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 co