = Object in which Presence is invested. Staff, mandala, familiar, etc. [Spooky effects for sorcerors] I like these very much. But I think that a Malkioni priest-sorceror may have project an ambiance that his flock sees as ethereal and holy, and pagans would see as weird, cold, and spooky! Cats and rats run from the holy man because their essential low and evil nature can't abide his holy aura - or is it that they're scared of the unnatural smell of magic around this man? Depnds on your point of view. >On to the astral plane, it is the plane on which the stars vibrate and >live. It permeates the world. You didn't think the western wizards >believed in all that sky captains malarky, did you? The stars are living >beings in a plane that is contiguous with our own, and their reflections >are what we see in the sky. That aside, it could easily be called >phlogiston or ether, or alternate reality which is the culturalist's >generic word for it. This is very good, someone will have to tun it byu Greg though. Natural influences of the stars, like "orlanth's ring" are interpreted by superstitious pagans as messages from their gods! When the New Star flared, a great but misguided Natural Magician (Sheng Seleris) learned to tap its energies for spectacular effects! (Or he was born under it.) When the star failed, Sheng was left powerless and easily captured by his enemies! Now the question is, was that nova cyclic or not? Spirit Magic >Note that the RQ3 rule change, to cast chance=POWx5, was one of the >rules that changed POW into the most important characteristic. I don't mind POW being most important if it should be in the context of the world. If I was running an Iroquois campaign, _orenda_ would be the basic stat! But if POW is the basic currency of Gloranthan power, it should be less fluky in how it grows. (Unless there is no overall scheme to things and Luck is actually the Ruling Rune) >RQ4 SORCERY DRAFT Loren thinks they've overcorrected. I think so too but much less strongly. I think the idea of quick casting for short duration vs. ritual casting for long duration is OK, just needs tweaking. (Of course I like our system better, like your own vs. neighbor's children) >THE CASE FOR CHARISMA I agree with Loren that Charisma is a good stat. I liked Charisma. Saying it should be a function of player decisions combined with skills doesn't quite make it for me. We all know examples of someone with inexplicable charisma, perceptible but not easily broken down into (Orate 65/5 + App 8 + Smile 75/5)/3 = CHA 12 or some such. Ugly and inarticulate people can be Charismatic and smooth talking good-looking people can be repulsive. I think Charisma is more basic than Appearance in many ways. I also like stats that are close to what you want to use in a game. For example, I want to be able to run a freckled, jug-eared Trickster with an idiotic grin who is nevertheless so likable that people keep him around in spite of his practical jokes. How do we represent this character with APP and Skills? It seems fine to me to say, "His Charisma comes from his appearance. Hers is because she's always so nice. That beautiful woman is considered a bitch." What we want in all these cases is to extract the basic reaction modifier and relegate its source to the realm of unquantified description, like hair color or finger length. On the other hand, skill proliferation never bothered me much. I think there should be some blank spaces where you can put in what skills are important to you (like GURPS). Merchants, even ugly crass merchants, live by Bargaining and a merchant character should quantify this. On the other hand the merchant may not want to bother with separate skills like Attack, Parry, Fast-draw as she tries to avoid this sort of thing altogether. >Make all the communication skills (except >languages, which will split into their own group anyway) special >instances of CHA rolls. Uhh... great for a fighter but how about a diplomat? What you want represented in detail depends on the type of campaign you want to run. I could see a Traders game where weapons skills are just DEX x 5% for guards and DEXx3 for Merchants, and Bargain, Evaluate, Fast-Talk, Bribe, etc. are the real basis for the game. [ I actually like the way VAMPIRE: the Masquerade does skills, but that's too big a jump from the base system. Besides, while their basic idea is good they have a lot of bugs in their system, more than RQ.] > APP is a useless and sexist stat. Appalling but true. >When my players meet a female character, they ask how good looking >she is because they know there's an APP stat. Do they ask the same about >male characters? True in my experience also - with some exceptions. Magicians and fighters get rated on prowess regardless of sex. My PCs first reaction has grown to be threat assessment. Also, in our expedition to Esrolia, male APP suddenly took on real meaning. I modelled male Esrolian behavior on birds who try to display themselves to best advantage. This hinged on money for clothing as well as Appearance - the women (who controlled the real property) wanted to be able to see how much dowry a prospective mate would bring by looking at him. >2. Useless? There are no official uses for APP in the rules. The only I think this is true. I bet that there would be for Charisma. >The point system even counts APP at half value and ... players are reluctant True in most cases - but sometimes a player has a strong character concept that overcomes this reluctance. We had a campaign where each player got to pick an "18" for one stat and roll the rest on 3d6 (or 2d6+6). One of the male players picked APP for a male character, the handsome Sir Michael of Ashford. The handsomeness fitted in with his idea of a well-bred Malkioni Knight. But that's very much the exception. Designed characters will stint on APP, because it isn't used. I think that mental skills should be at least split into Intellectual and Social, and that Charisma can serve as Social Intelligence (including any modifiers for physical appearance, etc.) This gives you the derived stat you want, Reaction Modifier.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11570; Wed, 9 Jun 93 22:36:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20804; Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:36:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 9 Jun 93 23:36:04 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reply to COMMENTS by Carl Fink Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:35:10 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <12678F57C47@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> While most of your reply to Nick I either agree with or have no opinion on, I must agree on the subject of the new fatigue rules. Most of the new fatigue rules are very good, allowing one to carry greater weights, requireing less bookkeeping, long term exhaustion etc. I see a major flaw in the penalties: applying a modifier to the dice roll rather than the skill. I think this is flawed because: i) It has much greater effects on chance of criticals and fumbles than of you actual skill. This will result different effects on combats depending on the skills of the combatants. For example: a combat between two characters with 30% combat skills. One becomes tired, -5 to dice roll. The result is that his chance straight skill success drops from 30->25%; no great problem. Critical goes from 2->1%: same again. Specials from 6->1% and fumbles from 4->9 are more of a worry, but not too much: in a combat between people of these skills the important thing is just to land the first blow. Compare this with people with 95% skills one of whom becomes tired. In combats at this level criticals and specials are of vital importance. The tired 95%er has gone ordinary 95%-90%, special 19%-14%, critical 5%-1%!, fumble 1%->6%. Proportionally, the effects on his chances of success seem to be much worse than for the 30%er. ii) It is a bad precedent. It introduces a second type of success modifier into the game. Up to now all modifiers have been to chance of success, now there are modifiers to both chance and dice roll. This can firstly cause confusion but secondly will inspire GM's to use the die roll modifier in other situations, spells, magic items etc. I don't want to see a calcualtion of success involving: "Lets see 87% skill + 30% for bladesharp -20% for fighting from the ground; for the dice roll -10 fatigue, +5 for your lucky sword, -15 for monsters chaotic feature..." iii) It distorts the game system. Up to now critical has always been 5% of chance of success, special 20%, fumble 5% of failure. Die roll modifiers change this totally, and I think unnecessarily. iv) I have always seen critical and fumbles as a product of two things: skill and luck. The die roll modifiers for fatigue seem to have very little effect on skill (95%->90%) but a huge effect on luck: if you look at the fumble tables they are mainly cases of bad luck; criticals are mainly those lucky blows. Fatigue with die roll modifiers seem mainly to be bad luck. My suggestion for fatigue: keep the rest of the excellent current system, but apply the modifiers as a straight modifier to chance of success, like all other modifiers. This creates a problem with very highly skilled people being unaffected by fatigue, which is obviously unrealistic. Forunately, there is another number we can use: the chance of autofailure, which is currently fixed at 96-00%. If we apply the same modifier to autofailure as chance of success, we get the following Status Mod to Success Autofail on Tired -5% 90-00% Weary -10% 85-00% etc (I can't remember the other statuses) I can see a skilled person simply failing to succeed when tired much more easily than I can see him criticalling his nearest friend. I don't see the autofail as being very likely to be used in other ways. This also doesn't distort all the chances of criticals/specials/fumbles as does the current proposed system. Opinions? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (my mailer isn't giving my address in the title properly)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08382; Thu, 10 Jun 93 14:58:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16485; Thu, 10 Jun 93 15:58:17 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 15:58:22 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: (COPY) Re: SORCERY (fwd) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 12:57 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <136D8E54A4C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> {Curtis writes} This would help define the different dwarven types for instance, each group having a different set of geasa maybe? Would allow for those repressed sorcerors mentioned before, and even other options like, "Never cross running water"2pts "Magic doesn't work in sunlight"8pts... I'm not sure how to handle things like what happens if the sorceror doesn't do his meditation or breaks a geas. Are those points of presence just gone for a day? Maybe he has to undergo a ceremony to use them again, or maybe they are gone for good. Does anyone like this idea for restricting Presence? -- >>Thanks to Curtis for forwarding this to me: the Net-Snotlings seem to have eaten the original. I like the idea of using geasa to restrict/define a sorceror's presence. The geasa can be varied to fit the cultural millieu of the sorceror. Actually, all three option look good at first glance, including Paul & Mike's original libido-binding (as the preferred method of the Loskalmi culture). Would it be possible to work-out a table of the various methods and what their costs and benefits would be? Or, does this over-complexify things? --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu IrishSpy@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11447; Thu, 10 Jun 93 16:15:50 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19850; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:15:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:15:51 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS on Carl's Reply to Nick's Comments Date: 10 Jun 93 17:10:50 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <138237D50FF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is basically for Carl Fink re: his posting on my Comments so far, but it may help explain what I was on about, so the rest of you may enjoy it. Wouldn't bet on it, though... Hi, Carl: Thanks for the reply! I'm probably only addressing a few of the points you raised; I am extremely grateful for all the sections you signed off with "good point," etc. Nice to have my work appreciated, so I hope you don't take this as a whinge! I'm going to try to cover the points where I don't think we quite understand each other yet -- where one of us still thinks the other's criticism doesn't make sense. OK? Here goes: GRAMMAR: > We haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing yet. That's more or less what Greg said when he sent me the KoS Ms. to check. He didn't tell me that he wasn't *going* to do it, which is why all the irritating typoes stayed in. After that, I felt, "most said, soonest mended": my terrible experience in proofing various Reaching Moon products has taught me to start insisting on changes as soon as I notice something is wrong, and not to let up until it's got better. In your case, a simple WP search-and-replace could clear up all my petty quibbles before the next draft. I'm only offering this as a suggestion: since you're writing RQ, you might as well speak RQese all the way through. SKILL MODIFIERS: > (POW affects) Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many? If POW keeps zinging up and down like a yo-yo with every POW gain roll and Rune Magic sacrifice and Divine Intervention success, *YES*. I know I also suggested a mechanic for getting rid of this (one of the major problems with RQ3) -- the "alternate use for Skill Mods" -- but this comment was written in vacuo, assuming you wanted to keep the rule the way you'd written it, and pointing out a problem with it. As POW is the most changeable characteristic, it should influence as few skills as possible under present Skill Mod rules. Plus, removing it from Knowledge made my INT*1% base Lore skill suggestion possible and therefore appeared to me to be a Good Thing. (These things do inter-connect, you know). RANDOM ORIGIN TABLES: > Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use in the book > bother you that much? No. But why should I passively acquiesce as something I find useless is grafted onto the game? Like I said, I thought you wanted my opinions... See further below. CHARACTERISTIC INCREASES: > What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style characteristic > increases? I'm against them. The 1/6 chance of losing a point of the characteristic you've just excelled in is alarming to me. Still prefer my method, which involves no counting of hours or flukey dice rolling. (Characteristic points are significantly bigger than skill gains, so I don't feel I'm contradicting myself by wanting a random die-roll for the one but fixed increases for the other. Though, by apologising for it, I inadvertently reveal that I do think there's a contradiction. Funny thing, psychology...) SKILL GAINS: > If this really bothers you, abolish fixed increases Fixed increases were OK when they were *less* than the average die roll: you knew then that if you took them, in the long run you were cheating yourself. Making them equal to the average die roll is an unwelcome and unnecessary change. But my feelings on this are really answered below... > Why enforce your taste on everyone? Because I *have* taste? No, but seriously, Carl, you are confusing our roles here. You are one of the coordinators / editors / designers / whoevers for RQ4. Naturally, you want to consider the opinions of the hypothetical Average Gamer in whatever you end up producing. But you sent that draft out into the world asking us for our comments. I understood your consultation exercise to be asking for my opinion, and not for me to tell you what I think other people might think about RQ4. So I don't feel I should pussy-foot around providing you with anodyne, politically correct, non-racist, non-sexist, positively-vetted comments. Surely, I should tell you what *I* think. What you do with it is up to you. DEATH BY STARVATION: > There was a case in today's newspaper... And my paper says there's a WWII bomber on the Moon, but I don't think that's how Sheng Seleris got there . Seriously, though, you can't deny that, as written, the rules for effects of head wounds do look rather strange. FATIGUE AND FUMBLES: > I think lots of fumbles is (as software designers say) a > feature, not a bug. I think it's a bug. So do others. Have you playtested this at all? MAGIC: > Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting > Bladesharp. Here we disagree profoundly. I can't adequately express how I feel the difference between the two should be stated; it's just *there*. I believe to cast a Rune spell you have to invoke your Deity's power, and it comes. In a rush. That's why Rune magic hits with 100% accuracy on SR 1. Delaying this because a cast is physically draining (i.e: requires MPs to back it up) feels like putting the cart before the horse. You are staggered by what has just happened to you / through you -- you do not need to work yourself up into a state to cause it to happen. My apologies for the inadequacy of that explanation: I hope someone else out there can put it better. (More below). MANEUVER SKILL: I'm still not convinced. This skill seems to interfere or interface with too many other aspects of the combat and skill systems, and they've not yet been adequately modified to accept it. Maybe next draft will do a better job. But I still think it's basically one for the hex-map crowd, and you know I'm agin 'em. EXOTIC WEAPONS: > This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take > them out of the game." I modified my position later to "Take them off the main list;" you seem to like the idea of culturally-specific weapons lists, so that's OK. I accept that some people out there are, indeed, "gung-ho for pandybats" (in the immortal words of earlier editions), but don't think the atmosphere of the game is really helped by lumping all these things together on one cultural mish-mash of a weapons table. Wind Child naginatas should be listed, as "sword-sticks", when the Wind Children themselves are described -- just like the Runners' "whip-sticks", the Black Elves' "hesh", and any similar weapons that may have slipped my mind. APPEASING SPIRITS: My comment still stands. The current mechanics make it almost impossible to appease a spirit, even if you are a shaman giving your all. Please reconsider your rejection: I'll follow this one up if it persists to the next draft, giving embarrassing worked examples of what I'm complaining about (like David Hall in his diatribe on Run skill). RANDOM SPELL APPARENT EFFECTS TABLE: Frivolously, (and that's a Large grin). I *approve* of your attitude. Seriously, though, when would anyone roll for these? "Longhorn the Broo Shaman reaches into the air, and a" -- whirr, click -- "brown nimbus forms around his fingers. Then, with a" -- whirr, click -- "slight disturbance in the air ..." Give us a break! SPELL NAMES = SPELL EFFECTS? > BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? Yeah. It's not "Gloranthan realism" for a Sword of Humakt to know a spell that's damn' good at enhancing Spear skills and damage. Else, why not give all warrior cults "True Weapon" rather than "True (Weapon)" as a Rune spell, and then trust them only to cast it on appropriate ones? "Slay Pest" (Disrupt) would still be a general damage-inflicting spell; I only said it was embarrassing to use it in combat, not ineffective. Proper Humakti, whose "Wound" (Disrupt) spells open gory gashes in their opponents, would laugh as the farm-boy "swatted" his opponents... BEFUDDLE: > Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the > victim completely helpless... It used to. Have you re-read the new definition I was criticising? RUNEPOWER: We all love it, and can't see your problem. Optional rule with statutory Health Warning from the Surgeon General? PHILOSOPHY OF RUNE MAGIC: I was talking about RunePower with Greg Stafford and David Cheng at Convulsion, and something he said made me prick up my ears. Appropriately enough: we were talking about how David's system gave us Orlanthi access to all the *fascinating* (but normally completely useless) cultural spells that most guys don't bother sacrificing for. I mentioned how players could now have their characters cast Wind Words if they ever found themselves downwind of a potentially-interesting conversation. Greg grinned, and said something to the effect of, "Or, what if they were walking past and just *happened* to overhear the words carried on the wind?" (simultaneously losing a point of RunePower). After all, that's what happened to Orlanth. He just *heard* these things -- he didn't have to strain to do so. Now, that's obviously going to take a *lot* of work to turn into a game system, and I wouldn't advise you to try just yet. It does, however, seem to militate against Rune Magic = conscious exercise of spell effects taught by God, and towards a more free-form, storytelling style of gaming -- like that fostered by RunePower. Hey, before we have to step over your dead body, why not ask Greg what he thinks of RunePower? He recommended it to us, after all, as being a neat rule that made Glorantha work more as he thought it should... BARGAIN: A con man is misrepresenting his side of the Bargain. The bargainee won't take a loss if he perceives it as such. Nobody would accept a bargain if they knew that they weren't going to get paid the agreed price, or receive the agreed goods. Criticism still stands. COURTESAN: Check the Uleria cult description of this skill to find out what it includes: "verbal enticement, coercive seduction, titillating entertainment..." are under its umbrella definition. Then ask whether you only want women to be good at sex in Glorantha. I *like* your suggested skill-name of "Swiving," and may steal it for a still-far-distant Lodrili game... TERRAIN: Valind's Glacier is in the Hero Plane / Outer World, no? And who would have a skill in "surviving on the cold mountaintops"? Valindi, or Inorans, or Hsunchen Yak People from the Shah Shan, perhaps. Nobody else is likely to bother. I don't think Arctic skills belong in the basic rules... unlike Desert, Plains, Forest, Jungle, Hills, Mountains, and whatever else was in the original set (or should have been). ===== not my stuff ===== I hate Charisma too. (Perhaps it's not having any myself that does it). However, I'm agin it in principle, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it out of RQ4. Loren's argument that people never look at a man's APP, only a woman's, may be true among his group but certainly isn't here. Maybe it's a question of playing style... (I agree that, if I had to axe one of the RQ characteristics, it would certainly be APP). SKILL DIFFICULTY: > When you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill, > you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10, > and Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work? Looks OK to me as a Quick Fix. Still not convinced. Give me time (and a fresh draft with fewer distracting exotica in it) to think about it. I think I'd prefer skills to be "Hard" or "Normal," not this somewhat overwhelming range of possibilities. SCRIPTS & LANGUAGES: This is a Good Thing, and I was trying to say something like this when I burbled on and on about alphabetic and syllabic and symbolic character-sets. You can probably adapt most scripts to write most languages: the problem in doing so is finding somebody else who knows the same combination to read them. At Oxford, people sat Akkadian Cuneiform prose composition exams armed with pen and paper -- no stylus, no wax or clay tablet. How depressingly mundane of them... Anyway, thanks a lot for the feedback; I hope this dialogue has been useful to at least a couple of people out there. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 16:31:41 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20367; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:31:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:31:43 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: 10 Jun 93 17:24:39 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13867107A7E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A quick but vital point: Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the Rokari Wizards are not celibate. While they stress marital chastity, a hereditary priesthood advocating total celibacy is on a hiding to nowhere... I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's barbaric!) to distinguish between different types of Wizard. Some vows you would take before "wrestling with your Id" (to strengthen yourself in the "Fetch-Crippling" Trial), while others would be required as your "Presence"/Second POW score built itself up. They'd also include such things as abstinence from meat and wine (pretty common), never touching a corpse (Brithini influence -- a Rokari vow?), never entering sunlight (one for the Stygians, there), never killing anything (Galvosti as well as Sedalpists) ... these are just off the top of my head. Apparent manifestations of a high "Presence" would include Haloes, Odours of Sanctity, and perhaps the odd Hallelujah Chorus? Nick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29678; Fri, 11 Jun 93 07:02:04 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03868; Fri, 11 Jun 93 08:01:57 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 8:02:04 EDT From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: MAGIC (mostly) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 23:06:26 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <146E8E60029@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Since Oliver voted for one posting a day, here my collected answers: Paul Reilly: PR>> Long lasting spells have no fixed Duration, instead they are maintained by a Sorceror's Presence until he Recalls that Presence. Thus the sorceror has a certain amount of magic, which he can have "out in the field" in long duration spells, or can "keep in reserve" as Presence. Recall Presence is a new magic skill. One still must spend Magic Points to cast the spells, thus there is a cost associated with switching one's magic. <> PS: concerning not recovering MP's for spells that are still on. (Joerg) We tried another variant that was a bit of fun: spells act as MP parasites, they need their intensity/day in MP's to function. They draw this from the person the spell is on or from the casting sorceror. Typically this comes from the MP recovery rate of a willing subject. Thus the warrior with a 3 enhancement to strength and dexterity and 2 points of Spell Resistance will have 8 points cut from his daily MP recovery rate. This limits the amount of magic on a person (to his POW) and also accounts for the hostility of shamans (who see the spells as little spirit parasites) and priests (who think that MPs should be used for worship if possible) to sorcery, and why people from other cultures don't even want it cast on them. This system preserves the basic feel of RQ III Sorcery while imposing some limits and a cost to the person using it, and discourages spirit magic users from getting sorcery cast on them as well. (If your MP recovery rate is cut to 2 points a day, you don't really want to cast Heal 6 and Bladesharp 4). <> I don't know if this has been discussed to death before so please bear with me. My question is, do we have to keep spirit magic the way it is? <> What I'd like is something like Bladesong a spell you learn like a normal skill, you can get +5% for each round spent chanting/singing up to +50% and when you roll for each 10% you make it by you can the equivalent of 1 level of bladesharp. This way a warrior would have a reason to spend lots of time reciting a charm over his sword rather than a quick muttered prayer to cast Protection 3 and another one for Bladesharp 1. You never know how well the spirits will respond but the better/longer the prayer the better the magic you'll get. Spirit magic as it stands now is 1)Vey mechanical and 2) works too reliably. If this topic has been beaten to death please feel free to ignore me. :) <> Is there any value in getting small shields? I mean, once players get the cash, they will just upgrade to large ones unless there is some disadvantage to having them. <> I think Throw and Catch should be part of the same skill, much like I feel that punch, kick and headbutt should be rolled into "Brawling" and Grapple, Hold, Escape rolled into "Wrestling". <> I'm not too fond of adding another attribute, PRE. But then, I was not happy with Steve M.'s WIL in his heroquest rules. <> I really like this idea. One problem I think all three magic systems in RQ have is that their are really countless magic systems in Glorantha. And there is really no way to fix this. Writing up a seperate magic system just for Godunya worshippers doesn't make sense. So the next best thing is to base it off of sorcery. But by emphasing the ways the three magic systems are similar I think later variations(like Godunya or even Lunar magic) will be easier to develop. The similarities will hopefully help people customize later magic systems for different parts of a Glorantha campaign. After all I don't think Mostali magic should be _exactly like Malkioni sorcery, just very similar. <> I really like the parellel here. It always seemed to me that if the shaman could develop part of himself into a fetch other cultures and worldviews would be able to do soemthing similar. In fact given the nature of Glorantha I'd be shocked if no one else developed something like this. I also like the conecpt of Presense. I once tried to develop something along the same lines myself( I was using lounar magic for sorcery and just ignoring the RQIII sorcery system) and was basing the was basically a substitute familiar and the wizard was really at a only fixes many problems with the current sorcery system it will be a more interesting system to characters in. The mindset of sorcerors under the presence system will be more in line with what I think of when I think of a wizard. < don't do anything for atmosphere. And the parallels to spirit magic went farther than I liked - if sorcery is presented as spirit magic with somewhat different manipulation, call it lunar magic, or skip it. If the way to a similar effect differs (as does damage resistace from protection in RQ3), the different system is justified. CS>> That's too bad. I've always liked the runic ties of the Western Wizards. Any chance you'll post this system to the regular RQ digest? <> Nick Brooke wrote: > Agree with the sentiment and the approach. This looks like a good moment > to chuck in my ha'penn'orth (mechanics, I'm afraid). Something we tested > last Sunday was a Spirit Magic casting die-roll of 1D20 against POW (rather > than the old POWx5 +- Magic Bonus - ENC on 1D100). Similar to some > Pendragon mechanics. My original idea was this: << Bad idea. One type of die roll to determine success, please! Even if this is trivial, any distraction from here and we get AD&D. And, please, make absolutely clear wether or not to add magic skill modifier to spirit magic success rolls, and make sure too to warn about the effect of Encumbrance, remention it in the spell percentage section of the data sheet! B>NB>> > Chuck in the new Magic skill of "Focus" (gives +1 to effective POW per 5% > of skill for the purposes of spirit spell casting only), and you can tell > the professional spirit magicians from the amateurs. Get a high enough > skill at Focussing, and you can cruise through magical engagements under > your own Power (all those critical rolls). <> BTW, I'd like to chime in now and express my hope that, whatever form Spirit Magic takes in RQ4, they will drop the silly POWx5% on 1d100 and just roll POW on a d20. Functionally identical, and simpler. And it's not as the game doesn't use d20's already. <> Paul Reilly: Loved your sorcery system. I'd recommend using the rule of one point of PRE per point intensity of spell maintained. Though the other would be more useful to beginning sorceror characters. <> A hybrid approach would rule would be to require at least one PRE to maintain each long duration spell, but that any such spell can be dispelled as if it's intensity were one. More PRE can be used to back it, up to it's intensity, to increase the power require to dispel it. <4, 3->9, 4->16, ... If the spell casting time is counted in hours per MP, make it this number times 1 hour)? -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15449; Thu, 10 Jun 93 17:20:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21981; Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:03 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 18:20:02 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13935E176DC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here, responding to Nick: >Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the Uhh.. something just occurred to me. Everyone knows "libido" is not identical in meaning to "sex drive", I hope? Binding the libido is more like harnessing one's basic life force than just not having sex. Rokari Wizards (at least) do Vow celibacy, but that's just one way of yoking the libido. Kralorelans are just as likely to use Tantric Yoga or some equivalent. >I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's >barbaric!) ^^^^^^^^ Typically, Nick means _exactly_ what he says in this case. Maybe Greg can be contacted for some ideas on Vows. In any case I will be trying to incorporate this in the beta test version. >Some vows you >would take before "wrestling with your Id" (to strengthen yourself in the >"Fetch-Crippling" Trial), Nick has captured our ideas and is re-expressing the whole picture more clearly than I did in the first place. Also included in this strengthening period are the endless hours of seemingly pointless idiot-work typically demanded of apprentices. (Has everyone seen "Dragonslayer"?) If you can't concentrate on tending the fire under an alembic for sixteen hours, how do you expect to perform High Magic rituals without faltering? >while others would be required as your >"Presence"/Second POW score built itself up I see these more as "symptoms" than "Vows" but I tend to think of sorcerors as seriously bent people! >[Good list of possible Vows] All good ideas. I don't know what will pass Greg, though... >Apparent manifestations of a high "Presence" would include Haloes, Odours >of Sanctity, and perhaps the odd Hallelujah Chorus? I agree here, but see my earlier post on how Pagan visitors might view these "Saints". - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20655; Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:13:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26957; Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:13:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:13:22 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:12:58 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13D18DA7502@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Subject: Re: SPIRIT MAGIC >> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 18:44:51 EDT >> Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu >> >> Spirit Magic: >> >> ... >> >> I may send this to the RQ Daily as well, now that I've written it. But >> first I'll give y'all a chance to stop me by telling me that it's a waste of >> bandwidth! Yes, definitely do that. (This probably belonged there, anyway...) I've not had a chance to read through the sorcery ideas of yours, but from the sounds of the comments, you got that pretty well right, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23583; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:21:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28903; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:21:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:21:29 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY and other COMMENTS Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:21:43 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13F3C061641@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I've noticed one problem with the idea of limiting posts to as few as possible and providing convient headers. It's not so easy to come up with a header that let's people know what the psot is when you want to deal with several topics in the same post. Anyway on to RQIV stuff. First of all on the APP/CHA debate: I do think we need a way to measure how goodlooking a character is. Let's face it this does influence people and I think it's nice to know. It doesn't have to be an attribute though. As for CHA I hate it. It's too illdefined. Or at least all the definitions I've seen roll too many different elements into one big lump sum. WHy not just ditch CHA and the skills that go with it? If a PC wants to bargain why not let him roleplay? Of course when you're playing a game you don't want to roleplay every trip to the tinker when you're on an epic quest. So I think the skills should actually stay, they can be usefull. I'd like to see a better definition of CHA though. If it wasn't too general it might be usefull. Now on to Sorcery: One idea I have for geasa is that that can be used to maintain other people's spells. Let me explain. Maybe the Brithini do this, when a young man/woman comes into age he probably goes through somesort of ceremony. At that time he/she sacrifices a point of POW to establish a Presence and the Wizard casts immortality. But the young man/woman will maintain it, they swear a geas to never break the rules of their class. If they do the spell is lost since they don't know it to recast it and they now have a 1 Pow Presence hanging around like a black cloud. Something like this could also explain while the Mostali are immortal unless they break the rules. What do you guys think? Another idea I like is that the ordeal a wizard goes through is sort of a mini heroquest. His geasa/vows/whatever actually change him in some way. So a wizard could tie himself to darkness by swearing/accepting some geasa restricting him in the light. This makes a bit more sense under the sorcery=rune manipulation model of how things work but I think it could be an interesting idea to develop. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22425; Thu, 10 Jun 93 22:30:48 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28094; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:30:45 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:30:50 EDT From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: COMMENTS on Carl's Reply to Nick's Comments Date: 10 Jun 1993 23:27:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13E641240F5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sorry for not putting this in a long message, but... Nick says that he's opposed "on principle" to Charisma. What is the principle? Someone else complained about diplomats wanting a bunch of skills rather than just CHA. I don't think this is true at all. My characters in RQ2, before Bargain skill was generally available, got by with some Oratory and a lot of CHA rolls, and they were by no means just stand up fighters. One of them was an Issaries priest by the end of it, and the lack of a large complex of bargaining and interaction skills didn't slow him down a bit. And then look at all the games that are supposed to be roleplaying intensive that you see out there on the market. Amber. How many skills and stats do you see? 4 stats. No skills, per se, other than the cosmic abilities expected of Amberites. Does that make it hard to play diplomatic characters? On the contrary, the simplistic rules/non-rules make it easy to bend characters as you want, rather than make them slaves to a skill list. Also, a player in my current campaign under the playtest rules wants to play a diplomat character. Unfortunately the current rules do not support such a concept. Everyone else has taken some communication skill or another, and everybody else is just as good as he is. The player is not glib or pushy, so his character gets overwhelmed by other characters, and he has no recourse in the game rules, for they make someone with 20 points in multiple comm skills equivalent to someone with 4 points in one of them. If CHA was available, then he would have boosted his CHA and those who didn't want to spend points on CHA would have left their CHA low and he would have an advantage. The current system doesn't have a way to differentiate between someone with 60% in oratory and someone with 60% oratory, 60% bargain, 60% etiquette, and all the rest. The multiplicity of poorly defined skills, which should not even be used in a properly run game, or so the roleplaying snobs tell us, discourage people from buying such skills for their character. Which ones are useful in what situations? Who knows. Anyway, I want to hear rational arguments against CHA if you have them, rather than just "I don't like it." Tell me how CHA ruined your RQ campaign and having APP and 6 Comm skills made it better. expectantly yours, Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23959; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:44:16 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29168; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:44:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:44:18 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:44:23 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13F9D1B6776@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I know we want to avoid too much traffic on this list but there are too many points here I'd like to comment on for me to pass up. :) What can I say, the flesh is weak. > > Re: Pauls and Mikes new system > > The problem with making it too difficult to become a sorcerer is that > you'll have very few PC sorcerers. This is the problem with Warhammer > FRP, the magicians are gross but it takes an eternity to get any good. > As a result, there are a lot more NPC magicians than PC's. > > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs > to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could > be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. I think Graeme is right that right now it looks to hard to generate Sorcerors. At the same time we have to make sure it's not too easy. But I think between learning lores, spells, and establishing a Presence a sorceror has plenty of things he needs to do to become powerfull. I think that it should be a bit easier to become a sorceror(assuming you are part of the right culture and have followed all the rules, I'm talking game mechanics) than to become a shaman or a priest. But starting sorcerors shouldn't be as powerfull as staring shaman and priests. They should have to spend lots of time reading ancient tomes, perforing starnge rituals, and speaking to forgotten spirits to accumulate power. > (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the > westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other > cultures could do it differently.) Yes! The basic sorcery rules shoudl not be based on any one culture, but rather easily configurable to fit each different sorcery using group. Sorcery metarules instead of rules for Malikioni. > > > The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but > they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). > I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept > binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality > becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as > many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and > frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring > effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: > the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... I like this alot. But we need guidelines for what establishes the effects. Maybe how the sorceror fares in the ordeal and how he tries to reshape himself and his presence? > > In short, I think the effects should be personal, rather than cultural. I think they should be both. The rules should allor for individual sorcerors to develop individually, after all powerfull sorcerors seem to be a group of unique people rather than one stereotype, but with lots of information about how each culture _expects_ a sorceror to develop. > > Someone (I forget who) said he thought that most sorcerers are fairly > twisted. I think this should be avoided, especially as part of the rules > system: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic > prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are > controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base > rules system should contain these slants. Again I agree. If we can't manage to make the rules unbiased then each group of magic rules should have the outlook of someone from that culture by way of background. So the rules for Presence should mention how this is the best way to handle magic, the rules for shaman should mention how the shamans powers are the best way to do magic, and the divine magic should mention how this the the best magic. Remember Greg keeps stressing that their is no "right" answer. All sorcerors shouldn't be neroitic, repressed basket cases no one likes. Though it's all right to establish cultural stereotypes. > > Re: Animistic spirit magic: though I posted my problems with the system > yesterday, I do prefer it to the current system as an explanation of how > spirit magic works. The problem with re-doing it for RQIV is that it isn't > broken, maybe not perfect, but not broken. What I would really like for > RQIV is more spirit magic spells: I think the list emphasizes combat spells > too much. I'd like this too. Maybe if the spirit magic spells weren't so optimized for combat it would "feel" more like animistic magic too me. > > Graeme. > > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23986; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:45:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29183; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:45:35 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:45:36 EDT From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS: Bargain Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 21:45:22 -0700 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13FA37E340F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> About the Bargain skill: IMHO, sellers *will* occasionally take a loss, on individual sales, for many possible reasons: Needs fast cash / Needs fast space / Mistakenly bought items at higher than going market value / Item will spoil soon / Trying to "score points" with sexually attractive buyer / Wants to avoid the tax levied next week on merchandise / Etc. etc. Dustin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA04515; Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:04:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11099; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:04:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:04:13 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS -- Magic, Sorcery Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:00:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <149F2001882@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sheesh. I go away for a day and get mail-bombed. Good thing I like it. :) ---------------------------------------- Paul R. Notes: (on magic) | Spirit Magic: | 2. Go back to RQ3 for Focussed on self, Unfocussed on others. Add in | things like "Unfocussed on weapon in hand" for Bladesharp. | | Now invent a Focussing skill to cast magic. This is a standard Magic | skill and can improve through experience. I think back in the days I ran a very short RQ3 game, I had a "Cast Spirit Magic" skill that started at 25% and improved from there. I think adding this to RQ4, rather then relying on POWx5, is the way to go. But, looking at later comments, this should be called "Spirit Harmony" (see later in this post) | This works great in low-magic campaigns. Interpret things like Fanaticism | as just willing yourself to fight fanatically: spend a point of willpower | (MP) and hack away! Strength is berserk strength, Coordination is paying | extra attention (at the cost of willpower = MP) to what you're doing, etc. I like this idea, but like the next one even better. | 3. When RQ3 first added spell spirits we thought they were a dopey | mechanic. After reading THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN and some other such | books, I don't think they went far enough. Primitive peoples pick up | "helper spirits" all the time. | So another model is instead of saying "I beat up the spirit and force it | to teach me its spell that it can't even cast itself," say instead: | "I acquire a new spirit buddy who'll do his trick for me." Thus you get Actually, I LIKE this even better. And it even fits the mechanic where you have to "release" spirits in order to make room for others (to get a new spell, or to get a "bigger" one.) | a Bladesharp spirit - it doesn't cast a spell, it IS the spell. It can | sit on a sword and help it fight. You have to feed it some mana, of | course, or it won't do it's trick. You can acquire several spirits of the | same type. Actually, since to learn a Heal 4 requires you to give a beating to a much more powerful spirit, rather then just another Heal 1 spirit, I think the actual effect is to shoo away the smaller spirit in favor of the larger one, rather then maintain a flock of tiny ones. | If you acquire spirits of opposing types (Fireblade and | Darkwall) you may have to break up catfights once in a while and one | or both of them may run off and sulk. The shaman makes you a little | house for the spirit (Focus, like an oppossum rib cage) or you find it | on a visionquest. Another good reason. "The key, my young apprentice," said Old Greyfoot, "Is to never send your spirit of Blazing spear into battle with that of the Shadow Block. In the distant past, before the age of man, these two tribes had bad blood between them, and have to this day maintained that animosity. Send them both, and you get nothing from either." | I'd probably use this model in a Hsunchen campaign, it fits much better | with an animistic view of the world. I may use this with ALL spirit magics. Cult spirit spells are bits of one's god come down to aid you (after you have proved yourself to it...while you might have to fight a Humact Bladesharp Spirit, an Issiares (sp?) might have to haggle a deal with his (Use the same mechanics, but substitute "Bargain" for "Spirit Combat"). And, if you are bad, said cult spirit might up and leave you. :) "Did you hear about Assar the trader?" "No. What happened?" "His true tougue spirit left him during a big deal...he was ruined." "Wow! How come?" "The way I heard it, he offered the other guy a refund..." Shaman justification -- you have to spend time to prove yourself to him...he won't help those who will simply "enslave" the spirits. And it supports the fact that True Sword != True Spear cast on a sword. Said spirit will look at you funny, take your mana, and say "Sorry boss, not my department." And Sorcerers, who don't believe in such primitive stuff, don't get any. Sounds logical to me. ---------------------------------------- Nick Brooke notes on Paul's sorcery | I am *delighted* by Paul's suggestion that Wizards create an "artificial | Fetch" made up of suppressed desires, self-denial and the like. It opens | up a new moral dimension in the sorcery system, as we now have the | groundwork for a mechanism for penalising characters who act against the | rigid moral tenets of their religion (whatever those may be) -- their | "Presence" would start to diminish (as well it might!). Old Wizard Marlet | would be delighted! Well, rethinking it out I guess I like the idea. People have suggested names for the object, based on the culture. Loskalmi have Guardians, Dwarves have "Batteries", etc. And having the Presense locked into an object, stashed in an animal (familiar) or floating free is a matter of personal taste and culture. You know that Parrot in "Aladdin" was a familiar. With that attitude, he must have about 25 POW stashed in there. :) | I'm not sure that we need to call the "anti-Fetch's" POW characteristic by | any special name (after all, Shamans get by with "Fetch POW"): what we need | is a name for this Spiritual Thing that Wizards have but the rest of us | don't. "Presence" doesn't ring any bells for me. Nor do the obvious | "spiritual" things -- "Genius", "Daimon", "Guardian Angel", etc. Ideas, | anyone? A possible "generic" term for the rules (for common reference) might be "Aura". | Apart from those, I have no conceptual problems with this (yet?), which is | more than can be said for any other proposed Sorcery system I have seen. | It has flavour! It has a social dimension!! It might even work!!! And a social dimension is needed for the Loskalmi society to work. I agree. If Presense or Aura or whatever is used to maintain spells for sorcerers (I think "Adept" is the best term, "Sorcerer" being the generic term for Adepts and Apprentices), this level should fluctuate with his duties and actions w/regards to the Invisible God and his/her sect. ---------------------------------------- Carl Fink on Nick's comments | >You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial | >culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use | >these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer | >my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle. | | Nick, you seem to be using "nobody sane" a bit loosely. I know | lots of people who like to roll randomly and generate characters | based on the rolls - it's a challenge. That's why we have | several ways to do it, so people don't have to use methods they | don't like. Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use | in the book bother you that much? I agree with Carl. They have a use. But I think that they have more use as a seperate pamphlet. That way the GM could refer to it for quick background on some nameless NPC, rather then crack the main book. But if such a task is more expense then the ease gained, put it in. Oh, and a secondary question on format. What is the format going to be like? 2-column per page? 2-column with a thin sidebar for optional rules? Have you seen Powers & Perils books? I liked their scheme of noting optional rules. Grey box was used with general use tables, pink for optional rules, red for seriously optional rules. | >I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in | >general, and go the Pendragon way.... | | We're trying to maintain continuity with RQ-past and -present, | which would make us very reluctant to simply discard POW gain | rolls. I have no problem with POW rolls, as long as you keep them to reasonable rates of use. | What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style | characteristic increases? (If you "stress" any stat, you roll | 2D6. On a 7, the stat increases, on a 2, it decreases.) Yuck. By stress, you mean where a fumble or Critical were made on a stat roll? I'm not sure if I'd like this. | >...The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used | >by idiots; why should we help them? | | Because we want their money. Sometimes having random tables is useful for adventure hooks. In Powers & Perils one can roll up military treasure, and it had tables like you would not believe for all sorts of junk (perhaps some RQ4 team member can peruse a copy of P&P book 4 from Avalon Hill...some ideas in there look pretty good). Anyways, military treasure has a chance of having some magic. One time, the group were picking over the gain from some creature's cave (this type of creature was treasure relevant). One of the objects was a flag/banner, with magic on it. Argument ensued on the value of it. From that time on, if they were looking over the potential rewards of a looting mission, and they felt they would get little out of it, there would always be at least some comment on there probably being nothing but "Battle Flags". "Battle Flag" also came to be a generic comment when a worthless item was found. | >...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the | >names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4. | >Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it | >isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct | >spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a |>lot more realism and fun in our games. | | I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic | this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or | elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha? One might compromise -- A Spear is a weapon, so you might get half effect out of it -- just like with Heal you only get half effect on another species. | I represent a minority opinion that hates the "limited number of rolls" | system, and I also had no problem with check frenzy. Okay, one problem, | but I squelched it fairly quickly. I don't see any skill-check frenzy, or at least, I haven't put them in the position to make it cost effective. Training Frenzy is another matter. If the group is dorking around a town for half a week while waiting for the next barge to their destination, out come the training requests. I make sure they pay their room & board (Actually, they decide on how they want to live (like a duke, like a commoner, etc, and pay that way) and give them their training points available. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05233; Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:19:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11798; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:19:36 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:19:38 EDT From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, PERSONALITY TRAITS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 10:18:58 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14A342A3AE6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some quick comments (I hope), vvvvvv Graeme wrote: > A general comment: I had 250k of text sent from both the RQ mailing >lists yesterday (and they said it was a dead system...). But with a *fanatically* loyal following ;-) >Re: Pauls and Mikes new system > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs >to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could >be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. Or perhaps base the opening skill level on the appropriate lores when the spell is learned. Could use the same mechanic as complementary skills, and have the skill with each spell learned start at (magic bonus + (Lore 1 skill)/20 + (Lore 2 skill)/20)% - difficulty mod The difficulty modifier would vary as necessary for different spells. One of the problems with RQ3 is all sorcery spells were equally easy to learn. I could see some arcane and powerful spells (such as Time in yesterday's (6/10) RQ Daily) having a modifier of -50 to -100 (or more), requiring lore skills monstrously high to learn. But since Zzzabur (is that too many z's?) is the only one who has learned it, and his lores are likely around 500-1000%, that's copacetic. This will have two (related) desired effects. One, the more a magus knows about an arcane subject, the more capable he is at spells dealing with it. Two, it will tend to foster specialization among magi, as they would have a choice of either learning spells they have the appropriate lores for at moderate levels or learning spells they don't have lores for at low levels. And if the difficulty modifier is high, it will take them many times longer (taking 50 hours and adding a d6 to their negagive skill each time) to learn spells without the appropriate lores. Or perhaps rule that a magus must have non-zero skill with all lores a spell is based upon, and cannot learn any spell unless their starting skill would be positive. > (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the >westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other >cultures could do it differently.) The Kralori, for example, could base it on the powers of various draconic or celetial beings, or on the various ki channels in the body, or maybe tantric positions? Dwarfs might be based on the various dwarfin races, and so Irondwarf lore would help with combat and weaponsmithing spells. > The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but >they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). >I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept >binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as >many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and >frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring >effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: >the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... I hadn't thought of this, but it has good effects. Since the twin is in the real world, the adept would not be able to see on the spirit plane, and would lack the shaman's Second Sight. However, he would have a Mystic Vision-like ability (though much less powerful than RQ3's MV, please). The shaman says the adept has "blinded" his fetch, but that may just refer to it's inability to view the spirit plane. I also *love* the adept's hidden nature being visible to all. Might make it easy for the inquisition (Nobody expects the Loskalmic Inquisition!) > I don't think Vows should be as severe as Geasa either. Certainly the >earthly monotheist parallels have forgiveness for broken vows. From what >I've read of Irish myth, the breaking of a Geas usually preceeded one's >death by no more than a week. To balance this, a Vow should get you less >than a Geas does; perhaps an increased chance of a POW gain while you >keep to the Vow? I thought the idea was that as each point of POW was given to your twin, some vow or quirk had to be be part of it (perhaps all with the same vow, perhaps not), and that to use that POW, you had to maintain the vow. So it doesn't "get you" anything, other than ability to use your twin. Is this incorrect? ----- (*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <| Fools rush in where the Storm Bulls are holding a kegger. Pavic proverb. Boris |><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26809; Fri, 11 Jun 93 02:53:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01284; Fri, 11 Jun 93 03:53:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 3:53:41 EDT From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SKILLS: How many? Which ones? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 9:51:08 MDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <142C5DC5B68@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I am not so long on this list but it seems that a number of people find that there are too many skills in RQIV. I like having many skills but I find that they are handled too seperatly. My idea is to put the skills in categories and let people train all skills in a category at the same time. Whith the possibily to specialize in one or two skill at the costs of some other skills in the category. For example: category persuade. skills: Bargain, Debate, Fast talk, Oratory. One could now train in persuade which would give each skill some percentage. Specializing in Bargain at the cost of Orartory would mean that Bargain would have a bonus for bargain and a malus for orartory. Comments please. -- ======================================================================== Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 ========================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09569; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:45:29 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15594; Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:12 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:30 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! + SPIRIT MAGIC at the end Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 12:45:18 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14BA1DD6B62@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick writes: >We know that the >Rokari Wizards are not celibate. Errata: I should perhaps have said 'at least some Rokari Wizards (at least) do Vow celibacy, ' Remember the culture section about "Have they never enjoyed the flesh of a woman? Of course not, and their vows turn them into shrill-voiced hypocrites railing against all pleasures," or words to that effect. The _caste_ is hereditary, but perhaps only some children of the caste gain the Higher Magic and take vows of chastity. (Celibacy = no marriage, Chastity = no sex.) Maybe they have children beforehand or something. For Carmania, we were thinking that upper class families often have a distribution like: First Son = Heir Second Son is given to the Wizards. Third Son goes to the army, etc. Poor commoners sometimes give children to the Wizards as well, most of these become servants bbut some talented ones mnay get trained in sorcery ( or become Priests of Wizard class cults.) Oh, maybe when you bind your 'crippled Fetch' to an object and take on Vows, you get a multiplier (like x2) for effective Presence. Thus someone with 5 points of Power Invested in a Staff would have as a default 5 Points of Presence but with 5 points of Vows he can double that to 10. This quantifies the apparent Gloranthan rule that you can trade freedom for power. With this mechanic you could use Curtis' table of how much various sample Vows might be worth, and as Wizard's power grows they would wind up taking on more vows, until finally the world's greatest magi have virtually no freedom. For example, the world's greatest Fire/Sky mage, Ehilm, might take a Vow to travel a fixed path that repeats in a yearly cycle. - Paul Reply to Graeme: > I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs >to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. We had thought about this, spells would become "favorite recipes" and then you use your magic skills (possibly Rune based) to cast them. Analogy: Should we use separate skills for Cherries Flambe and Jugged Hare or a Cooking Skill with the cooks acquiring recipes? Sadly I am told that using separate Spell skills comes from Greg and is not open to change. (As I understand it.) Range always bothered me less than duration. > The "special effects" of Presence: [various good stuff] >Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others Exactly. Examples: a Kralorelan holy mystical sorceror, revered by his local peasants, has a holy aura to them but may appear to be a sinister inscrutable Oriental magician with an aura that is simply alien to a visiting Lunar caravan boss. Is the sinister solid black shadow of an Arkat Kingtroll sorceror frightening or holy? Depends on whether you're a human or a troll. > ...: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic >prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are >controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base >rules system should contain these slants. Exactly right. I am a bit prejudiced toward the shamanic view BUT I will try to keep it out of the system. The sorceror indeed thinks that the shaman's so-called fetch is just the shaman's magic running out of control, and that the shaman is over the bend. Sorcerors who screw up their Awakening and wind up with a fetch are considered to have gone crazy. On Earth we have people who stand around muttering on city street corners and are regarded as insane; in a primitive culture they might be holy men. I've seen some papers about this, psychologists think a lot of shamans have conditions thought of as disorders in the Western world. (Of course there is a lot of variation across cultures.) The standard RQ releases for the Dragon Pass area should have stuff purportedly from Gloranthan sources slanted against sorcerors, but we should try to keep it out of the base system. >Animistic spirit magic I talked to Oliveer Jovanovic last night. He liked the model where the spirit magician has learned to communicate with the spirits of things. This option can use the familiar mechanics. It also changes the way spells are grouped together. Examples: Bladesharp. You have learned to commune with the spirits of sharp objects. You can bribe them to work harder for you. This now naturally goes with Dullblade: you can learn also to bribe them to lay off on you. Healing: Everyone has a fetch, yours is just asleep, in a dazed dream like the spirit of a spear. You can get it to Heal your body by bribing it, just like you can bribe your spear to work harder. Heal now is logically grouped with Strength, Coordination, etc. (Disrupt might fall in here also, bribing opponent's fetch, or it could go elsewhere...) Fire Spirits: You can wake them up (Ignite), put them to sleep (Extinguish), or fan them into a burning rage (Fireblade). Note that this grouping often gives animists a set of spells that cultists would consider incompatible, such as Ignite and Extinguish. - Paul P.S. How about but redefining Protection so that it stacks with armor like armor, i.e. only half the lower protection counts. I have always thought of Protection as something primitives do to make arrows bounce off their skin, anyway. Protection should _really_ be for them. Also, the Lunar soldier who is relying on his armor just can't be believing in his Protection as much as the barbarian with no armor who is trusting in his god-given (ie. Orlanth sent a Spellteaching spirit) magic to Protect him. The armored Lunar is putting a little extra whammy on top of his armor, the Orlanthi is really relying on the spell. Second argument: Protection 2 is equivalent to sole leather. A lance point that can blow through a steel breastplate should hardly notice it anyway, should only count as one point. Third argument: The current description makes Prot. 4 MORE valuable to the armored guy than the skyclad warrior. If I have 8 point chain +padding, I fear two things: critical hits and being nickel and dimed to death. With Protection the average damage per round is cut down a LOT as most hits would only be getting one or two points past armor anyway. Thus even Prot. 1 makes a big difference to how long the heavily armored guy can last, whereas it's hardly worth casting for the primitive. This should be evened up, or even fo in the Primitive's favor. If you want to keep the same game balance as RQ 4 making Protection up to 6 more available is a possibility. This would add only 3 points to the heavily armored warrior but make those howling unarmored barbarian charges a lot more plausible.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23040; Thu, 10 Jun 93 23:03:17 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28587; Fri, 11 Jun 93 00:03:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 0:03:20 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY, SPIRIT MAGIC, PERSONALITY TRAITS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 14:02:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <13EEEA263A8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> A general comment: I had 250k of text sent from both the RQ mailing lists yesterday (and they said it was a dead system...). Re: Pauls and Mikes new system The problem with making it too difficult to become a sorcerer is that you'll have very few PC sorcerers. This is the problem with Warhammer FRP, the magicians are gross but it takes an eternity to get any good. As a result, there are a lot more NPC magicians than PC's. I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores. (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other cultures could do it differently.) Range: this takes P&M's sorcery even further from RQIII but I think the range rules look a little out of place now. I think a sytem purely based on sympathetic targetting (as a skill mod, since intensity is now limited by skill) would be more in place. This would also vary by culture too, but completely different write-ups for cultures has been part of the cults since the beginning. The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened). I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others: the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan... In short, I think the effects should be personal, rather than cultural. Someone (I forget who) said he thought that most sorcerers are fairly twisted. I think this should be avoided, especially as part of the rules system: ie adepts "crippling their fetch". This is a theistic or animistic prejudice: adepts control their twin. They would say that shamans are controlled by theirs, and are insane/possessed. I don't think the base rules system should contain these slants. One problem with this is that Glorantha seems to be slanted against the sorcerers. Whether this is a product of the theistic bias of RQI & II, or Greg's dislike of authoritarian churches, I'm not sure. Re: Animistic spirit magic: though I posted my problems with the system yesterday, I do prefer it to the current system as an explanation of how spirit magic works. The problem with re-doing it for RQIV is that it isn't broken, maybe not perfect, but not broken. What I would really like for RQIV is more spirit magic spells: I think the list emphasizes combat spells too much. Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19257; Fri, 11 Jun 93 15:46:08 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25196; Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:46:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:46:08 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: DIVINE MAGIC Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 13:46:18 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14FA53424BB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I'd just like to say I support the idea of including the Rune Power idea as an optional rule. Right now the mechanics remind me of nothing less than AD&D with disposable magic spell feel. "Well I'm going to the Orlanth temple and I'm going to pick up two teleport greanges and one flight grenade." I think the idea of Rune Power where you can ask the god for any spell has a better feel. With this system if two groups want to swear an Oath spell the Humakt initaite can step in and cast oath if he has to(assuing he's already sacrificed some pow) I think divine spells should enable mortals to act as symbolic representitives of the gods and being able to call on any of the gods pwoers available to you when they are needed seems more in line with this. A Storm Bull worshipper shouldn't have to sit down and plan what spells he's going to need ahead of time. If play balance is an option I have two suggestions. One is that initiates would have to sacrifice two pow for every one point of spell they could ask for. But considering that it'll be one use anyway I don't think this is needed. My other suggestion is that the first spell asked for each day is granted. But then everytime you ask for another spell you have to roll a die(1d10 for initiates and 1d100 for priests) if you roll under the number of points you've already cast that's it for the day. You'll have to fall back on DI if you need your god to save you. This can be explained any number of ways, the god is annoyed witht he frequent requests, it's a function of the Compromise, the god is busy, etc. The other thing I liek about this is that it would add bit of similarity to priests and the other two magic types. Just like a shaman makes his otherself awaken as a fetch on the spirit plane and feeds it pow and a sorceror binds his otherself to the real world and gives it pow a priest gives his otherself to his god and stores his pow that way, as a pool to be drawn on later. Comments? -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21465; Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:33:24 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26725; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:33:21 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:33:27 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIVINE MAGIC Date: 11 Jun 93 17:31:05 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1506FD1407B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Curtis writes: >I'd just like to say I support the idea of including the Rune Power idea >as an optional rule. The problem is that as Greg has said before the Rune Power rules break the cosmic compromise. Orlanth does not invoke a divine effect when a priest casts cloud call, such would be cheating. Divine intervention is such cheating. That's why it has such stringent rules, and can't affect anyone else. That's also why it is so risky to the one praying. The reason that divine intervention is so expensive for the mortal involved is that the divinity risks being caught and damaged by the compromise. The way divine magic works is that the deity gives a boon to the worshipper, and the worshipper uses a certain amount of POW to store the boon. With an initiate the POW that stores the boon is tied to the boon. It goes away when the boon is used. With a priest the POW that holds the boon sticks to the priest and can be recharged with the same boon upon further prayer. Why is there a difference? Something Curtis says later gave me an idea. > The other thing I liek about this is that it would add bit of >similarity to priests and the other two magic types. Just like a shaman >makes his otherself awaken as a fetch on the spirit plane and feeds it >pow and a sorceror binds his otherself to the real world and gives it >pow a priest gives his otherself to his god and stores his pow that way, >as a pool to be drawn on later. Now this is an important point. It allows me to see a sensible way to explain the divine magic rules. When the divine magic user becomes initiated he undergoes an ritual that begins to separate his otherworldly self, the part of him that would become the fetch of a shaman or the twin of a magus, from him, and begins to form his "soul." (just picked the name. try another if you don't like it.) The initiate prays to and receives boon powers from his divinity, powers that are stored in the soul, along with the POW that was committed to support them. If he wants to he can loose those divine powers, permanently weakening his soul. If he holds on to them then after his soul gets to 10 POW he may be initiated to acolyte or priest rank, which means the soul is no longer weakened by using divine boons. Until then the initiate is deemed to be ready to possess the boons, but unready to use them. This period is a test. After initiation to acolyte or priest status, divine boons loosed from the soul may be regained through prayer. The soul can be thought of conceptually as a personal god, connected to and synchronous with the initiate or priest, existing on a personal godplane rather than the mundane or spirit or god plane. This also explains why rune magic cast on the hero plane or in the god plane is used permanently. The hold of the boon on its piece of the soul is stronger than the soul's connection to the priest. This explanation is also consistent with the reluctance of real world religious instructors to teach miraculous abilities to their students and their frequent recommendations that people should not, at peril of their soul, use magic. It shrinks the soul. Only very experienced people should attempt to use those powers, for they are dangerous. This explanation works for some divine magic users, but most if not all temples teach spirit magic to worshippers. Why isn't spirit magic also banned? Besides the game balance issue, I think that if the personal and minor nature of spirit magic is emphasized then we could see a clear path to allowing people to use minor tricks, and even instructing them in their use, while discouraging them from using major powers. I think the chi analog is a good one. I think this explanation is consistent with all the facts we have about divine magic on glorantha. It also matches a lot of the real world facts. We might want to change the name of the priest's pseudo-fetch from soul to something else, but... Should we run it by Greg and include it in the rules? -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25759; Fri, 11 Jun 93 01:32:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00601; Fri, 11 Jun 93 02:31:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 2:32:02 EDT From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY: Libidoes in Bondage! Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 16:31:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <14169107007@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > A quick but vital point: > > Let's not overdo the sexual aspect of libido binding. We know that the > Rokari Wizards are not celibate. While they stress marital chastity, a > hereditary priesthood advocating total celibacy is on a hiding to > nowhere... > Yes, that's if they are a hereditary priesthood. Since the Rokari are the closest to medieval Christianity of any of the Malkionists, I think their priests have a similar origin: younger sons of the nobility for the ranking priests, sons of knights for the rest. I don't think their religion is an exact copy of the Brithini; after all they outlaw tapping. The "What My Father Told Me" says clearly that their wizard is celibate, and implies that the others are as well. Of course, this may be due to them all taking Vows... Does anyone know much about the Zoroastrians? I recall hearing that they are monotheists with a hereditary priesthood. Another interesting apsect is that their God (Ahura Mazda?) is evenly matched with their devil (Ahriman). All things that could be used as part of a non-Christian Malkionist theology. But I really think the sexual aspect shouldn't be part of the core rules: it imposes Gloranthan thinking on any other worlds GM's create. The shrill, celibate wizard comment does not seem to unbiased. I think that celibacy should certainly be a Vow, though. I also don't like the roleplaying limitations either. A magus (I agree with Loren, a better term than sorcerer) must have a magical view of the world, just like shamans and priests, but I don't think it must be based on sexual repression. > I like the idea of sectarian lists of Vows (*not* called Geasa -- that's > barbaric!) to distinguish between different types of Wizard. Some vows you I don't think Vows should be as severe as Geasa either. Certainly the earthly monotheist parallels have forgiveness for broken vows. From what I've read of Irish myth, the breaking of a Geas usually preceeded one's death by no more than a week. To balance this, a Vow should get you less than a Geas does; perhaps an increased chance of a POW gain while you keep to the Vow? > Nick > Graeme.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22950; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:14:51 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27882; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:14:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:14:51 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIVINE MAGIC Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:13:32 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <151207802B6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren's explanation is good and matches the way Divine magic works. I think that it may be true BUT that most Initiates think that their personal Deity is the One True Deity, this is also in some sense true. I'm not sure if the rulebook is the right place for such a "true" explanation, instead explain the mechanics and what some sample cultures believe. Also, I think that the deities do exist in some abstract sense as sentient concentrations of mana with information imprinted on them. When a priest or initiate sacrifices POW for Mana I think that he is building up a link to the deity, and that the "soul" of the priest extruded from his "spirit", while still attached to the priest, is also tied into this power complex, the "real" deity. The deity can consume the POW in this soul under certain conditions. Didn't Steve Maurer have some rules on Word Pacts and Soul Pacts? I think that Initiation is a soul pact with the deity and the otherworld self of the priest gets mixed in with that of the deity. This can be viewed as a big spirit eating part of your spirit and slowly digesting it (shamans) or an uplifting experience of Mystic Oneness with the Godhead. (Priests). Brithini might think of a pagan God as a mana complex maintained by the worshippers, essentially a long-running spell maintained by the Presence of all the Initiates. Even without worship such a power complex would take some time to run down. - Paul P.S> More this weekend but I have to go now...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23276; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:25:36 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28307; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:25:38 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 18:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <1514D904C8E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick, David, Loren, Paul, et. al. Thanks again for all the comments - I wanted to suggest a few ideas based on some of these comments, and see what people think of them. Fire away... DAMAGE BONUS There is an error in that table on the far end. In any case, I think that if we're going to go to the trouble of changing damage bonus (something that would interfere with the use of published RQIII stats), a straight addition may be the way to go - a number of people have suggested a few various ways of doing this, and it has a number of advantages over dice - faster to use, simpler and smoother. An example: 1-5 -4 6-10 -3 11-25 -2 16-20 -1 21-25 0 26-30 +1 31-35 +2 36-40 +3 41-45 +4 46-50 +5 Each +5 add 1 (This works out to 3.2 points of damage per 16 points of STR or SIZ, fairly close to the RQIII value of 3.5 points of damage per 16 points of STR and SIZ. Nick Brooke suggested something very similar, but with jumps every 4 points, working out to 4 points of damage per 16 points of STR or SIZ. This table, with jumps every 5 points, seemed even simpler. Nick?) STRIKE RANKS I noticed that the modified Harris combined Melee SR table had yet another problem - very small and clumsy creatures wouldn't have enough SR to land a blow in the course of a melee round. Another correction should make it work: DEX Missile/Spell SR 1-9 4 10-14 3 15-19 2 20+ 1 DEX + SIZ Melee SR (count only the first 20 points of each) 02-14 7 15-19 6 20-24 5 25-29 4 30-34 3 35-39 2 40 1 SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS Nick, I'm actually very much in agreement with you when you suggest using POW in as few modifiers as possible - it changes constantly, which makes it an incredible pain to refigure skills when you sacrifice for a point of Divine Magic or enchant something or whatnot. You can tell people not to change skills when their modifiers change post character generation, but this is counter intuitive - where I've seen people try to implement this rule, it has generally been discarded by the majority as making no sense. POW is already incredibly valuable in spell casting, enchantment, magic resistance, spell range, cult progression, luck rolls and spirit combat. I don't think it would hurt to drop it from the modifiers. I'd like to suggest the following changes: 1) Drop POW from modifiers. Refiguring skills would become much rarer. 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes little sense to me that an entire category of skills should be harder or easier because it has more or less positive modifiers attached. In RQIII, Stealth, Knowledge and Agility skill start at far lower levels and progress more slowly by experience than do Manipulation, Magic, Perception or Communication skills because of the number of positive modifiers they have. I would suggest that the categories each have the equivelant of two positive modifiers - a negative modifier such as SIZ is OK, since it simply says that you must be small to gain the same benefits as compared to another modifier. 3) Simplify the calculation of the modifiers themselves. This is what it would look like: Agility Skills Category Modifier STR + DEX - SIZ - 10 Communication Skills Category Modifier INT + APP - 20 Magic Skills Category Modifier INT + DEX - 20 Manipulation Skills Category Modifier STR/2 + INT/2 + DEX - 20 Perception Skills Category Modifier INT + CON - 20 Reasoning Skills Category Modifier INTx2 - 20 (A character with a 15 in every stat would have a +10 modifier in everything but Agility, which would be +5. If the character had a 10 SIZ and 15 in every other stat, all the characters modifiers would be +10. Reasoning is just another name for Judgement skills, from the earlier suggestion to drop the Stealth Skills Category Modifier and add Reasoning (can be increased by experience), contrasting with Knowledge (cannot be increase by experience)). PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Many helpful comments here by a number of people - the next version should be much improved by them. SKILL VS. SKILL David, I think we discussed something very much like what you suggest (subtract skills from each other, divide difference by two, add to 50 and roll) but the opinion at that time was that this was more complex than dividing each skill by 10 and comparing on the resistance table (reducing it to the same mechanic used by an MP vs. MP struggle). The method you suggest does away with the possibility of a rounding error, but requires more manipulation (subtract, divide, then add to 50). I'm not sure if this slight increase in accuracy is worth the slight increase in complexity. I'd be interested in hearing what people think, though. TRAINING (CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHERWISE) Nick, David, thanks for the feedback. Nick, you're correct, this system is very training heavy, but so were RQ2 and RQIII. Frankly, I think the best fix for this would be to get away from the idea of training individual skills and characteristics for huge lengths of time, which makes little sense, realistically speaking. People do train and research many of these skills and characteristics, but generally simultaneously. I'm working on something that tries to approach the situation from the idea of how a character spends his or her time over a period of time (perhaps with a minimum interval of a week). More to come on this. FATIGUE The chance of fumbling increasing, even dramatically, was exactly our intent. From my sparring experience, it is also a very good approximation of what happens when you get tired - you make sloppy mistakes which you would never make when rested, and begin seeing openings that you can't take advantage of due to your fatigue. Experienced fighters try to pace themselves so that they do not get tired - please note that with the RQIV rules, it only takes two melee rounds of dodging or parrying, or a single round of resting to recover fatigue - which strikes me as an excellant simulation of what happens when people spar. We also thought it would be a lot more dramatic - a character that gets tired really has to think about whether it is worth pressing the attack, or whether they should try to catch their breath by going on the defensive for a bit. David, how long do your fights run in rounds, typically? This may be a hidden variable. At least one playtester suggested shifting the rolls to every 10 melee rounds, which struck me as far too long an interval, simply because most RQ battles seem to be over in 10 to 15 melee rounds, but they seemed to regularly go 20 or so rounds. SPECIAL COMBAT OPTIONS David, good suggestion regarding Guard and Weave. I also like your idea of lumping Jumping Kick in with special combat options. We can always adjust the training times, based on feedback, if people want them easier to learn. They needed to be discussed in terms of cultural availability as well, as Nick suggests. GRAPPLE David, I think this could use a bit more simplification in any case. However, Grapple Attack and Parry are distinct, as is any Weapon Attack and Parry, or Fist Attack and Parry. If you want an example of people that learn Attack separate from Parry, many schools of Jujutsu focus almost exclusively on attacks at first, and only later on counters. Aikido, in contrast, emphasizes Grapple Parry over Grapple Attack. Grapple Parry can be used to parry anything however, just as can Fist Parry. SKILLS We started with more skills than we thought should end up in the final draft - the idea was to see, through feedback, which new skills people found useful, and which they did not. Fear not, the next draft should have even less of them. Loren, take heart, we're working on an idea for how communication skills should function which may make you much happier with them - namely to make them function in a way that encourages roleplaying as opposed to rollplaying. More on this later. You're correct in that right now they aren't too useful. SORCERY I think Paul (and Mike) have some very interesting ideas here - some of these will hopefully end up in RQIV. THE GREAT APP VS. CHA DEBATE Hm. Looking at this, about all I can say is that it looks like there are few people happy with either. Here's another suggestion: rather than use either APP or CHA, which have specific connotations people have trouble with, how about using a different name entirely? One suggestion was to use something called Presence (PRE) instead (this came well before Paul's use of the term ). This would simply reflect how well a character presented themselves and something about the force of their personality. The individual player could then decide whether this came from physical appearance, charisma, or a mixture of both. For example, a character with a 13 PRE (above average) might have but an average appearance, but a magnetic personality and a good voice (strong charisma, if you will). A character with a 10 PRE might have average appearance and personality, or they might have above average appearance and an unappealing personality. Any opinions? Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23921; Fri, 11 Jun 93 17:46:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28939; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:46:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:46:16 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON COMMENTS ON COMMENTS Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 15:46:38 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <151A6481BC6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIERS > > Nick, I'm actually very much in agreement with you when you suggest using > POW in as few modifiers as possible - it changes constantly, which makes > it an incredible pain to refigure skills when you sacrifice for a point > of Divine Magic or enchant something or whatnot. You can tell people not > to change skills when their modifiers change post character generation, but > this is counter intuitive - where I've seen people try to implement this rule, > it has generally been discarded by the majority as making no sense. POW > is already incredibly valuable in spell casting, enchantment, magic resistance, > spell range, cult progression, luck rolls and spirit combat. I don't think it > would hurt to drop it from the modifiers. If we drop it from the modifiers let's drop it from all of them rather than just trying to limit the number of catagories modified by POW. Otherwise we still reduce the problem without solving it. On that note I'd like to say I've never had _that_ big a problem with changing modifiers. I always write the skill % without modifiers with the modifier at the top of the catagory. That way when POW changed I didn't have to rewrite every skill%. I'd rather make POW more stable and less likely to go up. But that would change quite a few assumptions of the magic system. > > I'd like to suggest the following changes: > 1) Drop POW from modifiers. Refiguring skills would become much rarer. > 2) Recalculate modifiers so that they balance more equally. It makes > little sense to me that an entire category of skills should be harder > or easier because it has more or less positive modifiers attached. > In RQIII, Stealth, Knowledge and Agility skill start at far lower levels > and progress more slowly by experience than do Manipulation, Magic, > Perception or Communication skills because of the number of positive > modifiers they have. I would suggest that the categories each have the > equivelant of two positive modifiers - a negative modifier such as SIZ > is OK, since it simply says that you must be small to gain the same > benefits as compared to another modifier. > 3) Simplify the calculation of the modifiers themselves. All three sound good. And I have no objection to dropping POW from the modifiers. > > Reasoning is just another name for Judgement skills, from > the earlier suggestion to drop the Stealth Skills Category > Modifier and add Reasoning (can be increased by experience), > contrasting with Knowledge (cannot be increase by experience)). I like it. Though I'm curious to see which skills end up in which catagory. > > > > THE GREAT APP VS. CHA DEBATE > > Hm. Looking at this, about all I can say is that it looks like > there