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 AA24722; Thu, 1 Jul 93 02:50:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06093; Thu, 1 Jul 93 03:50:11 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 3:50:17 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery with studies Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:49:05 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <322C60B4861@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies skills is actually quite fine). In fact I was going to do something like this myself, but Burton beat me too it. I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain separate spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would be happy for RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica and Chivalry and Sorcery, but without immense complexity. What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than specifics. Cheers, Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA26595; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:52:12 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06502; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:51:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:51:39 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 17:25:46 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <334CEBE7ACF@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In <322C60B4861@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu>, Dave Cake writes: > I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with >studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies skills >is actually quite fine). In fact I was going to do something like this myself, >but Burton beat me too it. Studies is quite a ggod word for it. I was thinking of something like "name lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true name, and the study/skill represents how close the sorcerer came to it. The closer he comes, the better are his chances. > I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to >remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat >redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain separate >spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would be happy for >RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica and Chivalry and >Sorcery, but without immense complexity. >From the power balance point of view, you are right about the attribute spells being different spells, but for the sake of simplicity, I'd throw them in with the other spells. > What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do >others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver >and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than >specifics. As you might see from my answer, I support this for a generalized system for certain spell effects. I have no problem with specific spells sewn together from this taught to lesser pupils, such as Paul Reilly's Hrestoli spells in the Dailies, and certainly there would be restrictions as to who teaches or knows which studies, varying from sect to college. I'd propose that one can alternatively learn a certain combination of manipulation plus spell plus study as one new spell with fixed costs, which would be the way these are taught to students, or that one can take the expert way and make up the combinations as one wants. In the latter case manipulation limits are easy to calculate, and in the former one could think of some easy to handle restrictions, such as "no manipulation greater than teacher's instruct skill divided by ten allowed". This ought to hold power levels down. My DM 0.02 -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA14219; Thu, 1 Jul 93 14:05:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25728; Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:04:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:04:31 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maintenance Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 15:03:09 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <32E04DB0720@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. What happened to all the volume on this list? I'm not complaining, my mailer can use the rest, but I am surprised. Do people think a rule like the following would be good, or is this so obvious as to need no mention in the rules: A basic 30% Craft skill and simple tools are considered sufficient to maintain ordinary cultural equipment in good working order while away from shops, etc. For example, a knight on the road who has 30% Craft: Armoring (or has a squire with this skill), such tools as a hammer, whetstone, etc. and a small supply of rivets and strapping leather may be assumed to maintain ordinary cultural armor and weapons in working condition (barring major damage as for example by acid) indefinitely, with no skill roll. With 60% skill in a Craft, equipment at the top end of the range for the culture may be maintained. With 90% skill, imported equipment somewhat beyond the cultural level of the crafter may also be maintained indefinitely. Things which are in use and fail to receive proper maintenance will begin to decay. In the case of armor, rivets pop, straps moulder, etc. The GM must apply common sense to assess how fast different things will wear down - for example, a sealed Mostali timepiece might last indefinitely (but be impossible for humans to repair if broken through abuse), a watermill might last for a few years, poorly maintained tournament armor will last for a year or two. Poorly maintained equipment usually results in a penalty to the skill of the user in the early stages and may break down completely later on. Skilled craftsmen may be able to repair and refurbish such equipment at a moderate cost.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18975; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:06:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00291; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:46 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:05:12 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33009B96053@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no time to fully speak my mind... Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) impart given benefits. The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) Personally, I think the idea has a lot going for it. What holds me back from wholeheartedly embracing it is pure fear of the unknown: "It's just so different from the way we do it now..." One other drawback is the idea of 'breakpoints' that we have all (legitimately) come to dread. "Last week I was at 89%. I gained 2% from experience, so now I can maintain foreign equipment without a roll. I couldn't at 89%, but at 90%+ I'm golden..." (Hmmm... sounds like a certain taboo RPG...) The idea has a lot of face validity. Let's take something simple like Dancing. It makes a lot of sense that 25% dance means you've got the basics down, but are not terribly graceful. 50% means you've very comfortable. 85% means you are so good that others derive enjoyment from watching you. * All without a roll.* It does not make as much sense to say: A has Dance 15%, and gets a lucky special. B has Dance 75%, and gets a normal failure. Thus: A wow's the crowd, whereas B trips and falls... The complexity really sneaks in when you've got opposed skill rolls, especially combat. How to handle it? I dunno... -David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu * Still not too late to get RQ-Con events into the pre-reg!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA19522; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:17:03 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00717; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:16:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:16:27 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 17:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33038DE6995@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Actually, after tossing something like this around for Craft/Farming in Dorastor, we may have a new mechanic that addresses this question (what craft skills really mean), without the extreme breakpoint problems some of the other proposals have. I'll try to get it up in a day or two, after I get the RQIV survey I'm currently working on out. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20862; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:49:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01793; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:49:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:49:24 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:48:10 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <330C4D322F5@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> On extended tasks like maintaining armor or other equipment, just looking at the skill level makes a lot of sense. Do you really want to roll Armoring x 3 every time you fix a rivet? Obviously for some tasks you are averaging over the results of hundreds of rolls, thus a straight skill level is appropriate. (There are some examples of this in RQ III, like scribing the runes of Enchantment.) In our campaign we use opposed tests of skill like those in Pendragon (as I've described before.) An additional rule sometimes used is that you can boost your _chance_ of success by only trying for a low level of success. It works like this (feel free to refine & improve this if you like): Tasks are categorized according to success levels. The standard Sartar Harvest Dance might be very easy, a successful performance is any Normal 10 or better. A man with a 50% Dance skill who wishes to stay out of the spotlight can go for only the basic success level (giving up any chance of a special or critical), which is Normal 10. His skill is 50%, the difference between the success level he is trying for and his skiill is 40%, so he gets a 40% bonus. He has a 90% chance of achieving that Normal 10 level of success, and cannot critical or special. His success level is a Normal 10. He will only fumble on a 00% (based on his boosted % chance), reflecting the fact that he isn't trying any fancy moves. Another example: Say turning out good spearpoints takes a Normal 50 on Armory skill. A weaponsmith with a 75% skill can choose to turn out normal standard spearpoints with this level of success virtually guaranteed, (5% chance of autofailure) but will not special or crit. If he wants to try to make a really good spearhead (a la Dragonslayer) he does his usual roll and hopes for a high success level or a crit. This system may need tweaking on some numbers but the basic idea is sound: a competent person can choose to do something easy. I don't know if such a system is needed or not, but would like to hear what others think. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21037; Thu, 1 Jul 93 16:54:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01949; Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:54:31 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:54:10 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 17:52:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <330D94028AE@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver writes: >extreme breakpoint I agree, this is to be avoided. The 30%, 60%, etc. was something we used as a guideline in our own campaign rather than a rigid rule. See also my last message on a more flexible and less discrete system. One thing about Crafts is that you often don't want to be rolling many individual rolls, nor do you want to roll once for say a month's output (unless it is one big complicated project). I will be interested to see the new proposal. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA23198; Thu, 1 Jul 93 18:19:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 19:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU Message-Id: <930701191631.b806@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU> Subject: RQIV Survey (Damage) To: mcwalla@algol.cs.umbc.edu, LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu, tsl@cs.mu.OZ.AU, mab@batman.b11.ingr.com, johnston@heart.enet.dec.com, Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM, danielq@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu, gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU, trystro!rune@Think.COM, gadbois@CS.UTEXAS.EDU, qed!shadow@netcom.com, kychan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU, okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com, fencing+@andrew.cmu.edu, alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk, rollin@EQL.Caltech.Edu, marks@slough.mit.edu, drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu, T.S.Baguley@open.ac.uk, scn/G=Neil/I=NA/S=Harold/O=Siemens_plc/OU=Congleton@mhs.attmail.com, gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au, mcg@halcyon.halcyon.com, brouille@shasta.Stanford.EDU, Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz, b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com, Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de@gimli.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE <@gimli.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE:Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>, timp@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU, mks.com!viktor@mks.com, mc@cp.dias.ie@andromeda.cp.dias.ie <@andromeda.cp.dias.ie:mc@cp.dias.ie>, jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu, Henry.C.Schmitt@EIGER.EDRC.CMU.EDU, Benedikt_Heinen@firemark.fido.de, doane@lick.UCSC.EDU, markg@engrg.uwo.ca, runelord%nacjack.gen.nz@kcbbs.gen.nz, JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK, jmedway@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, clay@morticia.cnns.unt.edu, brandon@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, jeff@cotopaxi.Stanford.EDU, bell@cs.unc.edu, SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk, lro@melb.bull.oz.au, jason@insignia.uucp, davidc@wambenger.cs.uwa.edu.au, ade@insignia.uucp, sma@informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de, rog@insignia.uucp, LAIDLAW@draco.rutgers.edu, hhcs.gov.au!langsl@hhcs.gov.au, MAB@sa750.rl.ac.uk, ECZ5RAR@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU <@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU:ECZ5RAR@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk, mace@lum.asd.sgi.com, DO9EA00@sysa.computing-services.manchester-metropolitan-university.ac.uk, Pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za, ROBERTSON@delphi.intel.com, appel@erzo.berkeley.edu, bauge@nucdec.chem.sunysb.edu, ARC.UG.EDS.COM!STEVEG@UG.EDS.COM, kokko@hskprf.enet.dec.com, timp@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU, WALLMAN@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU, resmith@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, pound@ruf.rice.edu, werewolf@vnet.IBM.COM, burt@ptltd.com, jgd@cix.compulink.co.uk, paul@phyast.pitt.edu, justin_cann@netmail.washcoll.edu, curtiss@netcom.com, CONEJ@lan.lincoln.cri.nz, f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu, staats@MIT.EDU, peterw@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk, nrobinso@sirius.UVic.CA, DScott@snail.demon.co.uk, imlac@acs.bu.edu, maf1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu, pelwer@ptdcs2.intel.com, awr0@aber.ac.uk, venturi@cs.unibo.it, flammang@heart.med.uth.tmc.edu, rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Vmsmail-To: @RQIV.INET RQIV Damage Bonus, Weapon Damage, Armor and Hit Location Proposals [This document has been sent to those of you with Internet access that have expressed an interest in playtesting RQIV. To display the document correctly, use a monospaced font and a display mode that will give you at least 80 characters on a line. If you do not wish to receive any further such mailings, please let us know, and we will remove you from the mailing list.] The following document contains a number of proposed changes to the RQ damage system (a number of which based on comments from various playtesters). Since this particular set of changes would result in a significant change from the current rules, we are very interested in getting your feedback on whether you think they would be worth implementing. To give you some background, these changes were made in response to a number of comments on the RQIII damage system. The comments included complaints regarding the sudden jumps in the damage bonus table, and the odd mathematical progression of the current damage bonus table. The other major set of complaints had to do with the extreme amounts of damage RQIII weapons did. Essentially, given the ease of achieving a 1D4 damage bonus in RQIII (since an average human in RQIII has 13 SIZ, and would need but a 12 STR to obtain a 1D4 damage bonus) and the damage done by weapons, most weapons, even daggers, would incapacitate whatever location they struck on an average or above average (12-13 HP) human. An average dagger blow (1D4+2+1D4, or 7 points of damage) would sever or irrevocably maim the arm of an average human (with 3 HP arms). The weakest possible blow (4 points of damage) would automatically render the arm useless - there is no chance of a light wound occuring. A second set of comments came from a number of people that found keeping track of two hit location tables (Melee and Missile/Spell) an unnecessary complication. To address the first of these issues, we have developed and tested a series of changes to damage bonus, weapon damage and AP values for parry armor and armor. Damage bonus is smoother, has far less extreme breakpoints, and is much easier to apply. Weapon damage was reduced and simplified slightly (for the most part, by simply removing any adds to weapon dice, that is a 1D8+1 Broadsword would now do 1D8 damage). This makes rolling weapon damage faster and simpler (particularly useful for GMs), since now the GM generally need only roll 1D8+2, to calculate weapon and damage bonus damage, as opposed to RQIII, where a typical damage roll would be 1D8+1+1D4. The weapon die roll still retains a strong random element with respect to the amount of damage done - so one can still land a weak blow or a solid blow. However, since the total amount of damage done is slightly reduced by these changes, the results of weapon damage now seem slightly more realistic - a good dagger blow might well render an arm useless, but would not on the average sever or irrevocably maim the arm. A weak dagger blow might leave the arm still functional. Heavier weapons have more serious effects, but in general weapon damage seems to have a more realistic set of effects, and is simpler to calculate than in RQIII. To compensate for the slight decrease in weapon damage, weapon parry AP and armor AP were slightly reduced - typically by 2 AP - which brings armor values back in line with RQ2 values, for those of you familiar with RQ2. To address the second issue, we have a single hit location chart which combines the melee and missile hit location charts. Using the melee chart or missile/spell chart alone to cover both types of actions seemed unrealistic (if using the melee chart alone, spells and missiles tend to hit the legs most often, and the abdomen or chest very rarely, which seems unreasonable; if using the missile chart alone, head hits seemed too infrequent, and chest hits too frequent). Although we feel that both of these changes address some of the comments we've received and are improvements on the current set of rules, we're not sure whether people currently playing RQ2 or RQIII feel that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages, namely that they would force conversion of PC and NPC damage bonus and weapon damage statistics in current RQIII games and in published RQIII scenarios. Thus the reason for the distribution of this document - following the rules changes described below is a simple two question survey. We would greatly appreciate receiving your responses to the survey. Thank you, Oliver Jovanovic DAMAGE BONUS Damage Min. Avg. STR+SIZ Bonus STR+SIZ 1-5 -4 1 6-10 -3 3 11-25 -2 6 16-20 -1 8 21-25 0 11 26-30 +1 13 31-35 +2 16 36-40 +3 18 41-45 +4 21 46-50 +5 23 51-55 +6 26 56-60 +7 28 Each +5 add 1 Footnote to Damage Bonus Table Damage bonus for large creatures (or any creature) can be simply calculated by dividing the creatures STR+SIZ by 5, rounding up, and subtracting 5. [This set of changes is meant to smooth out the progression of the damage bonus, eliminate the extreme breakpoints, and simplify and speed the calculation of damage. The progression at higher levels is very similar to RQIII (1D6 per 16 points, or 3.5 per 16 points in RQIII, vs. 3 per 15 points or 3.2 per 16 points).] MELEE WEAPONS Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes 1H Swinging 1H Axe Hatchet 1d6 6 15 10 2 0.5 5 9 10 Battleaxe 1d8 8 10 5 2 1 7 9 50 1H Dagger Knife 1d3 3 15 10 3 0.2 0 0 5 Easy Dagger 1d4 4 15 10 3 0.5 0 0 15 Easy Main Gauche 1d4 6 10 15 3 1 0 9 50 Easy 1H Flail Grain Flail 1d6 4 10 5 2 1 7 9 5 (vs. 3/4 Def) War Flail 1d8 6 5 5 2 2 9 11 100 (vs. 3/4 Def) 1H Mace Singlestick 1d4 4 15 10 2 0.5 7 7 3 Light Mace 1d6 6 15 5 2 1 9 7 25 Heavy Mace 1d8 8 15 5 2 2.5 13 7 40 1H Hammer Warhammer 2d4 6 15 5 2 2 9 9 60 1H Sword Shortsword 1d6 6 15 10 2 1 7 7 40 Sickle 2d3 5 10 10 2 1 7 9 30 Scimitar 2d4 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 9 60 Broadsword 1d8 8 10 10 2 1.5 9 7 60 Bastard Sword 1d8 9 10 10 2 2 13 7 125 1H Thrusting 1H Dagger Knife 1d4 3 15 10 3 0.2 0 0 5 Easy Dagger 1d4 4 15 10 2 0.5 0 0 15 Easy Main Gauche 1d4 6 10 15 2 1 0 9 50 Easy 1H Spear Javelin 1d4 4 10 5 2 1.5 5 7 30 Spear 1d6 6 10 5 2 2 7 7 15 Heavy Spear 1d8 8 10 5 2 2.5 9 7 30 1H Sword Shortsword 1d4 6 15 10 2 1 5 7 40 Scimitar 2d3 8 10 10 2 1.5 5 9 60 Broadsword 1d6 8 10 10 2 1.5 7 7 60 Lance Lance 1d10 8 5 5 0 3.5 7 7 75 2H Swinging 2H Axe Battleaxe 1d10 8 5 5 2 1 7 9 50 Scythe 1d10 6 10 10 1 2.5 9 9 10 Greataxe 2d6 8 10 10 1 2 13 9 75 Poleaxe 2d6 8 5 10 1 2.5 13 9 125 2H Flail Military Flail 1d10 8 5 5 1 2.5 13 11 120 (vs. 3/4 Def) 2H Mace Quarterstaff 1d8 8 10 15 1 1.5 9 7 5 Heavy Mace 1d10 8 10 10 2 2.5 13 7 40 War Maul 2d6 9 10 10 1 3 13 9 50 Troll Maul 2d8 10 10 10 1 5 17 7 50 2H Hammer Great Hammer 1d10 8 10 10 1 2.5 11 9 100 2H Sword Swordstick 1d10 8 10 15 1 2 7 13 75 Bastard Sword 1d10 9 10 10 2 2 13 7 125 Great Sword 2d6 9 10 5 1 3.5 11 13 250 2H Thrusting 2H Spear Javelin 1d6 4 15 15 2 1.5 5 7 30 Spear 1d8 6 15 15 1 2 9 7 15 Heavy Spear 1d10 8 15 15 1 2.5 11 7 30 Pike 1d10 10 15 5 0 3.5 11 7 50 2H Sword Swordstick 1d8 8 5 15 1 2 7 13 75 Great Sword 1d10 9 5 5 1 3.5 11 13 250 Fist Fist Fist 1d3 3 30 30 3 0 0 0 NA Easy Cestus +1 5 30 30 3 1 9 0 25 Easy Claw 1d4 5 15 15 3 1 7 9 50 Easy Kick Kick 1d4 3 15 5 3 0 0 0 NA Grapple Grapple 1d4 3 30 30 3 0 0 0 NA MISSILE WEAPONS Damage AP A% P% ENC(m) STR DEX Cost Notes Blowgun Blowgun 1d3 2 5 5 .5(.05) 0 9 25 Easy Bow Short Bow 1d6 3 5 5 .5(.05) 9 9 75 4 Nomad Bow 1d8 4 5 5 .5(.05) 13 9 200 5 Crossbow Light Crossbow 1d6 4 30 5 3.5(.05) 9 7 100 Easy Med. Crossbow 1d8 5 30 5 5(.05) 11 7 200 Easy Heavy Crossbow 1d10 6 30 5 8(.05) 13 7 300 Easy Javelin Dart 1d6 3 15 5 0.5 7 9 15 Javelin 1d8 4 15 5 1.5 9 9 30 Ataltl +2 4 5 5 0.5 7 9 15 Launcher Lasso Rope Special NA 5 NA 1 9 11 75 Pole Special 4 15 5 3 9 9 50 Sling Sling Stone 1d6 NA 5 NA .1(.05) 5 11 NA Sling Bullet 1d8 NA 5 NA .1(.1) 5 11 0.1 Staff Sling Stone 1d8 4 15 5 1.5(.1) 7 9 NA Bullet 1d10 4 15 5 1.5(.2) 7 9 0.5 Throw Rock 1d3 NA 15 NA 0.5 5 11 NA Easy Thrown Axe Throwing Axe 1d6 5 15 5 0.5 9 11 40 Thrown Knife Throwing Knife 1d4 4 5 5 0.2 5 11 40 Shuriken 1d3 NA 5 NA 0.1 0 13 10 SHIELDS Damage AP A% P% SR ENC STR DEX Cost Notes Small 1d3 8 5 15 3 2 5 7 50 Assumes wood. Medium 1d4 10 5 20 3 4 7 7 75 Leather: -1 AP Large 1d6 12 5 25 3 6 9 7 100 and 1/2 cost Bronze: +1 AP and 2x cost Footnotes for Melee Weapon, Missile Weapon and Shield Tables Using a 1H weapon 2H adds 2 to effective STR. Can trade excess STR for DEX, 2 to 1 to meet DEX minimum. For each point of STR or DEX below weapon minimum, -10 to skill. [This set of changes is meant to bring weapon damage to slightly more realistic levels, at the same time simplifying and speeding the calculation of weapon damage by simplifying the number and kind of dice rolled. Weapon AP have been adjusted to take into account the slightly reduced damage done by weapons.] ARMOR Area Protected Type Material AP ENC Cost Legs Greaves Leather 1 1 15 Heavy Leather 2 2 20 Cuirboilli 3 2 40 Bronze Scale 5 9 125 Bronze 6 7 600 Trews Leather 1 1 15 Bronze Ringmail 4 3.5 70 Bronze Brigandine 5 8 150 Bronze Chainmail 5 7 300 Abdomen Skirts Leather 1 .5 5 Heavy Leather 2 1 10 Linen 3 2 8 Bronze Scale 5 4 50 Bronze Chainmail 5 3 120 Chest Byrnie Leather 1 .5 8 Heavy Leather 2 1 12 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 40 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 160 Curiass Linen 3 2 12 Cuirboilli 3 1 24 Bronze Brigandine 5 4.5 90 Bronze Scale 5 5 70 Bronze 6 4 320 Doublet Bronze Chainmail 6 6 240 Abdomen and Chest Hauberk Leather 1 1 15 Heavy Leather 2 2 20 Linen 3 3.5 20 Bronze Ringmail 4 3.5 70 Bronze Brigandine 5 8 150 Bronze Scale 5 9 130 Bronze Chainmail 5 7 280 Arms Sleeves Leather 1 .5 8 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 40 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 160 Vambraces Heavy Leather 2 1 12 Cuirboilli 3 1 24 Bronze Brigandine 5 4.5 90 Bronze Scale 5 5 70 Bronze 6 4 320 Head Hood Leather 1 .5 4 Bronze Ringmail 4 2 20 Bronze Chainmail 5 4 80 Open Heavy Leather 1 1 6 Helm Cuirboilli 2 1 12 Bronze Scale 4 4 30 Bronze 5 3 120 Closed Bronze Scale 5 5 35 Helm Bronze 6 4 160 Footnotes for Armor Table Cuirboilli, Bronze Ringmail, Bronze Brigandine, Bronze Scale, Bronze Chainmail and Bronze Plate armor has padding already taken into account in its AP and ENC values. Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor, but make sure to count the full ENC of the overlapping armor. Two pieces of hard armor (greaves, curiass, vambraces, open or closed helm) may not be overlapped. Armor must be properly designed to take full advantage of overlaps, and most Gloranthan cultures do not have the level of technology to do so. More advanced forms of armor exist in the advanced cultures of the West and among the Mostali. These include bronze platemail (7 AP, 30 ENC and 3000L for a full suit) and bronze full plate armor (8 AP, 25 ENC and 7000L for a full suit). They are not normally available in other parts of Glorantha. [These armor values are slighly reduced to take into account the slight reduction in weapon values, bringing them in line with RQ2 armor values.] HIT LOCATION TABLE Melee, Missile and Spell Hit Location Table for Humans and Humanoids D20 Location Description 19-20 Head Neck and head 16-18 Left Arm Entire left arm and shoulder 13-15 Right Arm Entire right arm and shoulder 11-12 Chest Rib cage and collarbone 07-10 Abdomen Groin to just under the rib cage 04-06 Left Leg Left leg from foot to groin level 01-03 Right Leg Right leg from foot to groin level Footnote to Hit Location Table The table is laid out so that one can roll 1D10 for blows from below, and 1D10+10 for blows from above. [A single table, which should speed and simplify the rolling of hit locations. The table is also laid out to make it easy to remember - splitting the body in half (abdomen/chest) along the die half (10/11). A similar merging of melee and missile hit location tables would occur with non-humans.] SURVEY 1) In your opinion, are the proposed changes to damage bonus, weapon damage and armor values worth making? Yes/No (For the purposes of this survey, please answer the above question taking the whole of the changes to damage into account - if you particularly like or dislike one or more of the changes, feel free to append this to your answer.) 2) In your opinion, is the proposed change of using a single merged hit location table worth making? Yes/No Please email your responses to: jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu Feel free to simply reply: 1) Yes (or No) 2) No (or Yes) Thanks again, Oliver Jovanovic  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25719; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:06:34 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05755; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:06:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:05:57 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:02:26 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3340B24569B@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell provides a variable spirit spell table... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Spell Points Roll for Spell Strength | 1 1 | 2 1d3 | 3 1d3 + 1 | 4 2d3 | 5 2d3 + 1 | 6 3d3 | 7 3d3 + 1 | etc Might be interesting to try. I'll give it talking over at the next game. On the last game my 1d3 damage bonus was boo-ed down as too wimpy. Ach vell. But we had some bouts with the spirit combat system (the crew decided to pick though Burntwall). We ran it as sort of like normal combat (A successful defend knocks a special hit to a normal hit). I know it's not the way as listed, but having two different combat systems is hard to get used to (Witness Space: 1889 -- COMPLETELY different way of doing hand-to-hand and ranged combat -- it was very tricky). | Coordination 2 will give me a SR of 1". The table is similar to | Burton's recent damage bonus table, but 1 point isn't 1d3-1 since I | think PC's should get something for the loss of an MP and a successful | casting roll. The plus fits better here anyways...easier to remember as being "divide MP by 2 for dice, add one on odd numbers". David Cheng sneaks in...:) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no | time to fully speak my mind... Haven't we all? The playtest list has been a tad light. :p | Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) | impart given benefits. | | The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result | has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having | a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the | discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) It has merit...It's just tough to do without the breakpoint stigma as David mentions. | It does not make as much sense to say: | A has Dance 15%, and gets a lucky special. | B has Dance 75%, and gets a normal failure. | | Thus: A wow's the crowd, whereas B trips and falls... Make an entertainment table...Base index=Skill/10 (round down). Fumble = 0 Failure = 1/2 index (round down) Success = index Special = 2x index Critical = 5x index Low index values have bad things, like getting thrown out on your ear, pelted with fruit, etc. High ones get the big money. Actually, something like this might work well for gambling... Make a Gambling skill roll and determine the index for everyone. You win that amount in lunars or clacks (depending on the "richness" of the game) from each player in the game. If you roll low, and everyone else rolls high, prepare to be cleaned out. :) Map notes... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, after a bit of tweaking my map is coming along. What I have done is scanned the maps in the Genertala book at 300dpi, cleaned out the cities, names, etc from the bitmap tpo leave only geographical objects (rivers and coasts, mountains, forests, areas of the ban, swamps, etc. I then take this bitmap and bring it into Canvas and have it "Autotrace" the bitmap, which produces line objects. I then go about joining and tweaking these objects, setting the proper colors, etc. I try to shortcut where I can, to cur down on overall complexity. At present, I have west and east Fronela and Seshnela linked together. Once the whole terrain map is done I plan to submit the sucker to Oliver and crew so they can check it out and point out any thing I missed. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25992; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:16:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05891; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:15:58 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:15:38 EDT From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: maps Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:15:26 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33434A9070C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Map notes... >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Well, after a bit of tweaking my map is coming along. What I have done >> is scanned the maps in the Genertala book at 300dpi, cleaned out the cities, ahem. (just kidding) >> ... >> >> At present, I have west and east Fronela and Seshnela linked together. Once >> the whole terrain map is done I plan to submit the sucker to Oliver and >> crew so they can check it out and point out any thing I missed. hrrumpf. I would have rathered the center sections first (lunar empire/ maniria/wastes ). Let me know when you've got that done. I'd like to see what you have so far, though I'd have little use for that region. Actually, have you traced all of the pieces yet? I could start working on the central regions, in that case. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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 AA26382; Thu, 1 Jul 93 20:40:46 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06308; Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:40:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:40:13 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: maps Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 21:36:46 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3349D7C166E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I was considering the central section first, I decided to train myself with the hairy coastline first. In joining the Seshnela and Eastern Fronela maps I noticed there were some differences in the objects (big suprise :) I'll see if I can Binhex the Canvas map at present and get it to you, John. I have been scanning and tracing as I have been going along. If people want I can put the current map on soda so you all can peek at it right now. I thought you had Canvas, John? -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03765; Fri, 2 Jul 93 04:56:43 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12249; Fri, 2 Jul 93 05:56:14 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 5:56:10 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:55:49 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <33CE14A0490@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> In the playtest list you write: >DC finally sneaks in a reply. I'm reading everything; there's just no >time to fully speak my mind... Know the feeling. >Paul Reilly suggests for craft skills that certain levels (30%/60%/90%) >impart given benefits. >The idea that a certain level in a skill "guarantees" a certain result >has been kicked around here before. I remember Loren Miller having >a system I particularly liked. (Come to think of it, I believe the >discussion happened on r.g.f.misc, not this mailer...) >Personally, I think the idea has a lot going for it. What holds >me back from wholeheartedly embracing it is pure fear of the >unknown: "It's just so different from the way we do it now..." I think the idea of different skill levels for craft will appeal to a lot of people, and a precedent exists: language skills. The whole issue is: Is this suggestion really different from the standard GM option of adding or subbing percentages to the skill for any particular tasks? You can look at the issue from two sides: skills vs tasks. Using the (30/60/90) model is using a skill based approach. The task based approach is defining "hard/medium/simple" task levels, combined with skill bonuses or penalties. This is one of the traditional ways of resolving skill tests in the case of trivial or simple tasks: Modify the die roll or skill. Take the example of a simple task: repairing a bronze brooch by unbending a pin. Almost anyone can do that. So a crafter with 30% will succeed easily. So, add 70% to skill for a "simple" task. In general: Add xx% to skill for a task of level n, where xx% starts from +70% going rapidly down to +40%, 0, -40%, -70% ... If the modified skill is (substantially) greater than 100, the GM has the option of omitting the die roll. If there is a possibility that the possible effect of failure could be drastic, just use the die roll to test for fumble. -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA07854; Fri, 2 Jul 93 08:36:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16057; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:35:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 9:35:41 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 9:35:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3408AA03779@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk makes a good argument. Another example I can think of is Climbing. Frequently, I'll say "Good handholds on the ledge are good for +25%, but a rope would be worth +50%." But, I don't think the simple 'add a modifier to the roll' mechanic covers all cases that we would want to cover. Let's go back to the Dancing example. It still makes sense to me that without rolling, a 30% dancer is adequate, but an 80% dancer is worth paying to see. How do we reflect this with modifiers? Someone (sorry, archived and deleted the message already) suggested that the player doesn't roll unless "pushing it"; i.e. trying to make a superior spearpoint. I kinda like this, but I admit I haven't thought it through to uncover any hidden flaws. As I said in the original message, I'd like to revisit Loren's original suggestion, as I remember it striking me as particularly good. But that too is buried somewhere in my archives... -David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09496; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:32:55 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18374; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:32:41 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:32:20 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:28:56 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3417C8E60EC@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg Baumgartner (|) and Dave Cake (>) on my Sorcery Suggestion... ------------------------------------------------------------ | > I really like the basic concept behind Burtons sorcery system, with | >studies as well as skills and spells (though I think that calling studies | > skills is actually quite fine) | | Studies is quite a ggod word for it. I was thinking of something like "name | lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true | name, and the study/skill represents how close the sorcerer came to it. That's how I envisioned it, but I wanted something other then "Iron Lore", "Bronze Lore" etc. I see the studies as an in-depth examinination of the substance -- chemical propertites, malleability, color, feel, etc. The study allows you to "know" the substance. I came up with the whole thing because it seemed insane for a Sorcerer, who wants to know the whole bank of Substance affecting spells, needs to learn 4x (number of substances), rather then 4+ (number of substances). It makes it more logical to link them anyways. Having Mastered Form/Set, The Sorcerer can then spend time researching the substances of his interest. As a CS person, I didn't study "C graphics", "Postscript graphics", "Fortran Graphics", "Basic Graphics", "C Business", etc. I learned the tools/spells/languages, then apply those tools on my studies to produce the desired affect. | > I have a few minor problems with it (I am happy for some spells to | >remain ungeneralised, and I think that some of the Studies are somwhat | >redundant (like Attribute studies, I'd rather that these spells remain | >separate spells rather than variants)), but overall I like it, and would | >be happy for RQ Sorcery to take this form. It is reminescent of Ars Magica | >and Chivalry and Sorcery, but without immense complexity. | | From the power balance point of view, you are right about the attribute | spells being different spells, but for the sake of simplicity, I'd throw | them in with the other spells. When I was organizing the spells I was trying to come up with some internal consistancy in the ways the spells fall out. Spells that do not have a category are just not properly classified. :) Take two spells -- Smother (Banish ) and a similarly made Ignite (Conjure ). Both are effective death sentances at high durations if you overcome the poor bastard's magic points. If you have to handle 10 minutes (minimal duration) of no air or 1d3 location damage on your head each melee round, you will be equally in trouble. Also, look at TAP and DIMINISH. Which is more cost effective -- Tap STR at intensity 3, or Diminish STR with a duration 3? The former is FOREVER while the later is a pain for just over an hour. Yet technically, both are the same "quanta" of spell -- they are cast as needed. TAP is not a ritual or anything. Given the current inconsistancies in the Sorcery magic, I though it best to work up a consistant base idea, then determine the modifiers from this base to simulate the existing spells. Granted, working from this constant base does make some spells redundant (Tap becomes a more cost-effective Diminish, since the attribute "energy" lost is converted to useful form in the former, but thrown to the winds in the later. If I work on this some more I'm sure I'll fold other spells together and work out modifiers. | > What I would like to know, before I try to rewrite it etc., is how do | >others on the list feel about it (either like or dislike), and how do Oliver | >and the gang feel about it? try to concentrate on generalities rather than | >specifics. | | As you might see from my answer, I support this for a generalized system for | certain spell effects. I have no problem with specific spells sewn together | from this taught to lesser pupils, such as Paul Reilly's Hrestoli spells in | the Dailies, and certainly there would be restrictions as to who teaches or | knows which studies, varying from sect to college. This idea makes sense. The peasants, lords and knights are given "black box" spells, with all the components hidden. They just push the button (cast their MP and say the right words) and off it goes to do it's specific purpose. Once you get to the Wizard stage you are finally taught the Studies and Skills and spells you need to roll your won. | I'd propose that one can alternatively learn a certain combination of | manipulation plus spell plus study as one new spell with fixed costs, which | would be the way these are taught to students. The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a complete and formalized spell, polished and well defined (As opposed to casting on the fly by taking Spell X, throwing in Study Y, mixing in a few manipulations and hurling it at the target). Such "Fixed" spells have casting percentages, just as if you picked up a Sorcery spell matrix...You have to learn how to properly use it just like any other spell. You could have "Lazy Sorcerers" who just learn polished bundles from other sorcerers without knowing the underlying parts, and to Fred the Impala rider he would look as much a sorcerer as one who knows the whole ball of wax. But observation would show which is the true master of the arts, and who is just a dabbler, a street magician with a bag of tricks. If all you have is an Ignite 10, lighting campfires eats a lot of magic. But the real mage can just toss on an Ignite 1 and be done with it. I'm going to have to work on this some more. It might have some promise if I can figure out the subtle rules that the effects of the spells must follow. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA10272; Fri, 2 Jul 93 09:56:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19137; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:55:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:56:07 EDT From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maintenance Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:55:23 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <341DFBD39C9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Yes, I like the look of the proposed maintenance rules: > A basic 30% Craft skill and simple tools are considered sufficient to > maintain ordinary cultural equipment in good working order while away from > With 60% skill in a Craft, equipment at the top end of the range for the > culture may be maintained. With 90% skill, imported equipment somewhat > beyond the cultural level of the crafter may also be maintained indefinitely. to avoid the breakpoints, I guess we have to have "maintain ordinary" being 3x the skill to be rolled, etc. For achieving simple tasks which go beyond a simple modifier (a mod of +70% - blechh!) I do think that a multiplier is a better mechanism to use than add/sub. After all, we already have this mechanism enshrined in rolling vs. characteristics (strength et al). I think it makes a nicer fit to reality than doing an add (besides which, it retains the twice as good at base == twice as good at any task, up to 100%). OTOH, it does not look significant enough to add to RQ4. Cute, and even nice (I may use it in my game); but not worth the extra complication. Definitely an "optional rule". -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29679; Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:19:42 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08506; Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:19:23 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:19:06 EDT From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:17:18 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34B44EE4A26@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk Langefeld writes in reply to David Cheng: >I think the idea of different skill levels for craft will appeal to >a lot of people, and a precedent exists: language skills. Not quite: the actual die roll is based on the sum of the percentages (at least that's how we play it in RQ3). >The whole issue is: Is this suggestion really different from the >standard GM option of adding or subbing percentages to the skill >for any particular tasks? Yes, it introduces skills with percentages becoming automatic skills (like walking, breathing etc.). >You can look at the issue from two sides: skills vs tasks. >Using the (30/60/90) model is using a skill based approach. >The task based approach is defining "hard/medium/simple" task >levels, combined with skill bonuses or penalties. >This is one of the traditional ways of resolving skill tests in the case >of trivial or simple tasks: Modify the die roll or skill. >Take the example of a simple task: repairing a bronze brooch by >unbending a pin. Almost anyone can do that. So a crafter with 30% >will succeed easily. So, add 70% to skill for a "simple" task. I'd prefer another approach: keep the skill level as it is, and redefine the success/failure results. E.g. for climbing a failure is failure to continue climbing in the direction one wants to go. Assign the tasks' die modifier only after the die roll, and see if the rol would have been sufficient for easy, medium, hard or very hard, and interpret the result accordingly. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11219; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:20:19 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20056; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:20:04 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:19:43 EDT From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 17:19:25 +0200 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <342466E5608@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> _________________________________ burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski): > The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity > all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a > complete and formalized spell, polished and well defined (As opposed to > casting on the fly by taking Spell X, throwing in Study Y, mixing in a > few manipulations and hurling it at the target). Such "Fixed" spells have > casting percentages, just as if you picked up a Sorcery spell matrix...You > have to learn how to properly use it just like any other spell. And why not give people a base change of POWx5, while we're at it? :-) You'd only need a good name for it, something like, ehm, bat..., ehm, basic magic? > I'm going to have to work on this some more. It might have some promise > if I can figure out the subtle rules that the effects of the spells must > follow. > -- Burton Sorcery is the study of magic. Sorcerors are those who want to know it works. They abhor the mystifications of the shamans and barbarians and their priests... -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11964; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:36:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20714; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:36:02 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:35:40 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: SORCERY Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:32:15 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3428AAE2657@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Henk picks nits. :) -------------------------- > The spell bundles could be pre-created with duration, range, intensity > all figured in, then take 25% off the magic cost off the top since it is a And why not give people a base change of POWx5, while we're at it? :-) You'd only need a good name for it, something like, ehm, bat..., ehm, basic magic? -------------------------- There is no mystifying here. The serfs and lords KNOW that the results are simply a siplified form of what a sorcerer does. It's more on the lines of feeding the serf a 1040ez form rather than a 1040. :) Joe serf is presumably tought some of the sorcery skills when he becomes a knight, some others when he becomes a lord, and is fully taught at wizard level. And I didn't do POX*5, wiseguy, because it ain't spiritual. :) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12283; Fri, 2 Jul 93 10:44:14 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21035; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:44:01 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:43:40 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:44:17 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <342AD2A7BBA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes: >I was thinking of something like "name >lore" when I toyed with this idea, like everyone/thing having its own true >name, In our campaign we used the various special Speeches as 'true' languages for magical purposes, rather than inventing Fire Lore, Water Lore, etc. (e.g., Seaspeech for water magic, Stormspeech for air, Spirit Speech for spirits, etc.) I think that this disagrees with semi-official (i.e. unpublished) stuff, though. >new spell with fixed costs In our campaign this is how the Vadeli do it (they have no Sorcerer caste). Again, completely unofficial. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13277; Fri, 2 Jul 93 11:10:07 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22048; Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:09:47 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:09:29 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:10:06 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3431B9632BB@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul again. David Cheng writes: > a >30% dancer is adequate, but an 80% dancer is worth paying to see. >How do we reflect this with modifiers? One can do this with levels of success. Use my proposed RQ mod of the Pendragon system: Success level = (Type of success) Number Rolled Higher numbers within a category are better. Thus a guy with 50% skill (including modifiers) who rolls a 10 has a Special 10, which is better than any Normal success or any Special of 9 or less. Now combine this with my proposed rule that you can try for a straight Normal success level of your skill or lower, with a bonus of (Your skill) - (Success level you are trying for). If the 80% dancer tries only for a Normal 65 (a better success than non-professionals will ever get, barring the 'beginner's luck' of specials and crits) then his chance of getting a Normal 65 is 80% + (80% - 65%) = 95%. This reflects the fact that the dancer is only using moves that he already knows well. He could also try for a Normal 80 (a very good normal success, what critics would call `excellent technique') with an 80% chance of success, but no chance for a crit or special. This means that 'easy' stuff (say you need only any success at all, a Normal 1) can be done nearly automatically (95%) at the 43% skill level, which seems about right to me. Super-easy tasks (tying your shoes with your Devise skill) could be given special bonusses if necessary, but this sort of thing is best handled without a skill roll at all, in most circumstances. _________________  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA18965; Fri, 2 Jul 93 13:53:22 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28289; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:52:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:52:04 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:51:35 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <345D0F629A9@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> This is a blasphemous idea that I've shared with Oliver. I would like to post it here for us to kick around, criticize, praise, etc... * RQ4 comes out with a nice simple, elegant set of rules with lots of internal consistency and cultural (Gloranthan) relevance. * LATER, the "Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" (working title) is published. Only in the RLGRQ are all these optional rules that we are so fond of kicking around actually published. Hell, we could publish _all_ of them, for those who really salivate over rules minutae. I envision the following sections in the RLGRQ: 1) Suggested Rules Rules that didn't make it into the basic RQ4 book, because we wanted to keep it simple. But, we think they'll add a more distinct flavor to your game, and maybe even improve it. In this section goes: Fatigue, slash/crush (?), new/optional skills, and other simple things. 2) Optional Rules Rules ideas that don't get enough endorsement to go in section 1. * Could even present several options for the same topic. * In this section potentially goes: Special combat tactics (Flurry, Weave, Mighty Blow, etc.), several Sorcery systems, DC's world- reknown/vilified Rune Power variant, skills like March, etc. 3) Very Optional Rules Rules ideas that get even less acceptance, but where the author has enough clout to get them in the book in the first place. Things like: Martin Crim's Spirit Combat variant, Nick Brooke's "spontaneous Rune Magic," and other blasphemy. 4) Totally wacky stuff Rules to really placate the total Rules-Lawyer-Heads. Stuff like: Tables on how pregnancy affects the skill percentages of female characters (who remembers that Different Worlds actually published this?), the effect of muddy conditions on combat movement (down to increments of 1/10th of a metre), and how interracial matings affect the child's characteristics... Of course, these could be just sub-headings within major headings like: * Combat Rules * Magic Rules * Skill variants * Campaign-play Rules (like the Pregnancy stuff) Also, certain rules could be classified as "Glorantha-Friendly" and "Strictly Gateway." I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. -David Cheng (going off to write more of the RQ-Con pre-reg book now...)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA20594; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:24:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29555; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:23:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:23:31 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 12:24:13 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <346574F381A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > This is a blasphemous idea that I've shared with Oliver. I would like > to post it here for us to kick around, criticize, praise, etc... > > * RQ4 comes out with a nice simple, elegant set of rules with lots of > internal consistency and cultural (Gloranthan) relevance. > > * LATER, the "Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" (working title) > is published. I don't think these need to be seperate. Why not have a core set of rules, like Loren's RQ Lite idea. And then expansion sections. Like GURPS Basic and Advanced combat, each is a seperate chapter but the transition from basic to advanced is quite smooth. > > Only in the RLGRQ are all these optional rules that we are so fond of > kicking around actually published. Hell, we could publish _all_ > of them, for those who really salivate over rules minutae. > > I envision the following sections in the RLGRQ: > > 1) Suggested Rules > > Rules that didn't make it into the basic RQ4 book, because we wanted > to keep it simple. But, we think they'll add a more distinct flavor > to your game, and maybe even improve it. > > In this section goes: Fatigue, slash/crush (?), new/optional skills, > and other simple things. Strike Ranks? :) > > 2) Optional Rules > > Rules ideas that don't get enough endorsement to go in section 1. > * Could even present several options for the same topic. * > > In this section potentially goes: Special combat tactics (Flurry, > Weave, Mighty Blow, etc.), several Sorcery systems, DC's world- > reknown/vilified Rune Power variant, skills like March, etc. This is getting to spread out. Endless variants aren't really needed IMHO. > > 3) Very Optional Rules > > Rules ideas that get even less acceptance, but where the author has > enough clout to get them in the book in the first place. > > Things like: Martin Crim's Spirit Combat variant, Nick Brooke's > "spontaneous Rune Magic," and other blasphemy. > > 4) Totally wacky stuff > > Rules to really placate the total Rules-Lawyer-Heads. > > Stuff like: Tables on how pregnancy affects the skill percentages of > female characters (who remembers that Different Worlds actually published > this?), the effect of muddy conditions on combat movement (down to > increments of 1/10th of a metre), and how interracial matings affect > the child's characteristics... > > Of course, these could be just sub-headings within major headings like: > > * Combat Rules > * Magic Rules > * Skill variants > * Campaign-play Rules (like the Pregnancy stuff) > > Also, certain rules could be classified as "Glorantha-Friendly" and > "Strictly Gateway." > > > I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about > this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if > you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. > > -David Cheng > (going off to write more of the RQ-Con pre-reg book now...) > > Overall I'm not too fond of this idea. I'd like to see a simple core RQ system and then optional rules that expand on it. Like a simple combat system and then an advanced section that ads all the combat tatctics. I don't want RQ to go down the road AD&D second edition has gone with endless expansions coming out. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.10/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17685; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:42:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00289; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:40:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:39:57 EDT From: Christopher Brian Pound To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:40:00 CDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3469DB01F7E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > I may be sounding sarcastic at times here, but I am very serious about > this idea. I honestly think it has merit. Please tell me/us if > you agree, why, and how we could improve on the concept. > > -David Cheng I think this is a GREAT idea. Benefits: 1) It has a precedent in that many, many other games come out with rules companions and expansions. 2) It'll make the game a lot less intimidating to beginners. 3) A lot of good ideas that won't make the cut otherwise will get published. 4) It ought to help now in designing RQ4 (giving a particular idea a low priority won't seem so harsh). Advice: 1) Publish it at about the same time as the game itself to get the "ooh, ah" effect from old-timers who want to get started experimenting with the new rules right away. 2) Give all optional rules easy-to-remember shorthand names (I'm thinking, for example, of all the options for poker; it should be easy to list specific major rules additions being used in a game at a con or when describing your game in a Usenet article). 3) A couple of amusing rules (e.g. a "flee wildly" skill for Ducks ;) would be fun. 4) A section on tailoring/inventing magic systems for different regions of Glorantha could be useful. 5) Don't worry about organizing it too "logically" (spoils the treasure trove effect and makes you worry about where to put things), but give it a VERY good index with many cross-references, etc., listing the same rule or part of a rule under everything you can think of (allot more space for this than just the back cover! :). This 'RuleQuest' Companion could be pretty neat ... Later, Chris Pound  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21919; Fri, 2 Jul 93 14:56:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00902; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:56:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:56:09 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 12:56 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <346E2A0426C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng: >Paul has a system: >_________________ >If the 80% dancer tries only for a Normal 65 (a better success than >non-professionals will ever get, barring the 'beginner's luck' of specials >and crits) then his chance of getting a Normal 65 is 80% + (80% - 65%) = >95%. >This reflects the fact that the dancer is only using moves that he already >knows well. >_________________ >I see how this works, and I like the logic of it, but I dread using it >in game. Too much math - too much 'thinking.' >IMHO, it is not "elegant" nor "graceful." It may very well work like >a charm, but if I'm at GenCon trying to spread the RQ gospel to some >kids who've played little but D&D and Marvel Super Heroes, I fear they'll >flee in terror when I try to explain this system. It will give the >TSR guys a free shot at us. They _already_ say "Oh, RuneQuest; that game >is so complex..." We know that the basic percentile skill system is >both simple and elegant; we just have to let others know about it too. > >-DC Make it an optional rule. Then, you don't have to explain it to the newbies, but it's available to them when they buy the book. Make the cut-off point dependant on the skill type (perhaps Easy - 10%, Medium - 30%, Hard - 50%, Very Hard - 70%). Then the GM doesn't have to figure out how much the character can add to his roll. So if the Ernalda Harvest Dance is an easy dance, the dancer can shoot for a Normal 10, adding the difference to his chance as above. If he attemptd the Orlanthi Sword Dance (Hard), he would shoot for a Normal 50. Thus, characters under the thresholds can't begin to perform the more complicated steps/tasks as 'routine', but would still have a chance to do so, perhaps failing/succeeding out of the ordinary. This also allows the GM to declare a specific task's difficulty within a skill, such as the dances above. (One of these days I have to get my Cultural Dance ideas onto paper/disk) If we took this idea to Combat, the GM could declare a fight non-critical (slaughtering a horde of guards on the way to the throne room, where the Evil Prince(tm) and Vile Henchmen(tm) wait). The PC's could fight without Specials/Criticals/Fumbles, but add to their skill as above. While this is antithetical to the RQ notion that All Combat is Deadly, in more Cinematic/Heroic/Conan/Fafhrd & Grey/Swashbuckling games, it could work. Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22843; Fri, 2 Jul 93 15:26:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02046; Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:26:43 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:26:21 EDT From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "The Rules Lawyer's Guide To RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 13:01 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34763552ADA@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Sounds like the vairous companions to RoleMaster to me... Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA00421; Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:55:05 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09028; Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:53 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:30 EDT From: David Cheng To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 20:54:08 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <34BDB6E7C4D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Some clarification on the RLGRQ idea: * No axe to grind here. What I'm concerned about is the "make it optional" proliferation. I like the idea that optional rules be presented in shaded boxes. I do not like the idea of 35% of the RQ4 book being shaded boxes... * I see this as a way to get good rules development recognized. The Runic Sorcery idea has a lot of "that's neat" value, but I don't see it becoming the core sorcery rules. It would be a shame if only people with Internet access saw such items. * In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there is a sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/ simpler rules. Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick Brooke hasn't been posting very much lately? I know as fact that he's a "simpler is better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, and others like him, have abandoned this discussion in frustration. How about a new approach: PROS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" (sarcastic title intentional) ================================= * Keeps core RQ4 book lean and unintimidating * FORCES hard decisions about what gets put in RQ4, and what gets "relegated" to the supplement. This helps fight the "make it an optional rule in a shaded box" syndrome. * Allows good material to still see the light of day, even if it conflicts with the "standard" rules in the core RQ4 book. Remember, this is a book of variants, too. CONS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" ================================= * Even though we can say in big bold print "the rules presented here are all meant to be optional," there will still be compaints about having to buy multiple books to 'have a full set of rules.' * Confusion and complexity when running tournament events. * Pulls material away from possible publication in magazines. This is a serious concern, as having a RQ variant appear in, say, _White Wolf_ is free publicity. I've got us started. Help me out here - what else? -David Cheng  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA06488; Sat, 3 Jul 93 01:41:39 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21349; Sat, 3 Jul 93 02:41:13 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 2:40:57 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 23:41:35 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <351A1723329@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Some clarification on the RLGRQ idea: > > * No axe to grind here. What I'm concerned about is the "make it > optional" proliferation. I like the idea that optional rules be > presented in shaded boxes. I do not like the idea of 35% of the > RQ4 book being shaded boxes... I really don't see that as being that big of a problem. But that might just be me. :) > > * I see this as a way to get good rules development recognized. The > Runic Sorcery idea has a lot of "that's neat" value, but I don't > see it becoming the core sorcery rules. It would be a shame if > only people with Internet access saw such items. True enough. But if we could get a RQ Magazine going again... > > * In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there > is a sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/ > simpler rules. Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick > Brooke hasn't been posting very much lately? I know as fact that > he's a "simpler is better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, > and others like him, have abandoned this discussion in > frustration. Simpler is better! The way things are going I expect to use Elric!+ the magic rules from RQIV if I ever run Glorantha. RQ is too complicated already and RQIV looks like it's getting worse not better. Especially combat, it's a big, complicated mess. And RQ combat, especialyl RQIII is very, very slow. Now I play GURPS which doesn't have the fastest combat system in the world but I've found RQIII to be much to slow for my taste. > > How about a new approach: > > PROS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" (sarcastic title intentional) > ================================= > * Keeps core RQ4 book lean and unintimidating > * FORCES hard decisions about what gets put in RQ4, and what gets > "relegated" to the supplement. This helps fight the "make it an > optional rule in a shaded box" syndrome. > * Allows good material to still see the light of day, even if it > conflicts with the "standard" rules in the core RQ4 book. > Remember, this is a book of variants, too. > > CONS of the "Rules Lawyer's Guide" > ================================= > * Even though we can say in big bold print "the rules presented here > are all meant to be optional," there will still be compaints about > having to buy multiple books to 'have a full set of rules.' > * Confusion and complexity when running tournament events. > * Pulls material away from possible publication in magazines. This > is a serious concern, as having a RQ variant appear in, say, _White > Wolf_ is free publicity. > I think the problem here is about how many optional rules we plan to publish "officially" Now to me the only excuse for rules is to simulate realism. If the game is supposed to be very unrealistic then it should have very few, and very simple rules(TWERPS and TOON are two good examples) if you want lots of realism then you need more complicated rules(GURPS and the BTRC system for example) but I think RQ has always had too many rules for the level of realism it tries to simulate. Look at Stormbringer(and hopefully Elric!) the same basic mechanics yet the game is a simpler than RQ as well as elegant and fast. Now maybe we want more realism than Stormbringer but we don't need to publish 300+ pages of optional rules. > > I've got us started. Help me out here - what else? > > -David Cheng > -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA09096; Sat, 3 Jul 93 05:18:27 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23040; Sat, 3 Jul 93 06:18:09 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 6:17:50 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: 03 Jul 93 06:14:14 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3553F8016C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> "Simple Nick" replies: David's idea that we concentrate on the "hard decisions" now (separating out essential stuff for "core RQ4" and "suggested/optional/wacky" ideas for a later release) looks sensible to me. It can't help but focus our discussion on the things that will get published, and away from the trivia that people will ignore or change in any case. I know we can all heap criticism on "rules supplements" like the proposed Guide as a publishing policy ("the thin end of the wedge"; "blatantly commercial"; "cynical and exploitative"), but anything that makes the game more approachable for "entry level" gamers is fine by me. The fact that you can go to any games shop and see dozens of similar products for other games doesn't prove that it won't work for RQ. As Carl knows, we have to make a commercially-viable RQ4 or Avalon Hill won't like it very much. Adopting a tried, tested and successful marketing strategy can hardly hurt us. Besides which, we're already writing the bugger here on the Net. Nothing personal, guys, but I'd quite like our ideas to reach a wider audience of gamers than us modem-heads. Lots of words are bandied here that will never fit into the RQ4 book, and plenty of them have merit. > I like the idea that optional rules be presented in shaded boxes. > I do not like the idea of 35% of the RQ4 book being shaded boxes... Right. And I don't see any other easy solution to this. Different things bother different people: as gamemaster I have never felt the need for any fatigue rules, but have always kept some "special hit" damage results for non-Impaling weapons -- the old Slashes & Crushes. Other people obviously feel differently, or RQ3 wouldn't have happened. > In my discussions with Oliver, I've come to understand that there is a > sizable percentage of RQers who want significantly fewer/simpler rules. The problem is, we always end up looking like carping critics on this net. It takes many hours of work to build a magnificent new Sorcery or Fatigue system, and only a few lines to heap ridicule on it as unworkably flawed, tasteless or unnecessary. So this forum doesn't represent (bulk for bulk) the balance of opinions. Things like the new OJ "opinion poll questions" are probably a good idea. (Hope everyone is answering him!). But I fear that the people who *want* to design a new and better set of RQ rules may be the last ones who should be allowed to -- they obviously think the rules are what's important to the game! (This is also the main argument against Democracy, if you didn't recognise it!) Oh, and I *am* a carping critic where changes to my beloved RuneQuest are concerned: I don't want her to end up looking ridiculous. Two separate books of RQ4 would help us make the break. One lean and mean set of basic Gloranthan rules which we could *all* adore, and a second book packed with small-print optional extras for grubby-minded nit-pickers who commit the cardinal sin of referring to the rules while they're playing the game... > Have you noticed that even the unstoppable Nick Brooke hasn't been > posting very much lately? I know as fact that he's a "simpler is > better" kind of guy, and I fear that he, and others like him, have > abandoned this discussion in frustration. Well, as David knows, there's *some* truth in that. A lot of the public discussion on this Net is ephemeral; if you say a lot at once, most of it gets ignored. Like the rest of us, I'm looking forward to more concrete proposals from the Gang of "X". Like a new draft. That's the only way to find out which ideas are catching on and which are dead and buried. Besides, I've realised that whatever RQ4 says won't define or change the way I play RuneQuest any more than RQ3 did. That is: I'll buy the rules, take over the good ones, chuck out the duff ones, and carry on playing the way I want to. I can laugh at people who blindly stick to the older/worse rules, and attempt to edify those who play by the newer/worse rules. Just like we all did when RQ2 changed to RQ3. Cheers, ==== Nick ==== BTW, Curtis said (apropos of variant rules seeing publication): > ... if we could get a RQ Magazine going again ... Will you tell him or shall I??  0, answered,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11891; Sat, 3 Jul 93 09:45:21 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28970; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:44:42 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:44:42 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:44:58 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <359B07F4B24@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> > > ==== > Nick > ==== > > BTW, Curtis said (apropos of variant rules seeing publication): > > > ... if we could get a RQ Magazine going again ... > > Will you tell him or shall I?? > > I was responding to the idea that multiple supplements was the only way to get rules to a wider audience than just the net. Tales(which I assume you're refering to) isn't quite there yet. I want a magazine that is carried by lots of gaming stores so more than just the hardcore fans will see it. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11997; Sat, 3 Jul 93 09:59:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29052; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:59:30 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:59:06 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV Survey (Damage) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:59:47 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <359EFCE4F3A@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> 1-Yes 2-Yes -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA12261; Sat, 3 Jul 93 10:29:40 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29504; Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:29:28 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:29:02 EDT From: Anthony Ragan To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4 Rules lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 03 Jul 93 08:29 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35A6FCF0A26@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi all, Personally, I've never had a problem with a company producing endless supplements to their game -- I've never felt constrained to buy anything beyond the core rules of a system. Why people get so up in arms whenever "The Company that Must Not Be Named" issues yet another Complete "______'s" Handbook is beyond me. Now, if it's the *quality* of the supplement that gets them riled......;) That said, I still don't see a real need to have a follow-on RQ optional rules book. Do we really have that many rules that we could fill a standard-sized (whatever that is) book? And, would enough people buy such a book to make it commercially worthwhile to AH? I tend to doubt it. I have to agree with Curtis on this one: Gurps does a good job at presenting basic and advanced systems in one book. I think we could do the same thing with RQ and have a fine product. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13188; Sat, 3 Jul 93 11:49:27 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00549; Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:49:06 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:48:49 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: What does a n% skill really mean? Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:49:27 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35BC427619E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. again. Another approach (can be combined with what we have said already) Keep the success level definition as I have proposed it. Now define say "Failure 30" as a sufficient success level for an easy task. (Don't be put off by the word "Failure", just think of it as Success Level 0) Say Failure 30 is the minimum skill level to perform the Harvest Dance 'successfully' for someone who has been shown the steps. Now someone with a 30% Dance Skill will only fail if he fumbles. Someone with a 15% Dance skill will fail on a fumble (and fall down or whatever) and on a roll of 16-29 he will make obvious missteps, etc. I actually like the other method better in some ways, because it models the real-world choice people have of going for a practically guaranteed moderate success on something they know well, or trying to "go for broke" and have a substantial chance of failure but also the possibility of a special or crit. - p  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA13949; Sat, 3 Jul 93 12:29:33 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01099; Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:29:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:28:55 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ4 Rules lawyer's Guide Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 13:29:31 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <35C6F0B477E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I would say, produce a simple core system and prioritize the optional rules. Then let publishing constraints decide what goes in the basic rules and what goes in additional books. The core rules might include simple metarules for making rules. Thus for example if you can branch Easy specialty skills off of Hard general skills the procedure for doing this should go in the core rules, along with a couple of examples. Then you need only the root skills and some examples of branch skills appropriate to the example campaign area. For example, 1H Sword might be Hard with Easy branches like Scimitar, Broadsword, Rapier, etc. Scimitar and Broadsword would be good examples for Sartar but Rapier could be left out. Personally I would prefer a simplified combat system and more extensive social rules. (Like Pendragon.) Offering a simple system and optional extras would thus suit me. Of course it would be a tricky job to write such a cleverly designed modular system. - Paul R  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA22119; Sat, 3 Jul 93 21:06:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04482; Sat, 3 Jul 93 22:03:15 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sat, 3 Jul 93 22:06:07 EDT From: Amazing Larry To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 21:03:19 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <365002361C1@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Two comments on the proposed weapon/armor rules. 1) JAVELIN DAMAGE 1H javelin = 1D4 2H javelin = 1D6 thrown javelin = 1D8 One arm throwing is more powerful than two thrusting? I do not want to rationalize this (unless someone else can for me). 2) OVERLAPPING ARMOR >Overlapping armor has little effect normally - if the lighter of the >overlapping armors has at least 3 AP, add 1 AP to value of the heavier armor, Under these rules, I see that only linen, scale, and chain can be used this way. Why not then say: "If linen, scale, or chain is worn with heavier armor, add 1 AP to the value of the heavier armor." -Ed Wallman@vax2.winona.msus.edu (bezainted armor for sale, cheap!)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24437; Sun, 4 Jul 93 01:22:45 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06848; Sun, 4 Jul 93 02:22:25 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 2:22:06 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ" Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 14:21:17 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <369523005C3@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> there is one very big problem with separating the rules into several books or sets. That is how do we choose the criteria for separation? What definately goes into the advanced set? Combat special options, combat trivia, most of the new skills, maybe ritual magic. Not much of a book so far. What might? many profession templates. Most creature stats, most of the Ganesmaster book stuff (except price lists shouldn't). What about sorcery? I get the feeling that people feel that sorcery is a good candidate for only being in the advanced book. Why? most of us don't use it much, and some core parts of the rules are still in a state of flux. Does this mean that sorcery is an 'optional' or advanced rule? No, it is just as optional as spirit magic or divine magic in a rules sense, just a little easier to ignore for all those who play in Prax/Sartar. Are supplements going to be written to require the advanced rules, or just the basic ones. If supplements are going to be written to require only the basic ones, if this results in anything even a little bit like the Basic/ Deluxe split of RQ3, I will be mighty mad. I really hated this a lot. If adventures require both, then everyone will end up buying both, so why split them? There are actually fairly few optional rules, as a %age of the rulesbook. David Hall or anyone else partly responsible for Ruined-Quest in TOTRM want to comment on the issue? Personally, I like the idea of one big book, with optional rules marked as optional. I could possibly cope with the idea of a separate Sorcery supplement, but only if it came out promptly. This would allow some adventures to be marked 'requires RQ4' and some to be marked 'requires RQ4 and Sorcery'. I don't think the idea of a Rune-Quest Lite is a good idea as a separate product. I ha't like the idea of RQ Lite much. Furthermore, I have empiriical evidence - the Basic set (whatever it was called) for RQ3, which just annoyed everybody. How does the proposed separation differ, how will it avoid the problems it caused? The balls in your court :-) Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA24660; Sun, 4 Jul 93 01:56:57 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07052; Sun, 4 Jul 93 02:56:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 2:56:17 EDT From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery with studies Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 14:55:57 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <369E48165A6@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> The more I think about this, the more I think that it could be made very nice indeed. I like the way that systems like this tend to create sorcerers with a multitude of capabilities, many of which are seldom used. I like the idea that sorcerers may end up with spells like Detect Fear, or spells that allow them to swim in Fire, or animate light, as a side effect of developing other capabilities. However, I think that the idea of adding 'formulaic'spells to the system is going to add immense complexity, reduce backwards compatibility, and not add to much (essentially splitting sorcery into two quite different systems, but with much the same capabilities. I also think that I prefer the term 'domains' to the term 'studies'? Any feedback? I am probably going to write up a version integrating the basics of Burtons system with the RQ4 draft 1.0 soon. If people like it, we could then go on to integrate the Paul Reilly Presence system, and have a sorcery system that is mighty fine! (I think if RQ4 does not include these things, I may well use them anyway). I will do this in a few days, when I get back from the departmental conference on Wednesday. Cheers, Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA29283; Sun, 4 Jul 93 10:32:56 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14312; Sun, 4 Jul 93 11:32:37 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 11:32:15 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re:"The Rules Lawyer`s G Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3727E066AC8@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Lite davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes: D> I don't think the idea of a Rune-Quest Lite is a good idea as a separ >product. I ha't like the idea of RQ Lite much. Furthermore, I have empiriical > evidence - the Basic set (whatever it was called) for >RQ3, which just annoyed everybody. How does the proposed separation differ, >how will it avoid the problems it caused? The balls in your court :-) RQ lite would differ in that it would a)Be a playable game by itself b)Be a part of the complete rulebook, rather than a separate "crippleware" product. Carl  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA03441; Sun, 4 Jul 93 17:07:47 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18671; Sun, 4 Jul 93 18:06:44 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 18:06:59 EDT From: gadbois@cs.utexas.edu (David Gadbois) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Rules Lawyer's Guide Date: Sun, 4 Jul 93 17:06:44 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3790FF13201@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 7:44:58 PDT I was responding to the idea that multiple supplements was the only way to get rules to a wider audience than just the net. Tales(which I assume you're refering to) isn't quite there yet. I want a magazine that is carried by lots of gaming stores so more than just the hardcore fans will see it. I finally discovered the magic incantation necessary to get distributors excited about picking up Tales here in the States (60% discount with 10% ten-day payment bonus), so expect to see it in a game store near you in the coming months. --David  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05477; Sun, 4 Jul 93 20:50:00 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20301; Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:49:46 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:49:17 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 21:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <37CC756560F@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Thanks for the comments - Javelins - this is how RQ2 and RQIII rated javelin damage - the most reasonable rationalization I can come up with this is that from what experience I've had with jo and so fighting (Japanese staff and spear), you almost never dare fully commit yourself to a thrust (with all your weight and strength behind it) because if you miss you are helpless. Throwing a javelin at a nearby opponent is a different matter, as even if you miss, you have time to recover your balance from a full windup and followthru style throw. Javelins are also thrown overhand, while all 1H spear use I've seen is short underhand thrusts, which have little force behind them. But to tell you the truth, I just don't know enough about javelins to say if this is really accurate. I know a few medieval and ancient weapons buffs that I might be able to ask, though. Overlapping armor - it's also meant to cover wearing ringmail under greaves or cuirboilli greaves over ring or chain, but your suggestion is probably a good one - specifically mention which armors this covers. Thanks again, Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA05561; Sun, 4 Jul 93 21:03:09 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20410; Sun, 4 Jul 93 22:02:55 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Sun, 4 Jul 93 22:02:26 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON RQ4 SURVEY DAMAGE/ARMOR Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 22:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <37CFF9D669C@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> (Sorry about that last one - didn't finish the part in between). I'll post a summary of the first batch of responses to the list (no names, just votes) sometime Monday, since I thought others might be curious as to what people were thinking. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11741; Mon, 5 Jul 93 08:14:38 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29514; Mon, 5 Jul 93 09:14:16 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Mon, 5 Jul 93 9:13:54 EDT From: R.Hogg@bradford.ac.uk To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQIV Survey (Damage) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 93 14:10:14 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <38830E25E94@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi sorry this is a bit late but i have been away. Answers to questions on Damage i) No : I like the idea of simplification , but there are a lot of good rq2/3 modules with wapons , db bonus etc already fixed , also i feel it removes the edge some wepons have i.e 1H daggers. ii) Yes: Dispite some of the previous arguments , as players can get confused and generaly only use one table anyway. you may wish to offer the player an option of a high shot at no/minimal penalty 10+1d10, 2d8+4 for location. I do have a couple of questions regarding charactor generation and have written a set of notes but i will only post them if you have time to read them. Yours Boss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EMail Boss@bradford.ac.uk SMail Boss , Bradford University Computer Centre , Richmond Rd , Bradford West Yorkshire , England , BD7 1DP phone +44 274 383318 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA01644; Tue, 6 Jul 93 00:23:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11987; Tue, 6 Jul 93 01:23:19 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 1:23:08 EDT From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQIV Damage Survey Summary Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 1:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <398574D237D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> The recent RQIV damage survey went out to 92 individuals on the Internet or CompuServe that have expressed interest in RQIV, as well as the RQIV Playtest List. As of Sunday, I've received 29 responses. To summarize, they were: Question 1 - New damage proposal for damage bonus, weapons and armor. Yes 23 No 6 Question 2 - New hit location proposal, with one merged table. Yes 20 No 9 Roughly 1/3 of the people responding to either question (both those answering Yes and No) had additional comments, concerns or reservations. Some of those mentioned by more than one person: Even with a negative damage bonus one should still do at least one point of damage. Consider making the old melee and missile hit location tables options. Most of the people answering no to either question appeared to be primarily concerned with their effect on the compatibility of published scenarios. I actually found the results rather interesting, because I expected a far more negative response. I'll post an updated summary at the end of the week (by which time I expect perhaps 50 response, a sample of reasonable size). Thanks again to all those that have responded to date. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15850; Tue, 6 Jul 93 11:52:26 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01127; Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:51:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:51:29 EDT From: "Loren Miller" To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: 6 Jul 93 12:49:19 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A3D1CC3E20@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> IMHO, the feature of RQ in glorantha that really sets it apart from other roleplaying games is the cult system. Initiates of various cults have well defined personalities. Storm Bulls are different from Eurmali are different from Ulerians. Only recently did I realize that the primary difference between RQ2 and RQ3 that made RQ3 less satisfying was the de-emphasis on cults and cult personalities. I'd like to see an increased emphasis on cult personalities and the belief systems of various religions for RQ4. I think this should be core rules, as it is far more important to me than, for instance, the skills taught by various cults. If I know that Etyries merchants are greedy and mercenary then I'll know all I need to about the skills they teach. If I know that Orlanthi are restless and possess a complex code of honor then I know how to play them. The problem is that RQ3 lacked this kind of information in the core rules, and it wasn't even very clear in GOG. I'd like to see something in RQ that emphasizes this part of the game. It should be in the core rules. It doesn't matter to me whether it is mechanical or not. If it were mechanical, perhaps it would be something like the cult points that somebody else mentioned in the daily recently. If it were not mechanical, it might only need summary stories of whichever person was the primary role model in any cult or religion. That role model would define the actions of "good" people, and from that I know how to play characters from various societies in a gloranthan or non-gloranthan RQ game. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA16655; Tue, 6 Jul 93 12:12:31 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01774; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:11:52 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:11:30 EDT From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:12:06 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A426E96909@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree. This weekend we were discussing (at my house) what made the RQ II rules good (in an attempt to get some of that goodness into the sorcery rules). The consensus was that a key thing was the interaction of the rules with the society, particularly the cult system. It was Cults of Prax that really kicked off our intensive RQ phase. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA21547; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:30:18 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04902; Tue, 6 Jul 93 14:29:50 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 14:29:19 EDT From: Carl Fink To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES: belief syste Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3A573E02848@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> To: rq-playtest@mkt46.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: CORE RULES: belief systems [Loren's entire message deleted for space] Loren, that's an excellent point and I agree completely. I never thought of it that way, but now that you point it out it's as clear as day. Thanks.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA08107; Tue, 6 Jul 93 19:28:54 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16739; Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:28:24 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:27:59 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: CORE RULES -- question Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:24:38 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3AB6E00058E@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Has anything been done to figure STR into encumberance when determining how it affects skills? At present a STR 3 wimp and an STR 18 hulk each suffer a loss of 30 ENC when wearing full plate. This doesn't seem right to me, but then I never wore armor. I have been using a house rule where the first STR of encumberance is free, then consider it as stated in the draft rules. So in the above case, the wimp feels 27 ENC of skill loss, the hulk feels only 12 ENC of loss. This freebie ENC counts toward total ENC, not per-item. It does allow swashbuckler types to use a rapier and ligt armor with minimal effects on skill. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA11605; Tue, 6 Jul 93 22:05:13 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19440; Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:04:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:04:17 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: CORE RULES: belief systems Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:05:17 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3AE0A02704D@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree with Loren's summary of what's needed to avoid the bland feel of RQIII. I'm not to much in favor of mechanics to reflect things liek culture but I do think this information needs to be an integral part of the core rules. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15279; Wed, 7 Jul 93 01:09:59 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22272; Wed, 7 Jul 93 02:09:33 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 2:09:08 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Magic in general Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 23:09:57 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B11D8A3F81@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Does Glorantha really have just three magic systems? It seems to me that we may be going about the sorcery discussion the wrong way. Looking back through GoG it's pretty obvious alot of magic systems in their really didn't fit neatly into the three magic systems we have now. Is the magic granted by Godyuna really so closely related to the magic of the Mostali? Is the Path of Immanent Mastery really divine magic? Just what does sorcery mean anyway? The magic system of the Mostali, Westerners, the East Isles, and the Black Arkat trolls is pretty wide ranging. And then what about Lunar Magic? And the dragon magic the dragonnewts use. Maybe we do need a seperate _Magic of Glorantha_ book. Trying to shoehorn all these diverse magic systems into the label "sorcery" is starting to bother me. The way I see it there are three ways to do magic. One is get magic from the gods(divine magic), another is to use magic from the spirit world(spirit magic), and finally their is magic that taps into the ambient "magical" laws of the universe. Except I'm not so sure that's what sorcery is. And where does lunar and dragon magic fit into this? Anyway I'm rambling but if anyone has thoughts on the metaphysics of magic I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. -- Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet "At the GM's option, strategic nuclear weapons may be considered 'magical'"-From the CyberCthulhu rules in Interface  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA15880; Wed, 7 Jul 93 01:49:04 -0500 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22686; Wed, 7 Jul 93 02:48:49 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 2:48:14 EDT From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: God Learner Date: 07 Jul 93 02:46:33 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B1C4EB0846@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Curtis is a God Learner: burn him!!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25174; Wed, 7 Jul 93 09:52:15 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06717; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:51:59 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:51:24 EDT From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:48:22 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3B9D3485030@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren comments on Magic... -------------- The main problem with using this kind of description for meta-rules about the powers of magic is that we have no guidelines for what X mp or Y POW can do. We know roughly what X STR can produce, regardless of the skills used with the STR. We don't know what X POW can do when exercised or sacrificed. If in fact there is a project to write a comprehensive RQ Magic Book then I think the metarules to cover what can be done with how much POW should be the first thing worked out for it, and they should be included just like the guidelines for making cults were included in Cults of Prax. -------------- If such a "baseline system" for magic is developed, then each cult is effectively "bending" the rules in the areas of it's god's powers. Thus while the standard "1d6 damage per point of divine MP, 1d3 per point of spirit MP or Sorcery MP" rule might apply to everyone, Humacti get 2d6 per divine point and 1d6 per spirit point, just 'cus of the two death runes that represent them. (note: above meta rule based on the divine "Lightning" spell, and the fact that 1 Divine MP = 2 Spirit or Sorcery MP) -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by deepthought.cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.2/relay) with SMTP id AA25819; Wed, 7 Jul 93 10:08:11 -0500 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07538; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:07:54 -0400 Received: from WMKT/TEMPQ by marketest.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.0); Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:07:18 EDT From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton) To: "RuneQuest IV Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic in general Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 8:08:12 PDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.0. Message-Id: <3BA16D61936@marketest.wharton.upenn.edu> I think Loren's right and yocould create one set of meta rules for magic in general and then get more specific for the sub systems. I for one find this to be a very appealing idea. But I'm not sure how well this fits in with everyone's idea of Glorantha. > > If in fact there is a project to write a comprehensive RQ Magic Book > then I think the metarules to cover what can be done with how much POW > should be the first thing worked out for it, and they should be > included just like the guidelines for making cults were included in > Cults of Prax (one of the best features in any RQ2 publication). I'd